Advent Conspiracy

I’ve just seen this. Christian,of course, but as they say it has “something for everyone”. 🙂 A bit of compassion in action.



  1. Murray · December 17, 2009

    Aside from the epilepsy inducing graphics it’s actually quite good 🙂

  2. Peregrin · December 17, 2009

    And what’s wrong with a bit of Christmas epilepsy? 🙂

  3. Murray · December 17, 2009

    If that’s what jingles your bells… 🙂

  4. Asher · January 6, 2010

    I don’t think Christmas is about social activism or presents. It’s about the birth of Jesus the Christ. All good actions and intentions aside, this has nothing to do with either positions the film illustrates. “And they divided his robe by lots”.

  5. Peregrin · January 6, 2010

    Hi Asher,

    yes. Though I would have to say the birth of Christ as a mystery occurs forever and within us, or at least effects us and therefore propels us to be more like him. Compassion via social activism is one way some Christians do this. Thanks.

  6. Asher · January 13, 2010

    Hi Peregrin,
    I would like to say that no true Christian, as I see it, is involved in ‘social activism’. This is because such a thing is not sanctified by a true Christian ethic, and is usually based upon atheistic, liberal, humanistic (either or all) assumptions, and is not the way Christ actually worked. In no case did he undertake ‘social activism’, such a thing evoking socialist or communist ideals at the least. His few actions that seem to be like that (eg the cleansing of the temple) where religious and spiritual actions. There is no precedent for such a thing, in fact, a few cases in which it could be argued that such a ‘way’ was pertinently rejected by Christ (such as the call to go the Gentiles). Christian compassion is more likely to be effected through quiet acts like prayer, listening, love, and strong virtues. As for Christ as a mystery occuring forever, I find no basis for that in the Bible, without the corresponding condition of actual confrontation with Christ and all he means. Christianity is not a Pagan Mystery Cult, despite its integration and use of many of those streams. How can we be ‘more like him’ if we choose to define what he is as a subjective ‘feeling’ or something or other without corresponding factual basis, for this is the essence of Pauline and Biblical thought. Everything revolves around a living and actual Christ. The “Christ in you” idea is not the same thing to Christians and Pagans. Pagan ideals, at their best, never involved an incarnate Christ. This is a huge difference.

  7. Peregrin · January 13, 2010

    Hi again Asher,

    thanks again for these strong and certain comments. I have no such certainity myself. You must be aware that you have relegated thousands if not millions of Christians, including the Perth based The Christian Centre for Social Action, to the status of ‘not-true’ Christians. I find that hard to swallow. Thanks 🙂

  8. Asher Fryer · January 14, 2010

    Of course I am aware of this. Just read what Christ himself said of such things. He was not some watered down politically correct one-size-fits-all politician. Even his closest disciples had problems with him, causing him to admonish them that “many are called (note: not all), few are chosen”. As for finding the implications of correct doctrine, based entirely on Biblical ideas, ‘hard to swallow’, we would do better to accept that rather than socialist ideals, if you want to be true to Christ. Here is a question: if you have no such certainty regarding Christ, what gives you the right and insight to reject what he himself says, and what I’ve simply repeated. If you don’t know Christ, don’t accept the actual source-or one main source-how can you think to reject or accept anything ‘Christian’. I don’t think it is reasonable to think that something that gives itself the ‘name’ Christian are Christian. “Many will say ‘Lord, Lord’, but I will say: ‘I never knew you'”

  9. Peregrin · January 15, 2010

    Hi Asher,

    Thanks for the reply.

    My difficulty in swallowing is simply that there are many, many versions of “correct doctrine, based entirely on Biblical ideas” out there. Yours here is just one, not the only one. Witness the dazzling proliferation of ‘protestant’ sects in the last 400 years. Some Christian traditions, based as they see them on the Bible, are almost unrecognisable compared to others, also as they see them, based on the Bible. All parties can and do quote scripture to justify their position, historically (and today in less damaging ways) up to the point of persecution.

    So what I am rejecting here is the certainty that your view is correct and other views, not true. Naturally you have no such problem.

  10. Asher · January 17, 2010

    O Peregrin, thou art so eloqent.

