Tag Archives: Biblical Truth

The Truth About Vampires – Part 2

Leave a reply

Previously we looked at four issues regarding vampires: “Violence and Gore,” “Evil Imaginations,” “Occult Deception,” and “Satanic Seduction.” These four issues should cause enough concern for any Christian to question the wisdom of watching movies about vampires or reading vampire books. But just in case someone needs more reasons, here are four more problems with vampires:

The Sexual Motif

At the end of the movie Eclipse you see Edward and Bella together in a field full of flowers. They are discussing their wedding and Bella’s future. A sweet, romantic scene. But the same scene in the book is very different, depicting Edward growling to Bella, “I love you. I want you. Right now.” This is interesting, considering the fact that one of the supposedly positive elements of the Twilight series is that Bella and Edward do not have sex until they are married. Which is true. But not because of any desire for chastity on their part. Throughout most of the first three books Bella continually tries to seduce Edward. Edward refuses, not to be virtuous, but because he is afraid that as a vampire he will lose himself in passion and hurt her. Then, at the end of Eclipse it is Edward who tries to induce Bella to have sex, but she is the one who refuses.

Of course, they do have sex once married. And there is a honeymoon scene in Breaking Dawn. While not overtly erotic, it is a little more than just suggestive. I have not yet seen the film, but reviewers say that during the movie’s honeymoon sequences there are scenes of partial nudity, and the newlywed couple is shown engaged in sex while covered with sheets. Edward is even shown lying on top of Bella engaged in intercourse, and breaking the bed’s headboard in two in his passion. (These are images not conducive to purity of mind and heart.) I will also mention that in the fourth book we discover the superior sensual experience of vampire sex, with vampire couples dominated by sensual cravings that last for months, even years. This is pretty tempting stuff for anyone, but especially adolescents.

I mention these specific items to illustrate a point. If there is one consistent unifying theme to Twilight, in addition to the vampire motif itself, it is probably sex. There is a constant undercurrent of subtle sexuality running throughout the series. No wonder the Twilight saga is so attractive to young people.

What is a proper response to this? The Bible is clear about sexual matters: “Flee youthful lusts” (2 Timothy 2:22). “For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh” (Galatians 5:13). “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God” (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5). “But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires” (Romans 13:14). “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28).

Truly the mind is battleground for our souls. That is why we must guard it carefully. Does reading or watching Twilight aid in keeping our minds pure?

The Idolatry of Things

In his book on intercessory prayer called The Last of the Giants George Otis identifies two preeminent sources of idolatrous worship in America: Humanism and materialism. We live for ourselves, and we live for things. We are a money-mad, covetous, consumer-focused culture.

Unfortunately, living this shallow type of lifestyle is another of the many things wrong with the vampires in Twilight. The Cullens are materialistic to the extreme. They drive expensive sports cars. They live in a mansion. They own large tracts of property, including an island. They seem to have an inexhaustible source of revenue. It is noted they wear expensive shoes. They sport new clothes, often on a daily basis. Indeed, it is Edward who says of one member of the Cullen coven, “Alice rarely allows us to wear the same thing twice” (Breaking Dawn, p. 273). Edward loans Jacob his Astin Martin to drive. The Cullens give Bella a house for her birthday. Alice arranges for Bella to have a new wardrobe, with row after of row of clothes that fill an entire room. These examples illustrate that these “good” vampires lead a luxurious, self-indulgent lifestyle.

And they give nothing back. But allow me to qualify this. Carlisle is a doctor, and he is dedicated to saving lives. But other than this one example, we see no evidence of this vampire “family” doing anything but heaping things on themselves. There is no humanitarian effort, no charitable work on their part. They do not do anything to help relieve the suffering of the world around them. They only live for themselves. Presented with such a picture of decadent, selfish consumerism, no wonder so many young people are attracted to the Cullens. They are living the worse stereotype of the American dream.

But this is not God’s dream for human existence. Life, and purpose in life, does not consist in the amount of things we own. God has higher expectations, and higher pleasures for His children. Remember, Jesus said, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (Luke 12:15).

