Your Child and the New Age Chapter 11 How Toys and Games Manipulate the Imagination

Home Contents

"Children Project themselves with their imagination into a toy. They give it life, character, abilities, and talents and set the surrounding around it. This is how they learn." Phil Phillips, Turmoil in the Toy Box

...But wait a minute, you claim imagination is always evil!

Toy stores are safe, happy places. Right? Some are. But many have traded treasured age-appropriate toys for glamour dolls and occult warriors that catapult even young children into the world of adult conflicts.

God forbid they learn about “adult conflicts”.

The macho, magical, and macabre have captivated children for ages. Grimm's Fairy Tales filled my own childhood in Norway with images of wicked, spell-casting witches and three-headed trolls who turned children into stone. The tales were fun, exciting, and obviously unreal.

So wait a minute, you endorse “images of wicked, spell-casting witches and three-headed trolls” who engage in child abuse, PROVIDING THEY ARE TOTALLY FANTASTICAL AND UNREALISTIC? That is quite frankly the most wicked statement I have heard from a “discernment” ministry yet.

Today's acceptance of counterfeit forces has made the mystical grimly real. By itself, a fairy tale or toy will hardly shape a child's attitudes. But reinforced by school, movies, music, and television, the combined messages generate tolerance and acceptance of the demonic.

So you’re saying that the mystical (i.e. the occult) should NOT be “grimly real” to Christian children? It should be confined to “fun, exciting” fairy tales? Of course, tolerance and acceptance of the demonic is wicked, but this head-in-the-sand attitude is just as harmful to the Christian family.

My childhood toys freed my imagination to direct the Play. I - not the toy maker -assigned personalities and feelings to my toys and interacted with them according to my understanding of the world around me.

So instead of submitting to the will of the Maker, you used your own human imagination to create your own fantastical myths? Can you see how your intensely uncharitable attitude can be used against you?

Those traditional toys, if still available, fade in the glamorous light of toys that star in movies, cartoons, and comic books. Complete with built-in personalities, these new playmates both stifle and steer the imagination. G.I. Joe and the Ghostbusters have been outfitted for battle-nothing else. The play naturally moves in that one direction.

This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. According to the Bible, stifling and steering the imagination is good. Please read 2 Corinthians 10:5 and pray for guidance - this scripture CLEARLY teaches we are to straitly control our imaginations. And what of this: “Toy soldiers have been outfitted for battle - nothing else. The play naturally moves in that one direction”? What is your solution? Remove all weapons from soldier toys? Force boys to play with dolls? Wow, suddenly you sound suspiciously like the PC brigade and the feminist division.

When a child watches a cartoon and then plays with a toy connected to that cartoon, he is no longer projecting himself into the toy. Instead, cartoons have programmed the child to play with toys in a certain way. (Phil Phillips in Turmoil in the Toybox)

Which may be an improvement over his own imagination, or not, depending on the proclivity of that child to evil and the values of the cartoon.

Whether smiley or scary, dolls and action figures come to life through a child’s imagination. Through their good or evil characteristics, they teach about life and relationships.

Nonsense. What “good” or “evil” characteristics could a toy have (I suppose if they have some kind of speech function...)? Are you seriously trying to suggest that “ugly” things are always bad and beautiful things are always good? This article is becoming more wicked by the second.

As the child plays, he acts out his growing (and often distorted) perception of his world, validating and strengthening the message behind the toy.

This is self-contradictory. One minute, you say children playing with “blank” toys (with no built-in personalities) strengthens the “imagination” and is a good thing. Now you admit the perception of the world the child uses to act out stories with “blank” toys could be distorted, but insist this is somehow a product of the “message” behind the toy (jumping to toys with pre-packaged personalities). Perhaps I am somewhat out of touch, having been given toys as a child bought second-hand from car boot sales by my parents and playing with them with no knowledge of the story behind them, but I cannot believe any “message” would be that influential.

John Dvorak, writing for the San Francisco Examiner, asks:

When trying to understand the mood of the country, its future, and its direction, where do you turn?

Many journalists follow the annals of Congress; others have deep discussion with learned professors. I go to Toys R Us. Here's where the forthcoming generations are molded. Let me tell you, the future die is cast and the image is a sick one. It's not that the toy business hasn't always been fraught with weird fads, tasteless imagery, and warped symbols that have little value. But now it's worse than ever. One is simply overwhelmed by a plethora of toys best described as gruesome, gory, and irresponsible.¹

Examples?

A Wonderland of Dreams and Magic

Join me on a hair-raising journey through a modern fantasyland - the local toy store. You will meet aliens, demons, ghosts, and goblins. You will see horrendous humanoids, scary supernaturals, haunted humans, and shimmering seductive dolls. You will discover video games that equip you with mystical power and pit you against diabolical forces.

Don’t patronize me. This sneering, polemical tone is deeply unchristian. You have yet to provide evidence for any of these charges.

