Foggy has moved her comment to me to her own thread here: https://www.tfmetalsreport.com/forum/4508/socks-and-underware-and-other-...
I have changed the name of this thread to "The Satanic Agenda and the Problem of Evil" - I did not intend for this thread to get so sidetrack on issues of Christian doctrine instead of focusing on exposing evil (REAL evil, not well-meaning people who have simple differences of opinion on theology!).
So the removal of "Christianity" was not intended to slight the religion but to keep the focus here on the target.
This creepy photo is making the rounds...of course, since it's on Before Its News, take it with a grain of salt:
You could put a little meat around what this satanic agenda is?
Are we talking consumerism to the point of massive debt; to provide the much needed "retail therapy" for those who have been brainwashed by evil to believe that they are worthless, unless they spend spend spend. Thus causing real worthlessness and then perhaps "inhaling" and as such, working for a dime an hour in some correction centre. Providing more profits and cheap consumer goods for evil to flourish.
Or are we just chanting naked in the forest; dancing around some fire while trying to make out the meaning of Saturday night fever - played backward at half speed on some wind up gramophone turny thing?
I think a slight change of topic is a really good idea, but what happened earlier in this thread was a bit of an eye-opener for me. It made me realize just how screwed up men can be when they are raised to be blindly obedient to the doctrine they have been taught since childhood.
In one passage from “Transformation You'll See it When you Believe it”, Wayne Dyer was the first person that I am aware of that stated that “people who are raised to be blindly obedient have the highest level of prejudice”.
Although that passage just got filed in the back of my head, I have become aware of its implications over the past few months, and most particularly this past week.
Teaching a human being from childhood that “men are inherently evil”, combined with “your religion is the only possible path to God”, it is not hard to see where those that are fervently trained in any particular religion will see all others who are not in their religion as people who have no path to God, and then can be deemed “evil”.
Of course we see it in the so-called fanatical Muslims, their actions are pure evil, they live in ideology that says they have the right to annihilate all “nonbelievers”.
But what about mainstream Western theologies? Growing up, Ireland was at war with England, over religion.
Yes, without naming them, some in what I thought were profoundly similar religions, had members of each gunning the other down in the streets in the name of God, blowing up buildings, and creating all kinds of mayhem.
I have a “board certified doctor” who thinks I am the epitome of evil for discussing alternative medicine.
Earlier in this thread, when we were discussing the specifics of certain ideologies, someone who literally preaches the word of God, and whom I believe to be a good man, felt that this discussion has become a thread about witchcraft, when that was never mentioned before.
Religions that describe nonbelievers in the most negative possible context, without even looking into the nature of these beliefs, is pure prejudice, which I define as prejudging something.
I do not study witchcraft, and I do not worship the devil, in fact, I don't believe in one.
And yet, in that ideology, if I don't subscribe to all of its tenants, those are the only remaining options according to such a theology.It's no small wonder that mankind had those medieval “dark ages” because of these beliefs. You would think we would have evolved since then, but we are headed back in exactly the same direction.
Now here's the irony, I don't particularly care what you use for a religion, or if you have one at all.
I tend to judge each and every individual as a separate entity, instead of lumping them into the old-fashioned “you're either with us or you are against us” frame of mind, which is where most people who go to church wind up when confronted with someone of a different faith.
As far as I'm concerned, this particular dynamic is inspired buy pure evil, it's divided mankind into tiny little factions, that either hate, or worse, try to convince “nonbelievers” that they have the only way to salvation.
I don't hold out much hope for the “true believers” who hate all of the “nonbelievers”, but even those at the core of their being, who believe there can be no salvation for those who “don't believe”, will not be able to connect with humanity for what needs to be done, and that is to address the real evil on our planet, those people who came up with this divide and conquer strategy that has kept mankind enslaved for all of recorded history.
That is evil.
When I was in grammar school, the nuns taught us that no one would go to heaven unless they were part of our religion. That is why missionaries go forth to save mankind.
So I ask, what happens if you are never told about this religion?
The answer, you go to a place called limbo for all of the nonbelievers.
What happens if you're told about this religion and you reject it?
Those people go to hell.
Those nuns were pure evil. Teaching a child that you must comply or go to hell, is evil.
I remember stating quite clearly, "I really wish you had never told me about your religion, I would obviously be better off."
That wisdom came from a very young me of about eight or nine years old, who thought the entire concept of religion to be pure hogwash. Just being exposed to the types of people that were so-called true believers, I came to the conclusion that they did not have a clue.
I don't blame anyone for this, I seem to have been born that way.
This is insidious dynamic seems to span all of Western society and the Mid East, and I think it's quite a good description of evil.