    It seems to me Peregrin that you are suffering from Liberal blindness. You are perfectly right in your insight into the problems of sects popping up everywhere, but common sense and a little research can easily decide in favour of Tradition, for it is that which they all rely upon, no matter what they want to emphasise. A sect is just that-a small, temporary offshoot, usually heretical. But back to ‘blindness’. How is it that you can justify strong elements of tradition in something that is hardly traditional, the Golden Dawn, and yet palm off my comments without the slightest justification except an a priori assumption that confusion and multiplicity equals an unsolvable dilemma?

    I notice in your writings that you are happy to involve yourself in virtually anything, even when it is clearly anti Christian and Tradition, but when it comes to Christianity, suddenly anyone can have a pop. In fact, after due consideration I don’t think you have the right to say I have ‘merely’ an opinion, while your ‘authority’ (implied) is enough to dictate this position, given that you have not actually lived within a Christian, even sectarian christian, community, and certainly reject it’s main tenets in favour of a vascilating pseudo gnostic syncreticism (all hail ‘the christ within’ whatever that means ‘for you’…oh, how objective!).

    If you really knew Christ or wanted to, you wouldn’t stop at some half hearted arms-length approach to this subject, deferring instead to any other religion, to ‘discussion’, to endless questing without finding an end, and most of all, you would see the blinding contradiction in your own position: having rejected without proper searching ( I base this upon what you have written, and find nothing in there that could be called a rigorous example of biblical learning) you feel qualified to make such a generalised statement….but then do the opposite with non-Christian religions and the spurious human creations like wicca and other new age fluff.

    You feel no doubt about rejecting my comments for no other reason that they ‘may’ be wrong, but have no such qualms about your own, nor the value of ‘views’ and ‘opinions’ when it comes to anything from rabid misanthropic feminism to “the western mystery tradition” (since 1911, or whatever). Doesn’t this strike you as odd? It is actually quite typical. Christianity tends to polarise people into hypocrites, because it is THE truth, and what they condemn in it they allow in others, and what they deny as legitimate to it they happily involve themselves in.

    To clarify. How do you know that ‘my view’ is just one amongst many? And upon what basis does one explanation of a universal truth suddenly make it into ‘an individual opinion, merely subjective’? Why is objective doctrine in Christianity ‘merely one view’ and thus relative, while in your ‘tradition’ opinion, points of view, are to be honoured? Why are all views ok, as long as they are all relative, spineless and without substance? Since when did religious mistakes and persecution (read ‘self defence’) actually always be ‘wrong’? Since when did that mean that they are fundamentally unavailable as Revelation? No wonder you, and the many out there, prefer Gnostic meandering, anything that avoids Authority, Tradition, History, Actual Events, firmly planting your banner, excluding certain things, and sticking to one thing.

    And finally, if you are so sure my view is not correct merely because it is just “another view”, where does that leave your many views about religion? Without objective basis? Mere opinion, one view among many views? Why write a blog then, join a party, group, pray or whatever, if there are NO objective criteria? Why the sudden aversion to looking at Christianity because of the many sects? As if Buddhism, New Agism, Magic, or Humanism isn’t in excactly the same predicament? Pluralism cannot survive without a unified factor, nor can ‘multiculture’ (hybridism) nor democracy. Eventually, they lead to dictatorship due to the loss of equlibrium in their disolving tendency. History proves as much. Which is why Lefties, despite their best efforts, are actually partially the cause of that which they seek to dethrone.

    You are NOT rejecting the certainty that my view is correct, you are rejecting the POSSIBILITY a priori that they COULD be correct. The first would be based upon an actual knowledge of and proper examination of my views. The second, prejudice, ignorance and assumption, something I know you dislike. But not when it comes to Christianity. Naturally, you have no such problem. The first is a result of truth seeking. The second, mental laziness at best, and liberal blindness, contradiction and the dictatorship of relativity at worst. Good luck.

  11. Peregrin · January 17, 2010

    Hi Asher,

    Thanks for the reply, though I am not sure this discussion is getting us anywhere. So just a few points which I think address most of your comments, though I doubt will leave you satisfied. 🙂

    Maybe I am suffering from liberal blindness – small ‘l’ please :). I’d rather suffer from liberal blindness than any form of certainty that can result in me dismissing the spiritual and religious paths of millions. Such certainty in the past and occasionally in the present led to persecution and murder, as I am sure you know.

