Samantha Smith predicted it - now it's official: 'In Gaia We Trust'

In her excellent 1993 book, Goddess Earth, Exposing the Pagan Agenda in the Environmental Movement, Raiders News Update friend Samantha Smith warned that Gaia worship was at the very heart of today's environmental policy. Bluntly she decried, "The Endangered Species Act, the United Nation's Biodiversity Treaty and the Presidents Council on Sustainable Development are all offspring of the Gaia hypothesis of saving "Mother Earth."'

This week, in a National Review commentary, Christopher Horner conferred, saying, "...the environmental movement, now more than ever, does represent the American Left at worship. The green crusade is now crafting a new way for its own troubling religion to pervert traditional faith. Having fought in federal court to deny its religiosity — and thus continue its life-sustaining flow of taxpayer dollars — the Down With People machine is donning religious vestments and teaming up with the Bush administration to tap the president's faith-based initiative.

"CNSNews.com reports that 'EPA is informally seeking 'ideas' regarding how religious groups who promote green causes like climate change and pollution controls, can qualify for the White House's faith-based funds.' The very idea of green evangelizing infecting Bush's faith-based initiative should raise alarm, since the movement has far more in common with pagan themes than with traditional tenets of faith."

What's more worrisome is the goals of "greens" past, present, and future. Gaia-ism points to humanity - especially western civilization - as the world's great evil.

"Western Culture [is perceived as] the root of all evil," Smith observed. "These are some of the teachings of what is little more than the bastardized products of Eastern mysticism. Now called New Age religion, it culminates in deep ecology, eco-feminism and the worship of an ancient Greek God called Gaia - Mother Earth.

"Gaia teaches that man has damaged or destroyed the fragile balance of nature. Disciples of Gaia believe that all living things on earth are interconnected (except man) and to damage or destroy even a tiny insect is to damage whole ecological systems. Such a premise was the basis for Vice President Al Gore's book, "Earth in the Balance."'

So if man is the problem, what should be done about it? Horner reminds us that the faith-based funds-seeking environmental movement (a.k.a. EPA's Gaia worshippers) have a paper trail detailing their answer to the "people are pollution" quandary.

"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem." Lamont Cole (as quoted by Elizabeth Whelan in her book Toxic Terror)

"This is as good a way to get rid of them as any." Charles Wursta, Chief Scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, commenting on the likelihood of millions dying from a global ban on DDT (also quoted in Toxic Terror)

"I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds." Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace (quoted in Access to Energy, vol. 10, no. 4, Dec. 1982)

"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state." Kenneth Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept (quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)

"The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species [man] upon the rest of the natural world." John Shuttleworth, Friends of the Earth manual writer

A prime spokesman for these Gaia-centered goals, according to Smith, is Father Thomas Berry, "a dissident Catholic priest and a leader of the Temple of Understanding, located in New York City. Father Berry contends that Christianity promotes 'deep cultural pathology of human greed and addiction.' He advocates that the earth is disintegrating and that Christianity is mostly to blame."

In his own words, "the world is being called to a new post-denominational, even post Christian, belief system that sees the earth as a living being - mythologically, as Gaia, Mother Earth - with mankind as her consciousness."

In an effort to make contact with Gaia's consciousness, a representative of The American Policy Center attended a meeting in Boulder (Colorado), called by Jose Arguelles (leader of PAN and New Age Transformation) where participants were presented with the idea that the earth is a living, spiritual being that can feel pain.

The group was asked to tune in to the crystal matrix frequency (Mother Earth's heartbeat) and to relax. Many went into trance-like states. As people felt they were being filled with the Earth's energy, they became vocal, with sounds rising and falling rhythmically. Some swayed and some fell down on the ground and began writhing. They were then 'brought to silence.'

Arguelles told the audience to concentrate on a cloud floating overhead, just drifting, and then told them to invite the cloud in to fill the empty spirit, the empty soul. He said to invite "PAN" in, accepting him as the leader and guide for their lives.

Jose explained that Pan was the first son of Mother Earth and used to live close to his mother in the primeval forest with his brothers and sisters, who went out and founded the temple-building societies (Aztecs, Egyptians, etc,). When Pan refused to join his siblings in the cities, they called him evil and Satan. They invented their own selfish religion, Christianity, which must be removed because it includes a vision of an Apocalypse.

