[Note: I’m headed on vacation so whitelist moderation is in effect. Might be a few days before I can catch up.]
While I generally don’t swing at my fellow dissidents, doctrinal disagreements paling in comparison to the great evils consuming our entire species, there are times that it’s appropriate. TL;DR for this article: the Cross is sufficient for your salvation. Christianity contains no occult knowledge or divinely favored inner circle. And Satan is NOT a loyal and faithful servant of Father God.
Satanic Propaganda
h ttps://crez.strob.us/2022/220901.html
By Catacomb Resident, 1 September 2022
This document is public domain; spread the message.
Here we go!
Do you suppose we’ve had way too many claims of “Satanic this” and “Satanic that” in recent times? On the one hand, it’s what you would expect from standard political hyperbole. The problem is we have some really smart people using it literally, and they tend to influence a lot of people with their bad doctrine.
I agree it’s overused because the legacy conservative branch of politics is addicted to Gell-Mann Effect outrage porn, but when it comes to literal usage, the proper question is accuracy not frequency.
We are, indisputably, in a time when Satanism is ascendant. Not the lame-o chickens killed in pentagrams and idols of anthropomorphic goats that serve as window dressings & strawman arguments, either, but militant feminism, moral inversion and child sacrifice.
I’ve written extensively on the biblical doctrine of Satan [link omitted]. Propaganda blather about Satan these days rests on Germanic mythology, as if Satan were equivalent to Loki. He’s not.
Loki being the deceiver of the Norse pantheon, that comparison seems appropriate. Regardless, even the outrage-pornographers rarely reference Germanic mythology and this post won’t be making further reference to it.
Satan began as God’s Covering Cherub, a distinctly Ancient Near Eastern concept. He was demoted for cause to serving as God’s Left-hand. It’s not a pleasant job, and nothing so glorious as he had before. He is now the Enemy of God’s people, but he’s good at it, and serves faithfully.
That is a very black heresy. Satan is not a loyal servant of God. He was not demoted, he was exiled and will soon be imprisoned in Hell.
The popularity of that heresy stems from the fact that God could destroy Satan right now, yet has clearly not done so. Why? Either God is unable to punish rebellion against Him, in which case Satan has already won… we can rule out that scenario, his defeat was sealed at the Cross… or God wishes to make use of Satan. Does that make Satan the loyal servant of God? The answer:
His rebellion took place prior to the Creation of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden, and his temptation of them can be treated as his first assignment in his new job.
That word unlocks the answer: temptation. God is not capable of tempting us to disobey Him. It’s a self-defeating proposition. If God tempted us to disobey Him, and we disobey, we’re still doing something that God wanted. He’s offering us two Loyal choices, to obey Him the hard way or obey Him the easy way.
The solution is allowing a second, anti-God choice. Thus, God allows the devil existence and access to humanity so that he can tempt us to disobey God. Which will show God, witnesses and even ourselves, exactly how worthy of trust we are.
But that makes Satan God’s tool, not God’s servant. Like the storyteller’s villain, Satan is a briefly useful entity that must, and will, eventually be denounced and punished.
So, the real problem here is a very bad doctrine of what Satan does, so as to call some human action “Satanic” or now. The Ancient Hebrew outlook was otherworldly to begin with, very much of the mystical approach to things. This human existence is flawed and not precious at all. It is punitive in nature. The limitations we suffer here are part of the sentence against mankind, the Curse of the Fall. We should assume up front that we don’t see things clearly, and the only possible way we can know about eternal matters is by divine revelation alone. We know about Eternity only what God is willing to tell us.
I categorically reject that any part of Christianity relies upon secret or obscure knowledge, as did the Apostles. The very few parts of Christianity that are kept secret, from membership lists to exorcism rites, are secret only for practical (and usually obvious) reasons.
I agree that we only know of spiritual matters what God tells us. I disagree greatly, that God told the important parts only to His inner circle of Special Smart Boys.
We even saw that inner circle of Twelve. They were neither special nor smart.
Thus, a certain amount of human suffering is simply par for the course. That human governments can cause great numbers of people to suffer and die is also par for the course. That’s not especially Satanic.
Better to say, not always Satanic. Soldiers dying in war is morally neutral; Christians dying in persecution is evil.
The whole human race is by default born into Satan’s realm, so he need do nothing at all to gain dominion over them. And abusing them through his proxies is simply what was should expect. When you and I, the people of God, get swept up in this crap, it’s still par for the course. That we should suffer as part of the general human course of sorrow does not reflect any Satanic targeting.