“aliens” could be good or wicked, depending on their presentation.

“demons” are, of course, always wicked in an English-language toy.

“ghosts” are very likely to be evil.

“goblins” may be neutral, but have a somewhat occult cast from their origin in pre-Christian fairy tales.

“horrendous humanoids” are by no means wicked. Claiming such is a monstrous example of judging according to appearances. I do not believe I should like to be a disfigured person in your church.

“haunted humans” - are you trying to say these humans are possessed, or merely frightened by some supernatural entity? This equivocation (accompanied by flashy alliteration, another characteristic you share with female “discernment ministers” like Riplinger) makes me believe you are purposefully exaggerating the situation.

“shimmering” is not wicked, but “seductive” most certainly is, irrespective of context.

Since video games do not reflect reality, it does not matter if the character you control in a game has “mystical power” (unless it conforms to real-life occultism). I also find it highly hypocritical that a “discernment ministry” that frequently uses the language of the Deliverance movement objects to being pitted AGAINST diabolical forces.

Grab a cart, and we'll start by the left wall of the cavernous showroom. Scanning the endless display of unfamiliar games - undoubtedly many good ones - your eyes rest momentarily on Shriefs and Creeks and Eternia - the homeland of the Masters of the Universe. Then, near a stack of Ouija Boards, you spot Terapy, which promises "fascinating fun with a psychological twist." To the true-or-false question, "Playing hard to get definitely works," it answers: "False. Males ... tend to need encouragement. The most popular girls are open with their emotions, not guarded."

Did you spot the bait-and-switch, children? Nothing was said about “Shriefs and Creeks” or Eternia. Instead, you throw in Ouija (Ouiji?) Boards, one of the most evil “games” ever devised (I know of no-one with even a scrap of righteousness in their souls who would even so much as touch a Ouiji Board). “Terapy” is clearly a sexually-themed game based in the worldly philosophy of psychology (which inclusion might not be so objectionable in itself were it not paired with obvious sensual themes). Therefore it is evil. If you cannot recognize this immediately, it is you who lacks any form of discernment.

Across from the board games stretches the formidable wall of electronic and computer games. Nintendo sounds familiar, so you stop to examine its display. You breathe a sigh of relief at the sight of good old themes like Sesame Street, Mickey Mouse, and football. But other pictures jump out at you - strange aliens, shrewd sorcerers, hideous demons, fiery dragons. You quickly move on.

Note that “electronic and computer games” is prejudged. Again, you use flashy adjectives to make your case without “proving all things” Biblically. Of course, “sorcerors” and “demons” are profoundly evil, but why do you use the prejudicial modifier “hideous”? Once more, I get the distinct feeling I would not like to have a facial or bodily disfigurement and be a member of your local church. You also clearly have never read Psalms 148:7, which shows that dragons are a force of nature like tides, snow, and hail, and are not intrinsically evil. Also, you continue to use a patronizing, polemical tone that fails to meet the standards of Christian honesty (Matthew 5:37).

The end wall displays books. You notice a "deluxe" color/activity book called Masters of the Universe. Browsing through its pages you see a story that little children can color: "The Snake Pit - Join HE-MAN as he rescues BATTLE CAT from the SNAKE MEN and foils the evil plan Of SKELETOR!" You scan "Slimy Rescue!" "Laser Messages," "Castle Ghoulies," and "Mirror Magic Mazes."

God forbid anything in our modern age should be advertised as “deluxe”. Why did you even mention this? Do you believe godly humility requires us to purchase “economy” colouring books only?

The “snake pit” is viewed as a dangerous setting for the adventure. Do you have any objection to this? Snakes are real, dangerous animals, but not intrinsically demonic (though they are used in the Bible to symbolize Satan, they are also used to signify Christ, who is the “serpent of brass” - see Numbers 21:3 and John 3:14).

The “Snake Men” are clearly portrayed as evil, so I fail to see a problem here. The name of “Skeletor” suggests the human skeleton, which is not intrinsically evil, but has been used as a symbol of death and mortality, so it is fitting he is viewed as the adversary to the hero. Again, I see no problems with this set-up.

“Slimy Rescue!” - Does your brand of Christianity now extend to viewing mud as wicked?

“Laser Messages” - Are we to presume from your inclusion of this that you also view lasers, Morse Code and fibre optics as inherently demonic? This is absolutely pathetic.

“Castle Ghoulies” - This is the only title I can see that might potentially be problematic, if the titular “ghoulies” were presented as overtly demonic (even then, it might not be a problem unless they were portrayed as sympathetic to the hero).

“Mirror Magic Mazes” - God forbid either mazes or mirrors should exist. You seem to have leapt on the word “magic”. Is there really Biblical sorcery in this tale? Or did you even bother to find out?