“Don’t love the world’s ways. Don’t love the world’s goods. Love of the world squeezes out love for the Father. Practically everything that goes on in the world—wanting your own way, wanting everything for yourself, wanting to appear important—has nothing to do with the Father. It just isolates you from him. The world and all its wanting, wanting, wanting is on the way out—but whoever does what God wants is set for eternity.” (1 John 2:15-17, The Message)

Good Guy Vampires?

Over the past couple of decades there has been an interesting new image created for vampires. Some now are presented as “good guy” vampires. These are the nice ones. The ones who are more like victims than anything else. The kind of vampire you would want to bring home to Mom. And the Cullens are often held up as outstanding examples of good guy vampires.

But is this the case? Consider the hero of the Twilight saga, Edward Cullen. He admits that before becoming a vegetarian vampire he had already killed five people. He is quoted as saying to Bella, “You know that I’ve stolen, I’ve lied, I’ve coveted…” (Eclipse, p. 454). He steals a car in the first book. He encourages Bella to disobey her Dad. He violates her father’s instruction to stay away from Bella. He uses profanity. He tries to seduce Bella. He tries to get Bella to have an abortion. He also suggests that she commit adultery with Jacob. No wonder he declares, “Right and wrong have ceased to mean much to me” (New Moon, p. 514). Is this a good guy? I hardly think so. And the rest of the Cullen coven are no better.

Some would suggest that there are positive elements in the Twilight series, redeeming factors. I will not deny that this is so. But I think you can probably find positive elements in almost any situation, or any person. Hitler was well-liked by children and dogs. The Nazis brought Germany out of a severe economic depression, and made the trains run on time to boot! The Hitler Youth encouraged a back to nature philosophy and physical training. All these positive elements are to be seen in Nazism. But it does not make Nazism good.

Our standard for what is good, moral and right must be the Word of God. And when you hold the Cullens up to the moral standards of Jesus, and the ethical principles of the Bible, they don’t measure up very well. These are not good guys, nor are they worthy of admiration and esteem. They certainly should not be idolized and treated as heroes.

The Bottom Line

There is one fundamental reason that I am so concerned about people’s fascination with Twilight. It is a matter of the paradigm or spiritual perspective on reality that is being offered to us. The bottom line issue is the point of focus, the vantage point from which the story is being presented. All of the specific issues that I have mentioned in this series of writings is contingent on this one matter: Worldview. What is the worldview, the moral and spiritual frame of reference, that is being presented in Twilight?

First of all understand that Stephenie Meyer comes from a Mormon background. Thus her own personal worldview is rooted in the heretical and cultic teachings of the Latter-day Saints. There are numerous passages in the Twilight books that demonstrate her Mormon viewpoint.

Further, it is obvious that there were spiritual forces at work in the writing process of Twilight. On her website Stephenie Meyer tells of having a dream in which she saw a vampire and a young woman in a field. (This dream later became chapter 13 in the original Twilight novel.) When she awoke, she was haunted by this dream. She began to research vampires and write out a story. She talks about how she became obsessed with vampires. She dropped out of her church activities. She neglected her family. Vampires became almost her entire focus. Within six short months she had written the book (her first) and it had been accepted by a major publisher. An amazing publication feat. As she says, “To be honest, I feel like I was guided through that process.” Guided? By whom?

Her research on vampires and the occult informed her story. One example is worth mentioning. Meyer talks about discovering the subject of the incubus. “In the novel [Twilight], I only mentioned a few of the many legends I read through. One that I didn’t mention at this point was the entry on the Incubus. The unique feature about that legend was that the incubus could father children. Hmmm, I said, and I filed that kernel of an idea away for later.” What is an incubus? In occult lore it is a demon who sexually assaults women. This idea became the conceptual basis for how an undead creature like Edward could father a child.

Mormonism. Dreams. Occult Lore. Supernatural guidance. These are the roots of the Twilight story, and the Twilight phenomenon. Is it any wonder that worldview presented to us in Twilight is so antithetical to the Christian faith?

Remember: “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7) and “Do not be conformed to the pattern of the world’s thinking, but instead be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:2).

