Gaylene Goodroad and Herescope Cannot Be Taken Seriously
06/06/2014 17 Comments
Internet hatchet-woman Gaylene Goodroad is at it again… criticizing books she hasn’t read that is. With only an undergraduate degree in communications she lacks basic theological/academic training and it shows in her “research.” But it’s worse than that. In a word, it is dishonest and a seminary or University would discipline or expel a student for such shoddy work. Rather than offer a meaningful critique from the primary sources, she liberally quotes the reviews of other pseudo-discernment writers like herself and affirms them without vetting any of their (often false) accusations. Furthermore, when she attempts to interact she misunderstands and/or misrepresents the material so badly it’s hard to believe she read it. I don’t think she did.
Case in point, Goodroad cites my book Exo-vaticana, “Whatever the case may be, readers will come to understand the book cover for Exo-Vaticana is not simply the product of someone’s fanciful imagination.”[1] But then she completely misrepresents it by writing, “No, the book cover for Exo-Vaticana was not the ‘simply the product of someone’s fanciful imagination,’ but was admittedly inspired by an ancient occult scroll!”[2] The scroll in question is not occult and it has nothing to do with the book cover.
Anyone who has actually read the book (or bothered to take five minutes to read the context) would know better. The discussion of the apocalypse scroll (discussed by Michael Heiser in The Façade and DSS scholar Stephen Pfann) depicts flying objects over Jerusalem not Vatican City! Thus, Goodroad cannot have read the material she claims to critique. That is not scholarship but borders on libel. Even more revealing of Goodroad’s sloppy misrepresentation is the actual context of the quote-mine. Here is the sentence in context:
Whatever the case may be, readers will come to understand the book cover for Exo-Vaticana is not simply the product of someone’s fanciful imagination. According to reliable witnesses and photographic evidence, something like what we have pictured has occurred more than once.[3]
As evidence I provided several photographs and this clipping from the New York Times News Service that describes an event very much like the book cover.
Click to enlarge
Obviously Goodroad did not bother to actually read the book she critiqued, but simply quote mined other websites who did not accurately represent the material either. It’s text-gossip. It is completely dishonest to critique a book you have not read. In seminary or University it would result in charges of academic dishonesty. She lacks the basic integrity required to fairly review books and media. Accordingly, a point by point response to the rest of her fallacious diatribe is unnecessary because an intellectually honest reader can see that she is discredited. As to her label, “Postmodern Prophecy Paradigm”(PPP), it reveals similar ineptitude. While she probably impressed herself by coming up with an alliteration using big words, no one who believes in biblical prophecy is postmodern because postmodernism’s central claim is there is no overarching universal meta-narrative, which is exactly what biblical prophecy entails. Goodroad operates from unfair assumptions, fails to read what she “reviews,” and blindly trusts similar so-called “discernment” websites as her primary sources. It is quite clear from her latest hit-piece, that Herescope has become nothing more than a cheesy internet gossip tabloid and cannot be taken seriously.
[1] Cris Putnam and Thomas R. Horn, Exovaticana: Petrus Romanus, Project L.u.c.i.f.e.r. and the Vatican’s Astonishing Plan for the Arrival of an Alien Savior (Crane, MO: Defender, 2013), xi
[2]Gaylene Goodroad, “Is Francis the Last Pope? http://herescope.blogspot.com/2014/06/is-francis-last-pope.html (accessed 6/6/14).
Scientology’s Roots in Diabolic Occultism
06/06/2014 1 Comment
L. Ron Hubbard
The creator of Scientology, fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard was also a student of the occult society Ordo Templi Orientis (O.T.O.) and was the room mate of Crowley disciple and NASA rocket scientist Jack Parsons. A biography of Parsons recounts how Hubbard was a natural, “Parsons was already impressed by Hubbard’s grasp of Crowley’s teachings, but now he became convinced of Hubbard’s supreme magical sensitivity.”[1] Later, Hubbard and Parsons teamed up on a dark ritual infamously known as the Babalon Working:
Jack Parsons
Parsons returned from the desert driven to perform the rituals he had been “given,” and Hubbard began seeing visions once more. Hubbard was a master storyteller and a quick thinker, but he had now been performing magic with Parsons for nearly two months. According to Parsons’ record of the time, Hubbard was exhausted and often left pale and sweating from his exertions. Finally, a fatigued Hubbard saw a vision calling an end to the working. In a fragment from his writings, Parsons, exhausted and exultant, declared his work a success. He believed that Babalon, in the manner of the Immaculate Conception, was due to be born to a woman somewhere on earth in nine months time. “Babalon is incarnate upon the earth today, awaiting the proper hour for her manifestation,” he wrote. “And in that day my work will be accomplished, and I shall be blown away upon the Breath of the father.”[2]
Just a few years later, Hubbard dreamed up the scientology mythos and started a new religion. Because it is a documented historical fact that Hubbard honed his black magic skills with dark occultists, it seems more than likely that scientology is a front for the same sort of diabolic sorcery. Their behavior supports it. The two documentaries below reveal the brain washing and bullying techniques characteristic of the scientology cult and strongly support their status as dark occultists.
[1] George Pendle. Strange Angel: The Otherworldly Life of Rocket Scientist John Whiteside Parsons . (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt 2006), Kindle Locations 3746-3747.
[2] Pendle. Strange Angel, Kindle Locations 3806-3812.
Scripture that Young Earth Creationists Must Avoid
06/05/2014 31 Comments
The elephant in the room that young earth creationists willfully avoid is that the creation of the planet earth is not within the week of days described in Genesis 1. The earth is created during an unspecified period of time “in the beginning” (Gen1:1). The earth is present in its primordial state (Gen 1:2) before God declares “let their be light” which begins the creation week (Gen 1:4). The text is clear that the week did not ensue until after the declaration of light (Gen 1:5). So when was the earth created and how long did it take? Genesis does not say but the book of Job describes the process:
“Where were you at my laying the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you possess understanding. Who determined its measurement? Yes, you do know. Or who stretched the measuring line upon it? On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars were singing together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”(Job 38:4–7)
God is questioning Job and challenging him for his impertinence. He describes a process of measuring and building the earth but, even more, the morning stars (angels) are present singing. Angels are created beings (Nehemiah 9:6; Colossians 1:16; Psalm 148:5), who according to this passage were created before the earth. At minimum, we can derive a significant period of time during which the angels were created and developed worship practices. After all, they are singing as the earth is made. This logic seems unassailable.
Thus, the facile practice of adding up the genealogies plus seven days is sorely mistaken. It is not consistent with the whole counsel of God and should be abandoned by thinking Christians, not on the basis of natural revelation (science) alone but on the basis of its inconsistency with divine relation (scripture). Unfortunately, it has become a traditional stronghold that unnecessarily discredits the church’s outreach.