So, you wanted to discuss “ the Satanic agenda”?
I think developing a way to get everyone on the planet killing each other in the name of God is a good start.
The German Ethics Council said on Wednesday the government should consider decriminalizing incestuous relationships.
The government advisory body had been considering the question following a 2012 case at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) brought by a man, Patrick S. in an incestuous relationship with his sister, Susan K.
He argued that the law against incest was unconstitutional, but the German Constitutional Court found against him in 2008. The ECHR also rejected his case.
The Leipzig couple were in a relationship and had four children, two of whom were disabled. Patrick served more than three years in prison after criminal proceedings were brought against him.
Now a majority of the Ethics Council's 26 members, who are drawn from prominent scientists, doctors, theologians and lawyers, has recommended that politicians reconsider the law.
'Basic rights denied'
“According to all available data, sibling incest appears to be very rare in Western societies,” the government-funded advisory board said in a statement.
“But affected people have described how difficult their situation is,” the statement continued. “They feel that their basic rights are not respected and forced into secrecy or denial of their love.”
The Ethics Council argued that the criminal law was not the right way to uphold social taboos or set up boundaries for people's sexual behaviour.
They also ruled out the potential consequences for the family or the possibility of the couple's having children as grounds for incest to remain a crime.
“The right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination weighs heavier in these cases than the abstract good of the family,” the Council said.
Nine members of the Council objected to the motion, saying that the law “protected the integrity and incompatibility of different familial roles, as an important precondition of healthy personality development.”
They argued that unlucky rare cases, such as half-siblings meeting one another later in life and beginning a sexual relationship, could be dealt with by guidance to prosecutors rather than a change in the law.
The council has previously ruled on dementia and genetic diagnosis.
That one is only 3 min.
For more of the story, here is a 10 min. one:
Can we talk about Lucifer?
That sounds evil enough.
You can find this show in his recent podcast archives, but Clyde Lewis claims there is an even bigger, darker force behind the so-called "Illuminati" - for lack of a better term, he calls them the "Dark Command" -
I had a discussion with friend of mine who has always had a finger on the pulse of the occult and what we are facing as a people. I am here tonight to warn you that there is darker force awakening in the world and it is not a force that is endorsed by the illuminati.
It is a darker imperial cult that pays homage to demons and darkness that many people in the world are unfamiliar with. Tonight I want you to familiarize yourself with a name , you may not remember it – but it might just show up one day and when it does you will know that it has now arrived and that the force is great and darker and very powerful and the we must guard ourselves from it.
More about halfway through the article at:
In the least, I'm noticing Satanists are in the news a lot more, trying to be accepted as a mainstream religion. Does not bode well.
Ireland and England was not a religious war.
It was just spun that way by those who wanted it spun that way.
It was more about equality and tyranny.
The English (protestants) invaded Ireland with William of Orange (hence the orange marches).
The Irish (Catholics) were systematically kept out of getting the good jobs etc. All the factories were ran by protestants who employed protestants.
But it was really Englishmen employing only Englishmen and Irishmen being kept poor. If the Irish were Green and the English Orange, then you could have called it a colour war.
But it was easier to differentiate an Irishman from an Englishman by his religion.
It had nothing to do with faith per se.
But other than that, agree with everything you wrote fix.
Not to get into the theological debate again, but you accuse people of rigid thinking and yet your view of Christianity is black and white, and apparently not much more developed from when you were a child, it seems. Nuns are "evil" for telling a child about Hell, when they are simply well-meaning? Seriously? And yet, let's say they are right and you are wrong, are you then "evil" for telling people Hell does not exist? No, you are not "evil." You are doing what you think is right at this time. One of you is misguided, but neither is evil.
Did you consider the possibility that your child mind could not comprehend any nuance the nuns might have been teaching about? Or that they simplified things a bit for children?
If you want a more sophisticated view of Hell (and yet one that is a parable) read C.S. Lewis's "The Great Divorce."
BTW, when you come across someone who is a child molester and serial murderer, do you want that person to go to heaven with you without repenting and having their sins cleansed? I sure don't.
It was not nice being a 10 year old girl in the choir...whose aspiration was to become a nun...& then end up being molested by a satanic priest!...I will never forgive them...& may the catholic church & the whole lot of demons...burn in hell!!!...
Bag Of Gold
What would Jesus do to the misguided soul who abused children?
Anger loathing and stoning or love?
Jesus would forgive the person, but that requires the person to repent of what they did and turn to God. The Son of Sam serial killer turned to Christ and is now a minister in prison. You can go read his writings online. He now calls himself "Son of Hope."