He’s losing me with this idea that Satan’s minions stealing, killing and destroying, is not Satanic. There have been good kings and righteous rulers… not many, granted, but enough to prove that leaders and Satanists are not synonyms.
Humans exist in a very murky field of gray. Very few of us are 100% either way and even then, it’s impossible for others to be certain about us.
The only justification for using the term “Satanic” is when we refer to something Satan does to target God’s people. This is complicated by the recognition that God’s protection is not on His people at large, but is granted only to His people under Covenant.
That is another heresy, that God only protects His loyalists. God didn’t even protect His Son when the time came. “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?” Likewise, we followers of Christ are promised mortal suffering and discipline… upfront.
If you, as a follower of Christ, are not living under the Covenant Covering, you have no grounds for complaint. You can either live by the Covenant or find yourself subject to all the sorrows of the vast heard of humanity under Satan’s control.
Cue the sales pitch. “You are suffering because you don’t have Covenant Covering insurance(tm). Here’s how to order yours!”
In particular is this pernicious idolatry of children and childhood. The West is obsessed with youth and worships childhood.
No. The West is obsessed with coercing loyalty, a sure sign that its rulers are illegitimate usurpers and betrayers. Meanwhile, the birth rate is disastrously low.
What, no sales pitch?
Anything that serves to taint a so-called “normal” childhood is therefore regarded as especially Satanic. This quite alien to the Bible. The Hebrews did have a certain sensitivity about childhood, but only as the symbol of someone defenseless, alongside widows, not a symbol of innocence. Westerners don’t want to hear that in the Bible times, the death of a child was a tragedy only for the family household. It was nobody else’s business…
This concept that society at large somehow has a vested interest in someone else’s children is an abomination to God.
The Mosaic law disagrees, as did Christ Himself in His discourse on necks and millstones. The idea that ‘proper’ Christianity doesn’t care about the deaths of children unless they’re direct blood relations, is an unjustifiable insult.
It arises from idolatry. Further, the only “innocent” children are those living under Covenant Covering. All of the children in this world outside of the Covenant are inherently defiled from birth. The abuses that fall into their lives are simply par for the course, and not particularly Satanic.
You see why I’m giving this article the fisking treatment. If the Crucifixion is not enough to secure our innocence in the sight of God then we aren’t talking about Christianity anymore.
The only proper use of the term “Satanic” refers to various efforts to deceive and manipulate those who are consciously seeking to walk in the Covenant.
What about using “Satanic” to describe attributes and behaviors typical of Satan? That would also be a proper use of the term…
This is the only thing that represents a change. Satan already has the rest of the world; his abuse of humanity is not particular “Satanic”.
…or not?
There’s no loss to the Kingdom of Heaven in that. It’s his efforts to pull Covenant people back into his realm that is a change, a genuine loss to the Kingdom of Heaven.
Yes, we can talk all day long about how individual rulers and groups of elites are doing evil, but there is nothing particularly Satanic about that… It is not a transgression of any kind. It does not represent a rebellion against divine order.
Heresy again. “If you aren’t ‘Covenant people’ then you’re neither an innocent follower of Christ nor a guilty follower of Satan.”
Civilization is certainly not divine order. Walking in the Covenant alone is divine order. It should be obvious how Satanic it is to confuse this issue.
I kept waiting for the sales pitch on this “Covenant Christianity” but it never came. Maybe there’ll be a followup article on how God refuses to defend any innocent or right any wrong unless it’s committed against God’s inner circle of Ancient Hebrew Mystic True Believers, which Satan… being “God’s faithful left hand”… won’t touch.
Meanwhile, the only God I know… Christ the Creator Of Life, Savior of Humanity and True Son of the Father… Christ did not exempt Himself from suffering under Roman Empire occupation, Smart Boy Pharisees and temptation by the Literal Devil In Person. God’s Son must not have been part of this “Covenant”. Nah, He must have been a special case that didn’t mean anything.
It’s part of the Fall itself to insist that what mankind can do without God’s revelation still has value. It is trash, all of it vanity and waste.
That Internet you’re using? You’re welcome. That food you’re eating, some of which was grown by evil men who’ll never see Heaven? You’ll miss it when it’s gone. “Hello, plumber? My water pipe is leaking but unless you’re Covenant(tm), fixing it would be vanity and waste.”
What I’m asking is that you not get wrapped up in defending what mankind can do without God. Only what we do within the Covenant boundaries is blessed and protected, and Satan is highly constrained by the Covering. Trying to define as godly something entirely human in origin is a primary tactic of Satan.