Conclusion:

Should any Christian seek to be entertained by vampire stories? Is there any danger here? Yes! Think about it. The genre is full of death, murder, violence and gore. We are enticed to fantasize about ungodly and wicked beings, and behavior. There is a subtle demonic, deceptive and seductive influence present here. Vampires are often portrayed as sexually active creatures, with powerful a powerful sensual attraction. The immorality of vampires is evident. They kill, steal, commit fornication and adultery, entice to sinful rebellion and anti-social behavior, and a host of other sins. And finally, the world of the vampire is totally antithetical to the Christian worldview. They are of another world, the realm of darkness, evil and demonic forces. There are, indeed, multiple reason Christians should avoid vampires completely.

Welcome to Their World…

Leave a reply

One of the most hotly contested controversies in educational, political and scientific circles has been Intelligent Design, or I.D. It has popped up in presidential press conferences. It has become an issue in local elections. And it is the subject of discussion on television, radio, scientific journals, and popular magazines. Indeed, just a few years back I watched a debate on C-Span dealing with I.D. and whether it should be taught in public schools. It has appeared everywhere. So, let’s join the fray, and discuss the issue of I.D. Continue reading →

Forgive Me, O Great Gaia!

Leave a reply

Okay, so here is my beef. If you are going to believe in evolution, then be consistent about it. Don’t say you believe in the evolution of species—which generally presupposes God as either nonexistent or irrelevant, and blind chance as the motivating force of reality—and then use theistic and creationist terminology.

What am I talking about? Well, some time back I saw one of those nature programs on PBS. Now I like PBS. I find many of its programs interesting and informative. But I have to take their worldview with a grain of salt. (Should I say “lump”? How about enough salt to make soup in Lake Superior?) Their programs that deal with nature and science always have an evolutionary bias. I have come to expect it, and can usually choose to ignore it. (“Liar!” I get somewhat upset every time.)

But this one program sticks in my mind, and I can’t just forget it. I am watching this program on birds and wetlands. Most of you know how much I like birds, so I am really enjoying this program.

Well, suddenly this nice nature walk turns into a lecture on conservation. No problem—except that in the middle of this treatise on evolution and the competition of species, with a good dose of environmental concern thrown in, we start hearing about “man’s role,” “mankind’s responsibility,” and our “stewardship of the earth.”

Hello! Does anybody out there understand the concept of stewardship and responsibility? Stewardship means you are holding something in trust for someone else. Responsibility means we will answer to someone else for our actions. If we are stewards of the earth, to whom are we responsible? Doesn’t saying we are stewards of the earth assume that there is someone (some One?) to whom we will answer for how we treat this earth?

By the way, while we are talking about this stuff—there was another thought that occurred to me while watching this program. As is typical with such PBS fare, humanity got the rap as being the bad egg in the universe’s Easter basket. I guess you could say, we are the thorn in Gaia’s side.

But let us assume for a minute that the philosophical bias of this PBS program is true—that we all arrived here on the evolutionary highway. Isn’t evolution essentially amoral and ethically neutral? If evolution is true, there is no good or bad involved—just what is, i.e., what has evolved. No one faults foxes for eating rabbits, or lady bugs for eating aphids. So why does mankind, only an evolved primate, become the pimple on evolution’s face? (A face that had its cosmetics applied randomly, I might add.)

It seems to me that if man has developed the intelligence to learn how to exploit the environment, to rape the land, to wantonly kill and destroy animal and plant species—well, who is to complain? (And to whom?) Evolution, along with the chaotic blind goddess Chance, has brought homo sapiens to this point. We are the top competitors in the field, the masters of natural selection. So what if we kill off spotted owls or dodo birds or Bengal tigers… we have evolved to the point of being able to do so. Who is to say we are wrong? Who’s to say there is such a thing as wrong?

Unless…

Unless, evolution is a bunch of bunk, and random acts of nature did not bring us to this point…

Unless creation is a fact, and there is a Moral Agent who started the whole shebang going…

Unless there is a Creator, and HE did make us, and we are going to answer to HIM one day!

Then you do have stewardship
And responsibility
And moral choices
And right and wrong—including how we treat the environment!

