Clip from "the Secret"
Add to My Profile | More Videos
Apart from the creepy occult feel the film had, there are a lot of false, evil, and unbiblical things which are asserted here.
We are told that the secret will bring us happiness and wealth. They tell us "you can be anything you want. We can have whatever WE (not God) choose. You can heal yourself [of cancer]." We are asked, "Do you want to be a millionaire? What do YOU really want?" These are echoes of Satan's temptation of Eve and his attempt to tempt Christ. In Luke 4, we read about Satan trying to tempt Christ with the things of the world, saying, "Therefore, if You will worship me, all will be Yours" (Luke 4:7). Satan does not put restrictions on what he can offer you (which are only the things of this world, not true salvation). He tells you that anything you want you can have, and that you should indulge yourself and get drunk off of the so-called riches of the world. "The Secret" is ultimately about putting ourselves on God's throne and doing what we want.
"They are without excuse, because, although they knew God,
they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became
futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory
of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man...
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness... who exchanged
the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature
rather than the Creator...
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge,
God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which
are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,
wickedness, covetousness... they are... haters of God... proud,
boasters, inventors of evil things... undiscerning... who, knowing the
righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are
deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those
who practice them."
--Romans 1:20-25, 29-31
We are told of "the secret" that it is "one infinite power." Not so fast, Christians-- this one infinite power is not God, they assert, but the "law of attraction." This "law" is explained as whatever thought or emotion you put out will come back to you. While it is true that acting mean and rude will probably not make people want to be kind in return, there is no governing law that a simple thought will bring to you what you're thinking about. Anyone who didn't get that toy they wanted for Christmas knows this all too well. Thoughts have no intrinsic power to draw anything to us. It is also true that bad things don't come to us because we deserve it, necessarily. That can be true, but often isn't. A brief read through the first few chapters of Job will make this perfectly clear to the Christian mind. It is true that "thoughts [can] become things," but this is in relation to our focuses creating the like behaviour in us. It is our negative thoughts that become sins or our focus on pleasing God which results in positive actions that the concept of "thoughts becoming things" is manifested. Our dreaming of a new car will not bring it to us, unless we are being blessed by God or tempted by Satan. The producers of "the Secret" want us to believe that there is no negative thought and anything we want is good. We can dwell on our greed or our lust and that's okay (this is elaborated upon further in the book). This is just not the case.
Just because the "law of attraction" is not a real governing law of the universe, that doesn't mean there might not be some power behind it. When you make a decision to live for wealth or personal gratification, Satan will meet you halfway and help you to turn away from God and toward these things. Anyone who has ever tried to let go of a sin to move closer to God can tell you that the sin they tried to give up seemed to move closer to them and become much more accessible than when they were interested in it. Those who have used this principle to achieve wealth and success are risking their relationship with God by being at friendship with the things of the world and putting their faith in something other than God.
We are told that the "law of attraction" is "obedient" to us and gives us whatever we want, which is always right so long as it pleases us. In stark contrast, we have the Christian model of us being obedient to God and trying to make Him happy by doing His will, which is always right.
Where does the "law of attraction" originate? The Science of Getting Rich by Wallace D. Wattles, which was the original inspiration for the producer of this video, asserts that, "This theory is of Hindu origin, and has been gradually winning its way into the thought of the western world for three hundred years. It is the foundation of all the Oriental philosophies, and those of Descartes, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Schopenhauer, Hegel and Emerson." This "law" has no origin in Christian thought, but in Hindu thought. It is now being pushed by the New Age movement, which seeks to tear down the old walls of Biblical thought and dethrone God. In this video, Proctor asserts that this "law" has been known about in small groups for years. He cites, for instance, the ancient Babylonians-- a culture which is condemned repeatedly in both the New and Old Testaments, and which is used as a symbol for false religion in Revelation 17. What God would the preachers of the Secret tell you to put your faith in? If you listen carefully to the language used by these and other new age "experts," you will consistently hear that the "universe" is God and we must be thankful for the universe, a creation of God, as opposed to God who created it. However, the universe has no intrinsic morality and thus nothing can be considered truly good or evil.
The big picture is that wealth is great, and money can be very helpful, but money cannot buy you salvation, and riches can never buy back your soul. Positive thinking can be good because 90% of the effect something has on us is how we respond to it. Even so, there is no law of attraction and there is no comfort in trusting in the things of the world to make us happy. We must depend on our relationship with God and our understanding of His Word to bring us true happiness.
"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man
love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the
world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life,
is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away,
and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."
--1 John 2:15-17
Music:
LeCrae, Christafari, KRS-ONE, Country Joe & the Fish, Phil Ochs, Sly & the Family Stone, Arlo Guthrie, Marvin Gaye, Fela Anikulapo Kuti, Femi Kuti, etc.