The four-page posters picture "He-Man in the Blasterhawk Battle and Skeletor in the Fright Fighter!" Skeletor, the "Lord of Destruction," controls the dark side of the force. His head is a skull and he carries a ram’s head staff, two symbols of death and satanism. You wonder how a little boy could sleep with that awful picture on his wall.

The most objectionable thing I can see in the first example is the ridiculous alliteration you also seem to favour. I happen to be familiar with the character of Skeletor, and whilst he does indeed style himself the “Lord of Destruction” (a very tame title for an evil character to give himself, considering that real-life wicked kings can and have titled themselves “The Manifest God” - look up Antiochus Epiphanes) he does NOT control “the dark side of the force” (phraseology unique to the work of George Lucas and “Star Wars”), which you seem to use as a general term for evil (a bizarre and frankly occultic way of using words). Skeletor is portrayed as a wicked practitioner of ungodly technology and sorcery (though at no time does he actually perform anything approaching what could be considered Biblical sorcery). Since he is the villain, this is entirely inobjectionable.

You move down an aisle of guns of every shape and kind, from Neutra-Laser, which fires invisible infrared beams, to Glooper, which fires "globs of oozing, slimy gloop up to 25 feet." A delight to clean up, no -doubt.

God forbid boys play with toy guns and weapons, as they have for centuries. I note that do indeed view laser technology and messiness as intrinsically satanic things.

Turning the corner you almost stumble into the Mad Scientist with lures such as "Dissect An Alien" or "Yank Out Alien Organs Dripping in Glowing Alien Blood."

More patronizing, unchristian language. I am not in the store, I am reading your article. The “Mad Scientist” is a playset, not a person. I do, however, agree that this playset sounds excessively gory and violent.

In the next two aisles you find armies of action figures you recognize from television cartoons. First you spot the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, the strange, green humanoid turtles that topped the popularity lists in 1989. Turtles? They look more like musclemen with snake heads.

Anthropomorphizing animals is a valid literary technique. Having seen these characters, you are entirely dishonest in describing them as looking like “musclemen with snake heads”. They are depicted with large shells, turtle-like feet, and beaked heads that are strongly reminiscent of tortoises or turtles, not snakes.

Next, the Thundercats come with Mumm-Ra's Tomb Fortress, where skeletal Mumm-Ra mystically" transforms into MUMM-RA THE EVERLIVING. Two dragon-tailed Man/Beast (mutants) "Statue Guardians" guard the skull-shaped transformation chamber.

I have always been disturbed by this character, and agree his invocation of evil spirits (something you do not mention) to transform himself into an “everliving” being verges on blasphemy. However, the Thundercats setting has never been portrayed as being set in a realistic or literal universe, and so cannot be immediately condemned. Your next sentence is incomprehensible. From what I gather, Sphinx-like statues are set at the entrance to a skull-shaped chamber. This is the fortress of the villain. Are you objecting to the pagan imagery of the chimera, or the skull (or both)? What is supposed to be objectionable here?

You notice you have entered the occult section of the store, for after Sharkoss, Demon of the Deep from "The Other World" waits Mattel's "Masters of the Universe." The blond, handsome He-Man and glamorous She-Rah contrast starkly with the grotesque creatures all around them. The largest boxes contain the skull-shaped "Castle Grayskull," He-Man's home in "Eternia" and the source of his power.

More oozing, patronizing language. Of course, a character advertised as a “demon of the deep” may never be portrayed as a heroic character (you do not mention if he was a hero or a villain) - unless, of course, the “demon” is hyperbolic language, which would still be objectionable (for trivializing demons) but no more wicked than the character of “Daredevil” in comics. You also continue to make the assumption that “handsome” and “glamourous” are good (or at least give the IMPRESSION of good) and skulls, “grotesque” people, etc. are evil.

"The Real Ghostbusters" offers a personal Ghostzapper along with the ghost you want: Ecto-2, Gooper Ghost, Sludge Bucket, Green Wolf - even a Haunted Human if you like. You stare in amazement at Sweet Old Granny who changes into Granny Gross. Her jaw drops down to reveal vampire teeth and a long, extended tongue, while her hat lifts up to expose a second forehead with a third eye.

More unchristian language. I do not “want” any ghost, thank you very much. I do however happen to know that “Ecto-2” is a helicopter, not a ghost, which renders the accuracy of this section highly dubious. The nature of Ghostbuster toys is however somewhat lurid, and I would not advise any Christian family to purchase the “ghost” figures (quite aside from the spiritual inaccuracies in the series’ premise - the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus strongly suggests the wicked are unable to roam the Earth after death).