The Boulder audience was told that 'right now Mother Earth is bringing Pan back to save us and lead us into the New Age. We can help by surrendering to him, tuning into the crystal matrix frequencies and carrying out the directions received while tuned in.' Arguelles explained this might include the physical removal of Christians, because they are the biggest obstacle to transformation."

(Pan, cloven-hoofed half man/half beast is one of the infernal names given to Satan in Anton LaVey's Satanic Bible.)

"But the green charade must be fought, for it is intolerable that taxpayers should be asked to fund such objectives under the guise of aiding the poor and disadvantaged. The greens' philosophy has nothing to do with Judeo-Christian — or even simply humanitarian — principles. Their projects have no place in President Bush's Faith Based and Community Initiative."

"How do you know that?" As a reference, shall we use the Word of God itself?

Let's. Since the Word of God consists of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, you won't object to my referring to the teaching magisterium of the Church as reference.

The Bible clearly says that "ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).

Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom. 9:11).
We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.
Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.
...
When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference can be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. This word represents the proper name of the person being addressed by the angel, and it therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.
The traditional translation, "full of grace," is more accurate than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, and was only as "full" or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called "full of grace."

Mary acknowledged that she needed a "Savior" (Luke 1:47) like any other sinner.

Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.
Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

Furthermore, IF Mary did not sin, and death (as the Bible says) comes by sin, then logically Mary would never have died.

Corruption, not physical death, is the result of original sin: "And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. [Gen 1:17-19 KJV]. Since Our Lady was preserved from original sin by the Grace of her Son, she was not subject to corruption; like Enoch and Elijah, she was assumed into Heaven at the instant of her physical death. This is the Assumption of Mary.

Over the centuries, the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church spoke often about the the fittingness of the privilege of Mary’s Assumption. The speculative grounds considered include Mary’s freedom from sin, her Motherhood of God, her perpetual virginity, and—the key—her union with the salvific work of Christ.
...
The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary "ascended" into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power.
The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven." The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52-53: "[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called "paradise," where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1-40; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.
There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption. It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter’s tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved—there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith.
It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.
...
The dogma [of the Assumption] is especially fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the ark of the covenant. It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the ten commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (a symbol of Israel’s high priesthood). Because of its contents, it was made of incorruptible wood, and Psalm 132:8 said, "Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might." If this vessel was given such honor, how much more should Mary be kept from corruption, since she is the new ark—who carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the high priest of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ.
Some argue that the new ark is not Mary, but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box, and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself! After all, wisdom will not dwell "in a body under debt of sin" (Wis. 1:4 NAB).
...
Mary freely and actively cooperated in a unique way with God’s plan of salvation (Luke 1:38; Gal. 4:4). Like any mother, she was never separated from the suffering of her Son (Luke 2:35), and Scripture promises that those who share in the sufferings of Christ will share in his glory (Rom. 8:17). Since she suffered a unique interior martyrdom, it is appropriate that Jesus would honor her with a unique glory.
All Christians beleive that that one day we will all be raised in a glorious form and then caught up and rendered immaculate to be with Jesus forever (1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 21:27). As the first person to say "yes" to the good news of Jesus (Luke 1:38), Mary is in a sense the prototypical Christian, and received early the blessings we will all one day be given.
...
But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin[Gen. 3:17, 19].

Either Mary was a member of a sinful human race which needs redemption, OR is/was a Goddess -- Which is it?

The former. Our Lady was a member of the human race, which is stained by original sin. She herself, however, was saved from committing actual sin by the blood of her Son.

"The Creed defines the Faith. Reject the Creed, reject the Faith."

The "Creed" defines the faith for those who believe IT to supercede the authority of the Holy Scriptures.

The Creed is derived from Scripture. To reject it is to reject the truths of Scripture.

I'll take my chances with the actual Word of God.

The Word of God is comprised of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition handed down by the Apostles. The Creeds (and the Canon of Scripture) are both defined by that Tradition. If you accept Scripture but reject the Tradition that defined it, you follow only part of the whole Word of God.

Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant "Bible only" theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.
The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).
[Source for all above quotes]

The un-biblical doctrine of sola scriptura elevates the individual believer to the status of infallible authority on matters of faith and morals -- a Papacy of One. To say that such a doctrine has led to some truly strange versions of the Christian Truth is an understatement. Better to stick to the teaching authority that Christ Himself established: the Catholic Church.

Yours in Christian fraternity,

B-chan

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.