A primary tactic of Satanic propaganda is moving the goalposts. Of course something entirely human is not something Godly, that’s a trivial statement, but that’s not what we were talking about until the last sentence.
We were talking about… concern for the welfare of children being an abomination to God, because Satan being God’s Left Hand, spares the specially deserving but not the innocent.
I’m not even curious what he’s trying to sell.
I have to say, I also found that post quite bewildering.
Yeah, can’t argue with your analysis here. Will be interesting how he responds, if at all.
Catacomb Resident from what little I read on his site seems to be a Hebrew Roots type. The one article I was able to get even beyond two sentences on (honestly he is kind of unreadable) was about how he thinks the Greek conception of God ruined Christianity and we must get back to the Hebrew conception. This is standard Hebrew Roots hogwash antitrinity spew, and just outright gateway to becoming an ouright Jew or Mohammedan. But what he said didn’t directly address the trinity. Rather he took the Muslim view that God is neither good nor evil but both and that therefore everything happens by fatalism more or less. That is at least how I interpretted it and this was a post last week or week before.
Oh yeah and he was also against being able to know anything by philosophy, saying only what is revealed in scripture can be known. This ignores that Plato was talking about a logos before John was written, so apparently Plato figured some things out by philosophy (as the church fathers loved to point out). If they were too Greek in their thinking, how is John not? So Catacomb Resident is on his way to joining Whitehouse Resident (who is half Iraqi Jew) and his cabinet in Judaism.
Catholics claim that there were two invocations of papal infalliability: Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin in 1854 and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in 1950. There is no question that thousands upon thousands have witnessed visions of the Virgin Mary, both publicly and privately over the last two hundred years. Anyone denying that those visions happened is probably one of those atheist types who denies that 99.9999% of the world’s historical population believed in the supernatural. So given that they did in fact happen, the only question is whether or not they were genuine or not. If they were not, they are satanic.
What is interesting is how recent this is, with most of the visions and doctrinal work occurring in the last 200 years. Moreover, in invoking the Immaculate Conception, Catholic scholars can’t find any evidence of this belief before 350AD.
By the numbers, Catholics make up 50% of the world’s population of Christians. The basic implication is that half of all Christians are required to embrace blatantly satanic doctrines. If Satan’s power is so great that he can ensnare half of all Christians, what more can he do with those who don’t even have the Word of God to protect them?
Unfortunately, some Orthodox Christians also believe that Mary did not sin. Whether some also believe that you need Jesus + Mary I don’t know, but assume the numbers would be similar as for the wrong belief that Mary did not sin.
Gunner, it’s obvious that you’re not a Calvinist. Catacomb’s takeoff is from a distinctly Calvinistic viewpoint. Those who are not Calvinists will have a difficult time with this viewpoint.
The way I understand Calvinistic theology is that God is ultimately in control, and therefore, anything Satan does must also be “allowed” by God.
You even highlighted this when you wrote,
And…
Yes, so the work (or responsibility) of tempting and testing is done by Satan, thereby leaving us the choice of whether to follow after God or the flesh / Satan. This is how God has arranged things.
Exactly. I’m sure Catacomb is aware of this, but he makes light of it by making Satan out to be “on an assignment from God”. It strikes me as funny. I’ve heard other Calvinists describe this relationship between God and Satan as being a “terse friendship” or “master and slave”. It’s just an informal description intended to add vivid color to the illustration. It’s not meant to be a Biblical exegesis.
Catacomb isn’t claiming this. Catacomb’s beliefs are different from Mainline Calvinism in that he embraces an Ancient Near East interpretation of scripture (i.e. examining the cultural context in which it was written) and he adopts a mystical approach to faith. He’s saying we cannot know God entirely, and that our experience and knowledge of Him arises from individual mystical faith. Mysticism is not esoteric to the man of faith, but it is to others. I think you misunderstand what mysticism is.
Catacomb is saying that it’s not Satanic because those people were born into a fallen world and so they already belong to Satan’s kingdom. Therefore, it is entirely natural for them to suffer.
The Calvinist idea is that God liberally blesses all humans in various ways, but the blessings and spiritual coverings are curtailed the farther one gets from God. Those whom you call “loyalists” and the “specially deserving” are those who are faithfully obedient to God’s Law and Order and therefore receive considerably more blessings and protection as a result of their obedience. This is about receiving the fruits of obedience, not about ‘salvation by works’.
When Catacomb wrote,
I think he is referring to how children are taken away from their parents by the state for various reasons, like when deciding divorce custody and visitation, or if the parents disagree with the child’s gender identification, or condoning teenage abortion without parental notification, and so on.