By the time the child is a teen, unless his parents have installed Christian values in him, he will have more knowledge of the occult than he will have of God. (Phil Phillips in Turmoil in the Toybox)

By the time the child is a teen, unless his parents have installed Christian values in him, he will have more knowledge of the occult than he will have of God. (Phil Phillips in Turmoil in the Toybox)

True. But this knowledge will not come from “blank” toys, or even from cartoons with occultic themes, but from overt practice of real-life witchcraft and Satanism in which he will be encouraged to participate at school and with non-Christian (or increasingly, feminist “Christian”) “friends”.

Even Nintendo provides action figures to match its games. One box shows a white mummy-like figure attacking the mighty hero Link. Like a growing number of contemporary action toys, it comes with a short, enticing history that ties an occult myth to a more believable reality.

...which a discerning Christian can abandon if it disturbs them. Have you considered that Christian parents might remove the packaging on these toys before allowing their children to play with them? And what do you mean by this turn of phrase - “mighty hero Link”. Clearly, you do NOT believe the character of Link to be a “mighty hero” who children should emulate, otherwise you would not charge the characters with being drawn from “occult myth”. So why say it? I understand why you might wish to use the literary technique of sarcasm, but no sarcasm appears in this context.

Two aisles down you find the soft toys. There's a talking Alf with some other alien-life forms. There's PeeWee's green dragonish Pet Pterri and a purple Wooly What's It. But what happened to the old-fashioned teddy bears? These cuddlies have devilish horns, huge lion-like teeth, or chains around their necks. Some have two wild, distorted eyes, others have just one. No question about it-these bright colored, velvety Creatures are monsters!

I agree with this sentiment, though objectively speaking the teddy bear has never been “realistic” or particularly aesthetically pleasing.

You head for the dolls. "Be cool!" shouts dazzling Dolly, one of the "Hollywoods." Does cool mean makeup for little girls? The number of little cosmetic cases suggests it. The pink cases contrast sharply with the Halloween makeup on the same shelf. Instead of a pretty face, try one with gray, ghostly skin, bloody streaks, and ghoulish scars.

Again, I agree advertising makeup cases for little girls is wicked (though your continuing use of patronizing language such as “little cosmetic cases” means I am loathe to agree with you). But your insinuation that the stores offer horror-themed makeup as a continuous alternative to sensual makeup is absurd. The fact that you consider a made-up face “pretty” suggests you support the use of makeup on adult women.

You're leaving, and on the way out you glimpse Play-doh. Ah, there's a good safe toy! But wait, this Play-doh box wears the title "The Real Ghostbuster - Glow-in-the-Dark Play-doh." You don't even have to form your own imagined ghosts and monsters. Play-doh does it for you!

More patronizing language. Also, how is mere “glow-in-the-dark” Play-doh forming ghosts and monsters for you? Is it simply the link to the Ghostbusters franchise that disturbs you?

This whole section has been surreal and absurd. You have objected to:

· “Horrendous” looking people.

· “Shimmering”

· Fighting evil.

· “Hideous” people.

· Snakes.

· Mud.

· Lasers.

· Fibre Optics.

· Mazes.

· Mirrors.

· “The dark side of the force”, seemingly as a real-life cosmic principle as it does not exist in the franchise you mention.

· Villains.

· Toy guns.

· Toy guns which shoot lasers.

· Toy guns which shoot mud.

· “Grotesque” people.

· “Mighty heroes”

· Soft toys if they are not real animals.

· Halloween makeup (but, seemingly, not sensual makeup, providing it is sold to older girls).

· Play-doh, but only if it glows in the dark.

What Do They Teach?

Toys can help children learn to solve problems, share ideas, express frustration, use their imagination, develop creativity, and concentrate on a project.

Hmm... Wouldn’t that be the imagination and creativity you claim is inherently corrupt?

But these benefits can be misused. We have seen how counterfeit teaching touches our children through schools, movies, and television. The messages from toys fall into the same three categories: altered religion, values, and world system.

A counterfeit religion. Children have learned that ghosts and demons yield to the Ghostbusters' mightier power. The cartoon stories prove that nothing is impossible for them. Humanism (belief in man's infinite capacity) plus New Age power raise these four ghostbuster heroes - and anyone who identifies with them - to spiritual mastery.

I have already printed my objections to this setting. Of course, since ghosts do not exist in the Bible, we have no idea what methods would be required to deal with them. The Bible sees early Christians using the power of God, not technology, to cast out demons, but Ghostbusters views ghosts as more like natural disasters - they cannot be banished with prayer, they must be fought with technology and comradeship. I very much doubt the designers of the setting believed the “proton packs” of the Ghostbusters represented “New Age power” (though they might well have been humanists, as with Star Trek, where technology similarly gives Man mastery over supernatural phenomenon).

Where then is God?

Hopefully, in the child’s heart, where he has been placed by the child’s parents. I must have missed the scripture where it says we are saved through the foolishness of playing with toys (on the contrary, the Bible says to put away childish things).

The toy/cartoon linkup commands a strong influence. The child bases his play on the story; lacking a strong enough belief-system of his own, he incorporates the fiction into his life.