"And again He answered them, 'Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar s, and to God the things that are God's.' Whence to God alone we render worship, but in other things we gladly serve you, acknowledging you as kings and rulers of men, and praying that with your kingly power you be found to possess also sound judgment. But if you pay no regard to our prayers and frank explanations, we shall suffer no loss, since we believe (or rather, indeed, are persuaded) that every man will suffer punishment in eternal fire according to the merit of his deed, and will render account according to the power he has received from God, as Christ intimated when He said, 'To whom God has given more, of him shall more be required.'" -- Justin Martyr (check out our essay on "hell" for an explanation on what he means by "eternal")
Movies:
Our own! Youtube.com/babylonisfallen
Television:
This is only a short clip from the film, "The God Who Wasn't There." In a very tiny nut shell, here's what the film didn't tell you...
The Gospel of John is not clearly derived, as the film asserts, from Mark. However, Luke and Matthew (which are called the Synoptic Gospels) are believed to have used Mark's Gospel as a reference. The problem is that Luke's Gospel was written by 60 A.D., not after 70 A.D. as the narrator asserts (see below). If it was based off Mark, then Mark's gospel would have to be older than Luke's, thus pushing the date back even further.
The narrator tells us that Mark must have been written after 70 A.D., because it "mentions" the destruction of the Jewish temple, which occurred in 70 A.D. This is dishonest. Mark did not talk about the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D., but recounts Jesus predicting it (and/or speaking of Armageddon, depending on your interpretation)! The narrator's entire basis of arguing the Gospels were written after 70 A.D. is his interpretation Jesus couldn't possibly be inspired to know this ahead of time (which I don't believe).
The narrator also says that we have only Paul's letters to connect us from Jesus' life to when he believes the Gospels were allegedly written. This isn't true. Apart from Paul's letters, we also have the book of Acts to tell us about the early church, which leads up to about 60 A.D. The narrator is either unfamiliar with the New Testament (which I don't have trouble believing) or is bold-faced lying when he says there is no history of the Jesus movement between Jesus' crucifixion and the composition of the Gospels, outside of Paul's letters. It is given much treatment in the book of Acts. Despite what the narrator says, you do hear many Christian leaders speak about the early church. The book of Acts is to Christians the ultimate church and what the modern day church should strive to be.
That narrator says that Paul never wrote about Jesus' background. The reason for Paul's lack of emphasis on Christ's life is that Paul was writing to churches that were already established in the Gospel. His purpose of writing was to develop their theology, not their historical information. Paul was indeed familiar with Jesus' story. He speaks regularly about Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. He also was close friends with Luke, who wrote the Gospel of Luke, so he would have been at least a little familiar with Christ's background. He quotes or paraphrases from the Gospels a number of times.
For instance, in 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul directly quotes Luke 10:7 when he says, "For THE SCRIPTURE SAYS... 'The laborer is worthy of his wages.'" (emphasis mine) Paul directly calls Luke's Gospel Scripture, proving that this Gospel was written before Paul's letter (at least by 60 A.D. because the book of Acts, a continuation of Luke, ends at 60 A.D. even though there is much more to tell), and showing that this narrator is wrong.
Another example is in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 where Paul writes about the last supper and how Christians should partake in the Lord's Supper. In Acts 13:24, Paul also references John the Baptist coming before the Christ. Yet this film insinuates from it's graphics that Paul never wrote or knew about these events. Busted.
Paul summarizes the entirety of the message of the Gospels, which is believe upon Christ and his sacrifice for your transgressions and you will be saved. The rest is just background information, and has no purpose in our salvation. Paul's letters and the Gospels are in accord and never contradict each other, but provide the same overall message.
The filmmakers also seem to misquote (and/or misuse) Hebrews 8:4. They assert that it states, "If Jesus had been on earth, he would not even have been a priest." A more literal translation would be, "For if indeed He were on earth, He would not even be a priest." The writer of Hebrews goes on to speak of the fact that priests offer sacrifices, based on the Old Covenant which pointed to Christ, the ultimate High Priest Who offered Himself to atone for our transgressions. By examining the Greek (or doing a little research in Strong's Concordance), one can see that "For if He were" is stated as, "gar en." "Gar" meaning "and, as, but, even, for, indeed," etc. "En" signifying "was" or "were." So we see that the idea is not, "If He had been," but "if He were now." Admittedly, there could be a small chance that this could be used to signify what the film-makers are trying to say, but it isn't likely, just considering the grammar. Thus, we must read in context to see what this verse means. Reading in the context of the book of Hebrews will clearly show us that the writer of Hebrews believes Christ was on earth.