You can’t have your cake (of moral responsibility) and eat it too (i.e., have it devoured by blind, random chance).

Sorry, Darwin.

Angels of Light?

Leave a reply

When I was in high school I was privileged to watch a true revival among the students of Henrico High, on the outskirts of Richmond, Va. A number of members of my class came to know the Lord, and interest in spiritual matters was greatly heightened even for many nonbelievers. At that time, I can remember these young believers engaged in a search for Christian heroes. Anyone who was famous and a believer was someone to be looked up to. One likely candidate at the time seemed to be John Denver. There were many rumors regarding his interest in spiritual matters. Of what type of spirituality this consisted we had no certain knowledge. Some were positive that he was a born-again Christian.

Some serious students began to investigate the matter. One guy, more spiritually seasoned than most, took the lead. He was somewhat of musician himself, and used to sing some of Denver’s songs in our impromptu gatherings of teen believers. I well remember the day that he found some solid information about John Denver’s perspectives on religion. We were crestfallen when he informed us that Denver was not a Christian. Instead, he was deeply committed to an Eastern/Occult belief system. Reincarnation, astral projection, psychic powers and pantheism were more his tune.

I want to use this incident to illustrate an important point: Everyone we think of as “spiritual” is not necessarily godly or right. This is so vital to realize. We now live in a society that has lost it Christian moorings and has been set adrift on a sea of spiritual ignorance. Most people, Christians included, don’t have a clue about how to discern between error and truth. By and large, we are doctrinally illiterate. I think if one were to quiz the average American, we would find that not only do we score low on math and science skills, but we also would bottom out on the “truth test.” When it comes to telling the difference between what is false and what is true, we are generally naïve, if not downright ignorant.

Let me give you a few examples. (Sad to say, I could list dozens.)

A few years ago I was in a Christian book store, part of a well known chain of stores. Prominently displayed was an entire series of books on famous Christians. It was called “Champions of the Faith,” or something like that. One of these books was about John Chapman, more popularly known as Johnny Appleseed. Now, don’t get me wrong, I like Johnny Appleseed. I can still remember enjoying the Disney cartoon version of his life’s story when I was a child. I think that he was a man of character, discipline, vision and compassion. He did a noble and laudable work. But he was not, and I say this emphatically, he was not a Christian. Chapman was a follower of the Swedish mystic Emanuel Swedenborg. Swedenborg founded a movement that mimics Christianity in many ways, but rejects the essentials of the faith. Swedenborg repudiated belief in the Trinity. He denied that Christ’s death atoned for our sins. His religion is both mystical and works oriented, denying the doctrine of salvation through grace. Though a brilliant man himself, his spiritual experiences were nothing short of wacky. He claimed to have taken repeated jaunts through heaven and hell, describing their workings in great detail. His visions were often necromantic—replete with intimate conversations with Jesus, Paul, Moses, Luther, Augustine and other dead saints. This is not the stuff of the true faith of Christ. So you see, as a believer in Swedenborgianism, Johnny Appleseed may have been religious, he may have been a person of noble and distinguished character, but he was not an exemplar of Christian truth. And he was definitely not a “champion of the faith.”

By the way, Chapman is not the only famous “Christian” who was actually a Swedenborgian. So was Helen Keller. Again, Ms. Keller serves as a remarkable example of courage, determination and the power of the human spirit to overcome the adversities of life. But her life does not model true godliness and genuine faith. She was a member of a cult. And (it is truly tragic to say) she died believing a pack of lies and truckload of nonsense.

Another more contemporary illustration of my point is to be found in Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Now, I know I am treading in dangerous territory here, for Mother Teresa is held in such high esteem the world over. She was a person of such compassion, such kindness, such nobility of spirit, that to venture to criticize her at all seems mean-spirited. But she illustrates my point so well. For in accepting the genuine goodness of the woman, most people would be open to also accepting almost anything she said or did, or believed for that matter. As with many good people, her human virtues would seem to validate her theology. But this is a false premise. “Good people” can believe lies and promote error. And this she did.