If parents are concerned that the child is not developing their own imaginative worlds (although why a Christian would be concerned about such things boggles the mind) they can remove the packaging and not introduce the child to the original story, thus allowing them to make up their own story.

Whether he visualizes himself as G.I. Joe using his power to defeat his enemies, or as a Ghostbuster subduing demonic spirits, a child plays according to Satan's original lie: You will not surely die ... you will be like God" (Genesis 3.4).

WHAT? This is the most absurd, wicked nonsense printed yet.

“(When) he visualizes himself as G.I. Joe using his power to defeat his enemies ... a child plays according to Satan’s ... lie”.

There is no doubt what you are doing here. You are purposefully deceiving parents who lack knowledge of these settings by using ambiguous language to give false impressions. What is G.I. Joe’s “power”? The context (Ghostbusters “subduing” “demonic” spirits, though you fail to mention this is through technology) implies it is magical. In actuality, G.I. Joe is a story about a platoon of soldiers who are sent out to stop terrorists. They “defeat their enemies” through the “power” of American weapons technology. They are toy soldiers. How playing with toy soldiers fulfils the lie “You will not surely die ... you will be like God” is beyond me. Does your God parachute from airplanes and wield an M16? Does he require a bullet-proof vest? If so your “God” is a sickening lie and not the God of the Bible.

Throughout your writing, I have noticed a very dark, almost seedy core in your language that leads me to believe you do not care for the truth. You never give genuine facts but rather create ambiguous, distorted images which only seem convincing to those who know little about what you talk about. Your agenda, which you share in common with charismatic, conservative feminist and Deliverance ministries, is to REMOVE knowledge, leaving Christians reliant on you, rather than God’s Word, for discernment.

This enticing illusion fires a child's heart with delicious dreams that lure him away from truth. In time, the child outgrows the vision but grasps greedily for the next one that the deceiver dangles. That next vision might come through video games.

More meaningless, seedy language.

In Super Mario Brothers 2 - which is less occult-centered than many other popular videos - you are Mario, the daring rescuer of Princess Toadstool. The evil Wart, who holds her captive, has cast a magic spell on the Land of Dreams. But your power is greater.

When is it ever stated that “Wart” (I was under the impression the villain was a dog-like monster called Bowser) casts a magic spell? Again, your deceitful, ambiguous language gives the impression that Mario counters Wart’s spells with his own. In fact, Mario is a plumber who defeats the toadstools and tortoises under the command of the villain by jumping on them, and makes his way from “level” to “level” through pipes. By collecting gold stars (which are five-pointed but not pentagrams), he can increase his size. Hardly occultic.

Less familiar, but just as ominous, are non-electronic games like Phenomenon - The Game That Goes One Step Beyond. Promising those who are twelve and older "The Extra Sensory Party," it offers to teach you telepathy ("the fun of transmitting images"), clairvoyance ("Is what you see what you get?"), dermal vision ("seeing" with your skin), and psychometry ("Can personal objects reveal your secret past?"). The game's promotion reads:

Everyone has psychic potential. Some call it hunch. Others call it intuition. It's a feeling the telephone is going to ring and sensing who is calling...

Phenomenon... gives you a chance to explore, unlock, and develop your psychic ability during a fun, fascinating game. What's more, you and your friends are doing it together.

How is this game “just as ominous” as Mario? This game clearly teaches real-world occultism, psychic powers, and divination! It goes even beyond overtly occultic games where the hero engages in real-world occultism (forcing the player to “have pleasure in” those who do evil - Romans 1:32) and actually encourages the player to do it! This game sounds every bit as wicked as the Ouiji board, but evidently you see no difference between this and a toy pop-gun.

In a world that has lost its awe of God and its wariness of His enemy, why not try? Why not experiment with anything that offers secret knowledge, thrills, and power?

BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IN GOD AND RESPECT HIS WORD! We are NOT to go along with the crowd or conform to peer pressure, and any Christian person would know that. Again, you present yourself (curiously immune to this phenomenon) as the only thing standing between your readers and going out and purchasing an overt guide to real-world witchcraft.

Who worries about consequences in a New Age that denies sin, guilt and the sovereignty of God?

Christians?

Counterfeit values. When I was a child, I spanked my dolls when they "disobeyed."

This, to me, is far more disturbing than “snake pits” or laser technology. When your dolls “disobeyed”, it was at your command. So first off, you implicitly accept that the creator bares no responsibility for the things his creatures do, even though he makes it happen. This is a solid Biblical principle as it pertains to God (Isaiah 45:7). You have strenuously denied in past articles that writers gain the same rights over THEIR creations, even arguing that writers are responsible for what their VILLAINS do (making it impossible to write “whatsoever things are honest” or “whatsoever things are just” - critical components of Philippians 4:8). But here, you admit that you acted out your dolls committing sin, then punished them for it. Need I remind you that hypocrisy is a serious sin? The alternative is that you thought your dolls have some motivation beyond yourself, in which case you were either demonized or seriously deceived.