So back to our child abuser. If someone that evil chooses not to repent, they have basically chosen to turn their back on God and choose Hell for themselves. In these cases, I have no problem with idea of Hell, which in its essence is simply "separation from God."
If you want to look at it esoterically, the person whose consciousness is so low that they'd wantonly abuse children with no remorse could not possibly reach heaven, because they could not even see it if it were all around them.
Why is it that any disagreement along theological warrants a comment that accuses people of rigid thinking?
Don't forget, I cherry picked, and I admit it.
My “cherry picking” is the result of decades of seeking answers, then literally using my own intuition to determine fact from fiction. If what I've come up with seems “rigid”, it is the direct result of simply stating what I believe to be true.
As far as those nuns being evil is concerned, it goes a lot further than what they taught, it's how they taught it.
They did not just give spankings, they would demand that a child lower their pants so that there completely naked bottom could be pounded with a ping-pong paddle, in front of a class of children.
Their tactics were designed to inflict as much humiliation as possible, and in retrospect, at least I learned not to give a crap what other people thought of me.
That's one example, I could go on, and on, for example, one of my female classmates had been carrying on a sexual affair with the parish priest who was also our religion teacher, and it was widely known at the time,
but he only resigned as a priest decades later after admitting to it publicly.
And then you would have me believe that somehow these people are doing God's work? I call bull shit.
Something that I touched on in a previous post, and I would like to propose further discussion, comes from the post that I just read of yours on the “threat of faith”. It has to do with how people who read and believe their own interpretation of the exact same book can be taught to hate others with a different interpretation of the book.
The evidence for that is everywhere, we have witnessed it in this thread. It is also playing out on a global scale.
For me, to say that “the Koran”, or the “Bible”, is not the word of God, I offer these very clear examples as evidence.
Why would God author a book wide open to different interpretations, that teaches if you get it wrong, you go to hell, but better yet, you may be authorized to kill those with a different interpretation in God's name?
My thoughts on this are not as rigid as you might think, it is a simple question, based on simple observation.
What is unique in our conversation, is that we both have an adequate working knowledge of each other's ideology to have such a conversation.
It has been my experience on “the threat of faith”, that for the most part, my ideology has been labeled “occult”, or “witchcraft”, and has been uniformly compared to “Satanic”. I know that neither of us believe that to be true.
I often ask myself “what would Jesus do”, believing him to have acted out of love in the situations that his life brought to him, and I aspire to do as well.
I once wrote a post entitled “Jesus was nondenominational”, which seem to get rave reviews from those folks,
and yet, they assign labels to those with a differing opinion that are quite derogatory.
Am I rigid in thinking that that is inconsistent? Or is it just an observation.
Most importantly, where did they learn to be like that?
The conclusions that I have drawn are based on the simple questions.
Of course, they are also subject to other interpretations.
I just posted this to “dots”, a few minutes ago, I spent my entire night listening to a really good book.
Stephanie, give me a few minutes, I will reply to your last post.
A book report on “The Harbinger”.
It kept me up until the sun rose, it was quite riveting, I will agree with Katie Rose on that.
For a brief synopsis, it is the tale of a meeting with “a prophet”, who ties current events into those outlined in Isaiah chapter 9 verse 10, that foretold God's wrath on Judea for straying from God's word.
The parallels between ancient Judea and current events in America cannot be ignored, in fact they are blatantly obvious. What “the prophet” often states in his analysis of current events, is that our leaders are unknowingly replicating the events that earned God's wrath almost 3000 years ago.
I disagree with this premise, as I've been saying for a while now, the Bible is being used as a script, and will be held in front of us as the reason for “God's wrath”, as many who believe the Bible is “the word of God”, by carefully following this script, the powers that be will be able to blame the results of their actions on a supernatural deity instead of being held responsible for their crimes against humanity.
My opinion is in stark contrast with “the book”, as all of our current events are attributable to God's will, and yet, we have come to realize on this forum that it is simply part of “an agenda”, designed to take down Western civilization.
All kinds of things that are about to unfold such as drought, and the resulting famine, plague, not just Ebola,
wars of all kinds, and even the financial crisis can be blamed as “acts of God” when most of us are cognizant of the real underlying reasons. In essence, “Armageddon” is being engineered for us, by people with truly selfish motives, and they will use God as taught in Scripture as the reason for what unfolds next.
I can't think of a better reason that I am dubious as to “Biblical authenticity” than the way it is being used in this scenario.
But that's just my opinion,
I would be happy to hear if there is any other.
I suppose it's fairly easy to poke holes in his message, I can do that as well.
Wayne Dyer is a pacifist, is very useful in the “anti-gun agenda”, and his teachings seem to conform enough with the powers that be, to make the sheep in humanity sitting ducks for an evil empire intent on their destruction.