"Paul doesn't believe Jesus was ever a human being" is a huge leap for the narrator to make. Paul believes Jesus was on earth and speaks of Christ's death on the cross and His resurrection. If I told you about someone who had died, it would hardly be rational for you to assume that I never thought they had been alive. In fact, you'd either be crazy or a liar to speak of my words as expressing this perspective.
People like to say, as the narrator of this film does, that the Gospels are not trying to be historical, but allegorical. This is a common perspective for atheists and liberal Christians who don't believe in the authority of the Bible. More recently, it has been expressed that Jesus' resurrection wasn't physical, but merely spiritual, thus it was symbolic. If this is the case, why did Christ specifically say after His resurrection in Luke 24:38, "Behold my hands and feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." Why also does Paul respond to those calling themselves Christians who were saying that there will be no resurrection of the dead by replying, "Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty" (1 Corinthians 15:12-14). There is no evidence that any historical presentation in the Gospels is allegorical, only the clear allegories.
The issue is brought up about writings not included in the Bible. The reason apocryphal writings are not in the Bible canon is because God did not inspire them. The Old Testament was already formed by the Hebrews long before the Catholic Church came on the scene. The same is true with the New Testament, in that all early church figures had agreed upon the inspiration of certain books long before the Catholic Church had affirmed them. All books in the Bible have a unity of thought and message that is missing from the excluded books, which are forgeries by heretics, although some of them may have been well-meaning. That being said, The Muratorian Canon (late 100s) and early church fathers such as Origen (185-254), Iraneus (125), Justin Martyr, and his student Tatian (in 175 A.D.) agree that these four Gospels were the only inspired historical accounts of Christ's life and the Muratorian canon testifies that these gospels were the ones used in the churches of that time. This is long before the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. which many (including Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown) have asserted was the time when the gnostic gospels were suppressed in favor of these four so that they could change the identity of Christ.
It is also affirmed by Alan Dundes of UC Berkeley in this video that Jesuits (whom he asserts have a good handle on things at this point at least) wish to get rid of the miracles, virgin birth, etc. in the Bible. This shouldn't be surprising because the Jesuits are a group that came out of Catholicism that was created to oppose the Protestant Reformation and their position of "by Scripture alone," which takes away the Church's ability to "define" what the Bible says. The Jesuits are not a group of people whose opinion on Scripture should be taken too seriously.
Robert M. Price is interviewed and questions the "historical probability" of some of the events surrounding Jesus' life here on earth. Of course, the makers of this documentary have proven to be Biblically and historically uneducated on this topic thus far (which is fine by us if someone doesn't know something-- they just shouldn't be putting peoples' faith on the line if they don't know what they're talking about), so they take Price's comment about "Peter" speaking of Herod being involved in Christ's crucifixion as referring to Herod the Great who was in authority at Christ's birth. In reality, there were a number of Herod's, including one in power at the time of Christ's crucifixion, Herod Antipas, whom Luke writes about Christ actually meeting before his crucifixion. More than that, there is no "Gospel of Peter" in the Bible, as Price seems to be careful not to say. There is an apocryphal writing bearing that name that indicts Herod as ordering Christ's crucifixion, but this is still Herod Antipas, not Herod the Great, who died shortly after Jesus' birth. Peter does in fact implicate Herod to some degree in Acts 4:27, which is an actual canonical Biblical writing. Incidentally, the group which Price represents, the Jesus Seminar, is a group of skeptics who assert that much in the Gospels which is attested to Christ are not His real words. To figure out what in the Bible Christ "actually" said, they vote on it. I hope you're scratching your head because I sure was.
Despite Price's assertion, there is some historical documentation of Christ outside of the Gospels. The best example is Josephus, who wrote about Jesus' early brother James and mentions that Jesus was "called Christ." More than that, the apostles all bore witness of Him after the fact.
Dundes makes a few points about how Christ's life seems to parallel some popular hero stories. The film-makers do, incidentally assert one point on Christ which isn't factual (His Father didn't try to kill Him shortly after birth), but this still doesn't prove that the story of Christ wasn't factual. In fact, much of his life was in many places prophesied by many Old Testament prophets.
We tried not to go too deep into the inaccuracies made in just a ten minute clip of this film, but we have shown that the film-makers seemed to have little knowledge of the Bible they were critiquing, or if they did, they were terrible liars. Our purpose is not to put them down, but simply to show that while you can choose to believe in God or not, the Bible is pretty rock solid, and the existence of God cannot be disproved. We are all entitled to our opinion—choice is the essence of Christianity— but these attempts to disprove God show that the Apostle Paul was correct in asserting, "professing to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:22). Please don't believe what you see or read without thinking it through and researching it yourselves. And if the film-makers somehow end up on this webpage, please remember that it isn't ever our purpose to attack individuals, but bad ideas. You seem like an intelligent and humorous enough bunch, you just had bad ideas.
IrateCinemaUnderground.com