Whether we played "house" indoors, built tree houses in the forest, or dug ice caves outside in the five-foot snowpacks, we followed the rules that had become an accepted part of life. Our playtimes generally affirmed honesty, parental authority, and love.

False analogy - no toys appear in your list here. Are you now arguing that all toys are wicked, as per some Deliverance ministries?

The cartoons behind today's toys create a different atmosphere - where macho pride replaces gentleness, and cruel sarcasm supplants kindness; where unpunished aggression and violence imply the absence of true-to-life consequences.

I agree “macho pride” (despite your feministic phrasing) and “cruel sarcasm” (despite your heavy use of this technique) are things Christians should avoid. But your next clause is absurd and hypocritical - “aggression and violence imply the absence of true-to-life consequences”. Yet head-in-the-sand, unbiblical fantasies that deny aggression and violence exist show real “consequences”? Come on! Surely you must have heard liberals arguing that the over-the-top gore and sexual situations in their media productions are better because they show “consequences” and “true-to-life” behaviour? Of course, they are wrong because their productions take pleasure in these things, but the fact is that in real life violence often goes unpunished and the wicked prosper (Jeremiah 12:1). To suggest otherwise, specially in a realistic and non-fantastical setting, is a LIE and damnable sin.

Here a child learns the specific actions and attitudes that define his posable toy.

More worthless, seedy language. Why is it important to note the toy is “posable”? Are you advocating a return to toy soldiers carved out of one piece of wood?

Supermen call for superwoman,

No they do not, as they cannot speak unless their creator makes them. It is FEMINISTS who call for superwomen.

and toy shelves abound with slender beauties modeling physical perfection

But you yourself value physical perfection and associate deformity with evil - you even have a section coming up labeled “An Ominous Fascination With The Hideous”. Therefore your observations are rank with hypocrisy.

and flashy fashions. Barbie set the trend and others followed. Today's little girls learn the importance of having all of Barbie's fashion accessories: a styling center with makeup (the box shows a little girl hugging her makeup bag), an incredible wardrobe of designer clothes,

Yes, this promotes vanity and is evil.

a townhouse, furniture, a horse, an all-terrain vehicle

God forbid fictional characters should live in a HOUSE! With FURNITURE at that.

and, of course, a boyfriend named Ken.

More worthless, seedy garbage. Why do we need to know his name is Ken? Is this inherently objectionable?

If that isn't enough, she can borrow from Maxi - a Barbie clone - a sailboat, a windsurfer, a scooter, a hot tub.... Enough?

... Except she can’t because she is not real. She will not borrow from Maxi in any cartoon because the two properties are in competition. In fact, the only time this situation will arise is if girls IMAGINE it on their own, in utterly contrast to your overarching argument.

A gorgeous assortment of glittery princesses like Lacy, Spacy, and Ultra Violet compete for little girls' affection. Violet, a Cosmic Beauty Expert, comes with a complete line of Lacy Space fashions.

God forbid there should be MARKET COMPETITION. I suppose in your ideal world the government creates a single line of mass-produced toys promoting the worldview they choose for you. The rest of this paragraph is yet more seedy ambiguity.

Less fantastic but just as flashy, Today's Girls know what counts. Kelly, "the most popular girl in school ... has got her scene totally together from her outfit to her accessories.... It's like a party whenever [Katie] is around, with surprises up her sleeve (rock star posters, concert tickets, etc.)...... And Pepper is "always ready for a shopping spree with her truly outrageous outfit."

This of course promotes worldly behaviour and is wicked. Any Christian should be able to see this if they have the slightest spark of discernment.

In spite of the feminist drive for sexual equality, girls’ toys emphasize glamour, glitter, and seductive sensuality,

I hate to break it to you, but that IS feminism, and its goal is not equality. Second wave feminism at least emphasises female superiority over men as “sensual goddesses” and this is merely one tentacle of that philosophy.

while boys' toys encourage macho violence, ugly monsters, and supernatural power.

“Macho” violence. This hardly seems the sort of thing to be coming from someone supposedly opposed to feminism. Violence is not a masculine attribute. Was Jesus effete? No, he was not. Again, you link ugliness to evil, which is alarming given that the Bible clearly says of the Messiah, “he hath ... no beauty that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:2). I strongly suggest you change your attitude towards outward beauty.

A New Age Dream World. In the hands of gullible preschoolers, toy supermen and powerwomen affirm the lie that man can control the "good" forces of the universe and conquer the evil forces.

...Or simply provide role models and a moral standard we can never attain.

The friendly Care Bears remind them that with loving vibes they can create a world of peace and love.