As far as his cocaine abuse, along with his alcohol abuse, he does not need to be accused of anything, he freely admits this. It has been a topic of discussion on more than a few books and interviews.
I tend to agree that “new age philosophy”, has killed a lot of people, people who are not open to solutions outside of their own “rigid set of beliefs”.
For example, the asthma sufferer who refuses to use an inhaler, when it is obviously available, deserves what they get. To me, this is no different then a Jehovah's Witness who refuses a surgery, or a transfusion, when they know full well that it is available, and would save their lives.
My “ideology” if you could call it that, is simply based on finding solutions to whatever life's problems are, I do not care what the source of that solution is, if it is available to me, I will use it.
In essence, I believe “God does not give us a problem without a solution”, and it is often required that one look outside of their own set of rules to find it.
If confronted with an aggressor who would rob me and my family of what we need to survive, I personally would have no problem taking a shot gun to their head.
In that, I am in stark contrast with Wayne Dyer.
Any ideology that allows evil to run rampant, and deprive other human beings their own integrity, is simply giving evil a free pass, and allows it to grow.
Just like the “differing opinions” that you cite in different aspects of Christianity, I have my own differing opinions on either “ancient spiritual writings”, or even Wayne Dyer's teachings.
I do not hold him up as “my God”, he is simply a source of information, and I tend to take what I need, and leave the rest.
Evil thrives when good men do nothing, is a true statement, and is antithetical to what Wayne Dyer teaches.
I reserve the right to “cherry pick”.
The discussion is unproductive because both sides are now using “God” and “the word of God” to support opposing positions, by quoting from the same book, or a representation of their own theologies.
Neither side will ever be swayed in this discussion, as both sides claim “moral authority” over the other.
Does anyone else see the insidiousness of the setup?
These belief systems have been carefully constructed to oppose the conflicting point of view.
It is evil.
As for a definition, I propose that “anything that divides us” is inherently evil.
I also propose that “anything that brings us together on common ground” is inherently good, since it brings us closer to the reality that we are all one.
It is therefore by necessity that we accept those of the differing belief system as individuals on their own path, without judging it.
I only draw the line when it becomes a direct threat to my own well-being, or a threat to humanity.
This becomes problematic, because if you take the discussions that we are having here and widen them to a global perspective, men have been taught to hate each other for such differing beliefs, and some will even take violent action.
Hatred “in the name of God” is rooted in an inherently “false doctrine” and it is global.
The “cure”, will need to become an individual effort, one that excepts other people for where they are at on their journey.
Mankind is capable of achieving a “conscious contact with God”, through a broad variety of means,
it is the individual pursuit that brings about an individual solution.
This contradicts what is taught in church,
but it is also my path, everyone is free to choose their own.
Yes you are right, the powers that be will use whatever is available to them as a smokescreen to divide and conquer.
Just as I have often attributed far more credit to our Teleprompter in chief than he deserves,
calling a war religious, or political, is a distinction without any difference.
It is still a divide and conquer strategy at work.
Today's Steve Quayle alert:
FRIENEMIES :These are Christian people who you know as (friends) and who you believe you can trust, but when It comes to the time of persecution they are the ones (enemies) who will point their finger at you
Special Message that God gave me this morning,
We have reached the age of the FRIENEMIES. These are Christian people who you know as (friends) and who you believe you can trust, but when It comes to the time of persecution they are the ones (enemies) who will point their finger at you. These are so called Christians that are not born again, they are Christians in name only. They are the tares, and they have no desire to change or to seek the Spirit of the Lord during these days.
Friends, the frienemies are all around us, ask God for discernment to who they are, and move away from them. God will deal with them in His time.
Stay strong in the Lord Jesus Christ and keep the Full Armour of God on every minute of the day.
God will be glorified, now and forever,
PASTOR LANKFORD RECEIVED HAD A WORD FROM THE LORD A COUPLE YEARS AGO,WHERE THE LORD TOLD DAVID TO PRAY AND ASK HIM TO REMOVE THE WRONG PEOPLE FROM HIS LIFE -IN ADDITION TO ALLOW GOD TO BRING THE RIGHT PEOPLE INTO YOUR LIFE AND TO PRAY CONTINUALLY FOR DISCERNMENT-HE SHARED THAT THERE ARE ONLY TWO TYPES OF PEOPLE: THE GIVERS AND THE TAKERS-THE GIVERS ARE BORN OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD THE TAKERS ARE OF ANOTHER SPIRIT!
It does not take a lot of “connecting the DOTS” to determine that there is a divide and conquer strategy afoot.
If history is any guide, it will work. This is highly relevant to some of the points that I've been trying to make recently.