He’s not saying that “‘proper’ Christianity doesn’t care about the deaths of children unless they’re direct blood relations”; he’s saying that it’s wrong for other people to take such an opportunity to meddle in family affairs.
Right. He’s referring to people who never repented and their dependent children.
Right. If you replace, ‘Covenant people’ with ‘truly saved’ it makes perfect sense to Evangelical tastes. Believers are not declared innocent until they repent and trust God. Unbelievers are not conscious of their guilt until they come to Christ. Nothing heretical about that.
That’s because you’re expecting an Evangelical message, but the Calvinist perspective is that God chooses who is saved, and our efforts at evangelism don’t change God’s mind. It only finds those whom God has already chosen. The term ‘Covenant’ refers to our responsibilities to God and to our relationships with other believers in our church and community.
Finally, thanks for going over this. It’s a good opportunity for Calvinists and Evangelicals to meet and discuss.
Jack,
When Jesus says “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink”, will they respond:
“But Lord! When we saw those in sin, we prayed that grace would not fall upon them. We prayed that the Wolf—Satan—would have them.”
This is the same way of thinking that leads to “the best way to love my enemy is to kill him, so he can’t keep sinning.” How best to love your neighbor? Treat him as a hated enemy and pray that ill befalls him.
What is there to discuss if God has already predetermined the outcome? When I see someone who is lost, my inkling is to help them if I can, not wish harm upon them. By believing in predestination, they relieve themselves of Jesus’ primary commands: “love your neighbor as yourself” and “go and make disciples of all nations”, not to mention the goal of “go and sin no more”.
Loki as Honk Honkler?
The Long March will succeed in destroying the once great republic, try to build something out of the remnants.
You’re ahead of the curve, creating is not something that the useless idiot minions of Satan are capable of and there won’t be any light switch reset with the CPUSA in power for 1000 years after they burn it all down.
I believe that the Catholic Church is the one that Jesus vomits out in Revelations.
I also believe that, when the Antichrist reveals himself in the not-too-distant future, whoever is Pope at the time will be the False Prophet.
The Beast is the Roman Papacy. Only the Roman papacy ensures a continuous line of antichrist, falsely claiming the divine power of Christ, the very definition of “antichrist”.
The False Prophet is [the Apparition of] Mary, who appears and testifies on behalf of the Beast and corrupts with false doctrine that turns worship away from Christ (e.g. Immaculate Conception, Assumption; Papal Infallibility). The purpose of the False Prophet is to perpetrate false doctrine, by show of its power.
The False Prophet can call down fire from heaven.[1] Are you aware of the Miracle of the Sun that Mary performed at Fatima Portugal, where as many as 100,000 pilgrims went to witness fire from heaven that dried up the heavy rain from the ground, on October 13, 1917? There is also a report of another Miracle of the Sun on December 8, 1949 by Mary in Heroldsbach, Germany to 10,000 witnesses. The prophecy has already been fulfilled. Pius XII in his memoirs wrote that
The Image of the Beast is the Roman Catholic Eucharist, Transubstantiation, the Host.
Image can speak. There are numerous instances spanning hundreds of years (since before the Inquisition) of the Host speaking to its recipients, in audible words. There are also well known cases of the host turning into actual flesh—heart muscle—so what is speaking? I do not dismiss these as legend.
Those who refused to worship the image were killed. Though this is considered bad form to mention these days, the Roman Catholic Church had people executed for refusing to take the Roman Catholic Eucharist (e.g. Inquisition; Reformations)
But perhaps most important is the mark, to be received on their right hands or forehead, which is mentioned time and again in Revelation.[2] Scripture mentions the forehead and right hand three times.
Exodus 13:6-9: Unleavened Bread at Passover: Unleavened bread will be a sign on your hand and a reminder on your forehead.
Exodus 13:12-16: The redemption of the firstborn. Like a sign on your hand and forehead.
Deuteronomy 6:6-8, 11:18: Teaching commandments. To be in your heart and mind, tie them as symbols on your hands and foreheads.
Of these, only the first is something that is made by human hands, something that can be received and worshiped: bread. It is no coincidence that unleavened bread is to be received (figuratively) on the right hand and forehead, the mark of the beast is received on the right hand and the forehead, and the Roman Catholic Host is bread. Just bread. Worshiped as an idol. Nothing else fits the prophecy.
[1] Revelation 13:13
[2] Revelation 13:16-17, Revelation 14:9, 11, 15:2, 16:2, 19:20 and 20:4)
My spam filter triggered at two links, FYI.