You see, Mother Teresa was in the forefront of a popular move in the Catholic Church to have Mary, the mother of Jesus, to be officially declared as the Mediatrix of all graces. She was one of those who petitioned the Pope to define this teaching as a dogma of the church. What does this teaching mean? Mediatrix of all graces? What is that? Simply put, this teaching asserts that Mary acts as the agent for all grace which God dispenses to man. No work of grace, including salvation itself, comes to mankind without first coming through Mary. In essence, this would elevate her status to the same level as that of Christ Himself, making her a Co-Savior and Co-Redemptress with the Son of God.

Now I understand that many, if not most, Catholic theologians, clergy, prelates and scholars already teach this error. But it has never been defined as a dogma of the church, which is what Mother Teresa desired. And in this matter, this dear woman was wrong—drastically wrong. This doctrine about Mary is nothing less than heresy. It demeans the mediatorial office and redemptive accomplishments of Christ (see 2 Timothy 2:5, Acts 4:12, etc.). It asserts that His atoning work on the Cross was insufficient without the subsequent work of His mother. To affirm that Mary is the dispenser of all grace is to raise her to actual divinity, while at the same time denigrating the uniqueness and preeminence of her divine Son. Yet… Mother Teresa lobbied the Vatican for Mary to be declared “Mediatrix of All Graces.” This is nothing short of blasphemy!

Do you start to see the point? Good people—men and women who do admirable works and great deeds of charity, persons of indisputable integrity and laudable character, people admired by sinner and saint alike—may still be totally deceived when it comes to spiritual truth. This does not mean that we do not esteem them for their good work. Nor that we should despise their legacies and their influence. But let us be influenced by what is truly exemplary in their lives—their deeds, not their beliefs.

Am I only riding a hobby horse here? Am I majoring in a minor point? Most assuredly not. Indeed, the truth of the matter is that we are bombarded with the potential harm of deceitful influences through good people. I see it all the time. I hear Christians quoting from Robert Fulghum’s work, e.g., Everything I Need To Know I Learned in Kindergarten. Good stuff? Yes, to a certain extent. Much of it is practical and serviceable in every day life. But Fulghum is a Unitarian minister. Do you honestly think that the doctrines of his heretical church background do not sometimes creep into his writing? Of course they do.

I see Christians reading and quoting the Chicken Soup books like they were new gospels. You know what I’m talking about, that whole series that started with Chicken Soup for the Soul and has now multiplied into an entire library for teachers, women, men, and mothers, and who knows who else. It’s become like a fast food chain. Chicken Soup is being distributed to hungry consumers like Big Macs. But pick up one of these books and you’ll see the Buddha quoted as authoritatively as the Christ. There’s no distinction. All sources of “truth” are treated equally. What “works” in life is promoted as necessarily good and true. This is a commonly held error.

(Need I remind my Christian brethren that there are no “First Amendment” rights in the law of God? All religions do not stand on equal footing in God’s courtroom! All beliefs are not true and acceptable in the sight of the Great Judge of all the earth!)

Turn on your TV and you will see many disturbing examples of what I am talking about. Oprah is a case in point. Oprah Winfrey is considered a “deeply spiritual” person. Sure. That’s why in her motivational seminars she can quote Deepak Chopra as easily as Jesus, and declare emphatically, “When you hear me, you are hearing the voice of God speak to you.” Wow! And did you know that when Ms. Winfrey was filming the movie “Beloved” that she actually prayed to her ancestors and sought to channel their spirits? Is Oprah spiritual? Yes, in one sense. Does she do good works? Decidedly so. Is she a Christian? Definitely not. But many Christians look to her for spiritual guidance and practice.

So what I am saying? We must all learn to be aware, to be discerning. We must really know what the Christian faith teaches, accept it with our whole hearts, cling to it—and willfully reject what is not consistent with it. We can learn much from people such as Johnny Appleseed, Helen Keller, Mother Teresa, even Robert Fulghum and Oprah Winfrey. But we must not look to these individuals when forming our own belief system. When it comes to spiritual truth, such people are often wolves in sheep clothing—or to use another image, angels of light, both deceived and deceiving (see 2 Corinthians 11:14-15).