...Or simply remind them to be kind and gentle. One would have thought you would love Care Bears, given your earlier statement:

“The cartoons behind today's toys create a different atmosphere - where macho pride replaces gentleness, and cruel sarcasm supplants kindness; where unpunished aggression and violence imply the absence of true-to-life consequences”.

Adults around the world believe that today. So does He-Man, the Master of the Universe.

He-man believes he can create a world of peace and love through loving vibes? Please, correct your mangled grammar.

Adversaries to peace in Eternia employ all forms of demonic power - witchcraft, magic, sorcery, and necromancy - to undermine his authority.

Hmm, sounds like the Deliverance Movement.

But wise, handsome He-Man and strong, beautiful She-Rah always triumph.

More bizarre judging according to appearance.

Wouldn't our leader-hungry, evolution-minded earth love a He-Man?

How does one go from “wise, handsome He-Man and strong, beautiful She-Rah always triumph” to “EVOLUTION”? This is nothing more than throwing “danger words” and seeing which ones will stick.

Children flock to video, arcade, and role-playing games filled with supernatural images and demonic suggestions. Blind to the true nature of evil, they play the part of gods in fantasy worlds where dragon power, spell-casting, and sorcery become thrilling solutions to man's struggles.

I agree that this is a troubling trend, but your previous attempts to identify individual culprits have shown me nothing save your fundamental lack of discernment, no better than those who unquestioningly embrace everything.

Jeffrey, a freshman class representative to the student council, played on the high school junior varsity football team in rural Wamego, Kansas. "An average, everyday student," he showed no signs of despondency or other special problems-until the day, February 6, 1985, when he shot himself in the head. All the clues linked Jeffrey's death to Dungeons and Dragons. "He wanted to go to the fantasy world of elves and dwarves instead of the world of reality with conflict," said the coroner. "It led to his death. He had been obsessed with [the game].²

A tragic example of how the world drives people to suicide. The “world of reality with conflict” drove him to kill himself (the “push” factor) not the fictional world of “Dungeons and Dragons” (the “pull factor”). Had he been religious, no doubt he would have instead sought “to go to the peaceful world of heaven instead of the world of reality with conflict” (the fact that suicide is damnable sin notwithstanding).

"The National Coalition on Television Violence claims there have been as many as 109 deaths resulting from heavy involvement in the fantasy role-playing game of Dungeons and Dragons. . . . Eighty ... were murders or suicides."³

If their claims are true, this game encourages dangerous behaviour and should be examined more closely.

D & D players live in a fantasy world of mazes, monsters, and magic.

More obsession with “mazes”. None of these things routinely lead to suicide.

Obsessed with the game, many go on to other occult activities.

I agree. Often role-playing games are used as recruitment by occult groups, who use it to ease people into their bizarre beliefs, which would seem absurd if they came up to you on the streets (of course, any game or pleasant social situation could be used as an opening for dialogue by occultists).

An Ominous Fascination With the Hideous

“...A disturbing hatred of people with less-than-perfect looks”.

Perhaps you remember the Madballs - grotesque bouncing heads with matching names like Wolf Breath, Swine Sucker, Screamin' Meenie. Their inventor, Ralph Shaffer, commented that his successful minispheres would "take the world of cute-ugly into a new direction."

What useless creations. I would question whether a bouncy ball must be dressed for Halloween, but there’s nothing intrinsically EVIL about the madballs.

That was in 1986, when ugly-ugly as well as the cute-ugly were turning the corner and pulling our culture with them. Grotesque, demonic-looking creatures with fiery eyes invaded toy stores - and stayed. Many were mutants - part animal and part human, or a mixture of various animals and monster - and most could wield supernatural power.

...so far nothing has actually been stated.

They won incredible popularity. Children seem to want these ugly hybrid, mutant supernaturals on their wallpaper, curtains, lunchboxes, and T-shirts. They love to cuddle the little demons. One supernatural, Dark Dragon, has black wings and a huge tail with red scales along the sides. It has a lion's mouth, teeth, and claws. Its eyes are glowing red, and out of the center of its forehead shines a large, green third eye. Its chest opens to reveal a skull. Another, Black Star, rides on a green horse with huge bat-like wings and a long blue, orange, and green dragon tail. Its eyes are glowing red and a long tongue dangles from its mouth.

Are these characters depicted as heroic? Is it stated that they use occultic powers?

In a lecture titled "The Rising Interest in the Supernatural," Larry McLain, coauthor of The Early Earth, compares today's grotesque toys to the gods of the ancients:

How unchristian of him.

These [creatures] that show up in archeology and what we would call mythology were not just figments of the imagination. They were literal physical demonic entities that appeared to civilizations of the past. These types of demigods or demonic beings were represented as part human and part animal in their characteristics like this bird-human of the Assyrians. [They can be] horse and human like centaurs. Or fish and human like the god Dagon of the Philistines ... or part jaguar and part human.