    Your advice of “common sense and a little research can easily decide in favour of Tradition” is exactly what many of the sects advise. Yet they come to very DIFFERENT conclusions, not just a matter of emphasis. As an obvious example, the doctrine of some sects would see both of us going to Hell, some only me, a few neither of us. The Tradition you mention is not discernable as a coherent body of Christian doctrine and practice by each and every investigator. Different people come to different conclusions. This to me reflects the manifold nature of spiritual Truth, and the impossibility of expressing it through a single doctrine in this mundane-temporal world.

    I emphasise tradition in the Golden Dawn because it is, from my point of view the way it was meant to be practiced. As you say it is very new, so easier to see what is traditional than Christianity, say. Also, my emphasis does not detract from the spiritual wisdom and nature of those who I view as not practicing traditionally. I do not label some as “true” and others as “false”. My only criteria, as within all the great traditions, is that authentic spirituality will increase our compassion.

    Yes, I am not a Christian (or at least exclusively Christian, which for many Christians means I am not one). Nor have I undertaken extensive Biblical studies, though more than many Christians I know. Therefore in order to have any opinion about Christianity, accepting my own practice is decidedly heterodox, I look around at the various forms of Christianity. Not finding a commonality there except the personage of Jesus Christ, I cannot judge what is “true” Christianity or not. This is all I am saying. You seem fine in making such judgements. What I am saying about this judging is that others, who know themselves to be as right as you do, make different judgements.

    Now of course, Christianity is not THE truth as you boldly declare, but only one truth. Firstly, you should be clearer and not say ‘Christianity’ at all but only one of many Christianities is THE truth, as you clearly state not all which says it is Christian is truly Christian. Once we have pinned down which of the many versions of Christianity you are actually referring to, we need to question further. Obviously a great many if not majority of people on the planet and historically have not been taught this particular version of Christianity. Thus they have not been exposed to THE truth. How does this happen? How can THE eternal truth of God only be available to only a limited few?

    I reject your views because they narrow the definition of those “truly” in communion with the divine based on your own understanding of Christian revelation. This narrowing of who shall enter the Kingdom is a characteristic of the worst types of religion. It reminds me of the joke about the Quaker couple, where the husband says, “all the world is mad save for me and thee; and sometimes I wonder about thee”.

    You ask, “How do you know that ‘my view’ is just one amongst many?”
    Well it is, just read a bit about what Christians say Christianity is. Many people are convinced they are right and just presenting the truth from the bible, and again they present DIFFERENT things. Why should I judge yours to be THE truth and not theirs? And actually, your arguments really do not say anything other than there is a truth, that you know it and many other people, who think they are Christians but who are not really, don’t. Nor do esotericists, people from other faiths, socialists etc know know THE truth.
    A presentation of a universal truth should ring as a universal truth and, as all the great traditions insist, promote compassion. Your arguments, as I have said only narrow the field of grace.

    Yes, I have no objective basis. I write from experience and thoughts to try and move towards gnosis, knowing all the while I, like all but Masters, cannot know. This uncertainty is essential in my prayer, my joining and forming groups and in my writing. All are ways of me trying to be clearer and move towards the One. My certainty of the presence of the divine, the reality of the One, the transcendent nature of the eternal verities the universe moves by, are personal. Any revelation in the mundane world, the Bible included, is not these verities but only a way of moving to them. Any interpretation of any revelation is limited and I do not accept it is as THE truth. Besides religion and spirituality is about practicing to extend our circle of love not human doctrine to narrow it.

    Finally, I have no “sudden aversion to looking at Christianity because of the many sects?” I have a long standing aversion to certainty and ideologies that limit the scope of the divine. I am actually more immersed in Christian practice and study than any other time in my life.

    Thanks for the wish of good luck. I need it. 🙂

  12. Elizabeth · December 5, 2010

    Hi Asher,
    Although I am very late in this conversation I am happy to find this dialogue. I had been going to a church that i believed was sound but is presenting the Advent Conspiracy this year. It totally turned me off- thought about social justice and I am not going back to the church. The pastor is upset and wants to meet with me and my husband regarding it. I was so glad to see one in a million that believes that this is not biblical! Would love to dialogue with you more!
    Elizabeth Duval

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s