The Bible disagrees with McLain - an idol is “nothing in the world” (1 Corinthians 8:4). Of course, I am sure you will pervert this Scripture as you regularly do all the rest and claim that idols are in fact EXTRATERRESTRIAL, but think for a minute. Where in the Bible does it say that “literal physical demonic entities” appeared to civilizations of the past? The fact that the pagan gods were always humanized versions of animals commonly found in the vicinity speaks of me of a LACK of imagination (and ties into an important Biblical theme - please read Romans 1:25, where it is stated that the pagans willfully confused the creature with the Creator).

Notice that tongue hanging out over the chin - which is a universal symbol of demonic possession ... One of the most popular combinations is human and serpent. You can find them on the toy shelves. It's not surprising that pagan religions worshiped serpents and dragons, for the Bible tell us in Revelation 12 that the old serpent, the dragon, is Satan the devil.⁴

Humour me - where in the Bible does it say that a lolling tongue is the “universal symbol of demonic possession”? The pagans worshipped serpents, yes. They also worshipped cows, calves, cats, dung beetles, jaguars, tigers, wolves, buffalos, and pretty much every other animal under the Sun. And again, I point you to Psalms 148:7, which clearly reveals that dragons are a natural force like snow and hail, and are not necessarily evil, though Satan is depicted as a dragon in John’s vision.

Nor should today's growing popularity of demonic Symbols surprise us. The Bible prophesies that demonic activities will escalate before and during the reign of the Antichrist. Could the multiplication of demonic-looking, alien images be part of Satan's plan to prepare us for these awful future events? Even for an invasion of demons?

Some New Agers have circulated an interesting theory concerning the coming disappearance of millions Of Christians: A fleet of UFO's and extraterrestrials will suddenly swoop down to earth to abduct all who resist mankind's spiritual evolution toward New Age global oneness.

What blasphemous, Satanic rot! Repent of this UFO madness now and read the entirety of Ezekiel 1, which has “grotesque” (as you would inevitably term them were they to appear as a toy design) beings as loyal servants of God. By quoting this rot about half-animal, half-human creatures being evil, you profane the messengers of the Lord, of whom it is said:

“And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot: and they sparkled like the colour of burnished brass”.

“And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides; and they four had their faces and their wings”.

“As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle”.

And they even “sparkle” - i.e. “shimmer”, something you object to in your above screed.

Stop believing in things put about by New Agers and start believing the Word of God!

Revelation 9:1-11 foresees a day when the Abyss (the bottomless pit where Satan will be cast for a thousand years) will open with a burst of smoke and release an army of powerful, deadly creatures onto the earth. They will look like a mixture of man, horse, and locust, with wings, "tails and stings like scorpions." Their commander will be Satan himself. Our God will allow it; for man's evil - as in the days of Noah - will call forth this judgment.

Again, you deceive. Satan is not cast into the Abyss until AFTER it is opened. Abaddon (NOT Satan) commands the host released when the Abyss is first opened, and there is no evidence that he is the Beast or Satan. Neither is Abaddon the leader of the second rebellion (the angels sealed in hell in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6), as those angels are “reserved unto judgement”, “the judgement of the great day”. If Abaddon is evil, so are the other angels mentioned in Revelation 9, including the four powerful angels bound in the river Euphrates.

Though children are born with a natural fear of ugly, unusual creatures, this protection has been dulled by massive media exposure and training through toys.

... So children are born with a natural tendency to judge according to appearance?

Children are being conditioned to embrace demonic manifestations, whether they come as intelligent rescuers from outer space or as evolved mutations from earth itself.

More New Age UFO babble.

"Our generation won't be shocked by the demonic invasion. They are actually anticipating that extraterrestrial intelligent beings, who look very different from us, will some day contact the earth and help us with ecological, monetary, and political problems." (Larry MacLain)

But they will not come, because aliens are an evolutionary lie. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT DEMONS WILL TAKE ON THE FORM OF ALIENS AND DECEIVE THE WORLD BEFORE THE START OF THE ESCHATON?

Why wouldn’t they believe these lies? Today's belief in evolution leads them to trust that other forms of life must have evolved elsewhere. "After all," say humanists, "there is no God, but if He existed, He wouldn't have created the whole universe just for earthlings."

Finally, some recognition of the truth.

Maybe He would. Maybe God, who sent His own Son to die for us, would create a universe so vast that man's ego - which wants to explain every mystery without God's help - could not be satisfied. Maybe He did it to show us the immeasurable greatness of His sovereign, creative powers and the infinite width, length, height, and depth Of His magnificent love. I believe He did.

Or maybe, just maybe, the universe is the size and shape the Bible claims.

--Back--

---

Chapter 12: Preparing children to resist manipulation

...By the “discernment ministries”

---

Home | Contents |  Victory |   Armor of God |  Victory |  Articles

^Email this page