Truth be told, I am not actually completely on board with the "Satanic" thing.
Not that I think that Satanism isn't real; the evidence is overwhelming. Not that I think that it isn't used to control the pieces on the board (Presidents, entertainers, Prime Ministers, Kings, Queens, Media heads, etc.). The evidence for that also is overwhelming. Not even that it hasn't been around for a very long time, controlling the masses; again, the evidence is very compelling that it goes back as a top level down social control mechanism for millennia.
My thought on it though, is that it may not be the actual religion of those at the very top of the food chain; the actual players (not the pieces on the board). Satanism (or Moloch(ism)) has all the elements of psychological control for world domination. It may have been created or adapted for the specific purpose of control.
This is a larger theory I am working on (my evidence is not yet great), but I am thinking there may be even more to the story, and Satanism is a contrivance of control from whoever, or whatever, is at the very tippy top of the pyramid.
Just a thought based on some hints here and there.
Luke.4 [5] And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
[6] And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
[7] If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.
This was a real temptation. Everything was given to Satan by God, and it was his to give to Jesus. Satan challenged God in the garden of Eden. God basically said, "Okay wise guy, prove it."
Jesus didn't know the future. He had faith in the Almighty that it would be so. He was so afraid that he even prayed on the day of his death that God's will, not his own, take place. And don't forget, he could have a legion of angels at his side and the suffering ended if he asked for it.
We think we're so special when we endure a little suffering, but we can't actually ever stop it and might if we could... Jesus endured the worst and could have stopped it at any time. Think about that for a minute.
Our Constitution was written by people with basic values of right and wrong. If you put your hand on a Bible and swore to tell the truth, it was the truth. No one would lie. They would turn bright red and sweat and everyone would know it was a lie.
But we have people now that rape, mutilate, kill and eat children so it's a piece of cake to pull off a lie with a straight face.
I would like to offer a view that differs in some ways. Not to contradict your faith, but to offer a view that perhaps looks at certain other aspects that can be gleaned from scripture.
I suppose I'm not trying to contradict, but actually I strongly disagree with the view that God gave everything to Satan. That view is NOT held up by scripture.
Rather, the truth, I think is that God created Adam and Eve as his precious, pure children. God gave Adam the authority to "name all things", which indicates that essentially Adam was to be the king of the whole world, the Lord of all God's creation.
As God's son, he stood to inherit everything God had created, but like all wise father's, the Creator knew that without his own responsibility, and heir is not worth too much. That's one reason why God gave Adam the commandment - do not eat of the fruit.
In the state of immaturity, Adam and Eve would be susceptible to temptation. The commandment was to keep them on track. As long as they kept faith in God and his commandment, the devil would not be able to cause them to fall.
What happened? The Archangel Lucifer (symbolized by the "serpent") approached Eve and by lying to her, undermined her faith in God. So he tempted her to "eat" of the fruit. Two things happened. One, Lucifer fell in that moment to become Satan. Two, Eve was 'reborn' as Satan's daughter, now under his influence. Satan used Eve to then approach Adam, to tempt Adam via Eve. She did, and Adam also fell.
Adam was the one given the responsibility to grow to his completion, and then return everything back to God. Then, with Father and Son united, God would rule the world thru Adam. Instead, Adam actually handed over everything to Satan.
Because Adam was in that position, this is how Satan gained control and an illegitimate sovereignty over the world. "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."
Spiritual death is separation from God, and Satan became ruler over the world because the legitimate ruler, Adam, handed it over to him. This is why Satan has a claim.
God did not hand it over, Adam did. We, the descendents of Adam, must take it Back. This is why we must be reborn through Jesus. Jesus reclaimed it all spiritually by salvation through the cross, but because he had to hand over his body to Satan as the price, this is why Christ must return (to reclaim the sovereignty over the physical world, in addition to the sovereignty over the spiritual world that Jesus accomplished via the Cross).
This is why since Jesus, the world has continued under Satan's rule, despite the fact that spiritually, we can be reborn through Jesus & the Holy Spirit. But to be reborn, WE have to choose. Jesus offers us the door, but We must walk through it. Jesus restores what Adam did, but for each of us to escape Adam's (satan's) lineage, we too must choose and step through the door.
I expound some aspects of why this process takes so much time, in the post below:
I think Anton LaVey, founder of LaVeyan Satanism was inspired by Satanism. I think Nietzshe and Rand were also inspired by Satanism.
Satanism, in its current form, according to the evidence I have seen, predates all philosophers of note. It has its roots in Paganism and the worshiping of Moloch, which likely have a common root. While I agree with your assessment of its "self above all" idealism, those began with the Religion of Nature (i.e. Paganism) many thousands of years ago, not Anton LaVey.
As for the rest, I'd love to express my opinions and present my evidence, but it sounds like you have your mind pretty solidly made up on what is truth. It sounds to me like any evidence to the contrary wouldn't start a conversation, but rather an emotional response of adamant belief.
I personally start with the axiom of my own lack of knowledge of what is truth. Knowing that I know nothing allows me to see evidences that others might miss or immediately dismiss because it doesn't fit within the framework of a larger belief system of "truth". You however seem to be pretty certain of what is truth. It shuts down any earnest investigation contrary to that "truth" out the gate.
If you wish to start with a more open mind, I'd be happy to show you evidence that the Bible itself has Satanic influences and was likely written as it was purely as a social control structure. In no way does the evidence negate the teachings of Jesus (for which I have great appreciation), but it is compelling evidence that the religion called Christianity, and many of the tenets of it, especially those that come from the teachings of the Old Testament (Torah, i.e. "The Book of the Law") are in no small part influenced by the tenets that influence Satanism, Paganism, Molochism, Judaism (both forms), Muslim, Norse, Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Babylonian, etc., etc.. There are even similar influences in the Eastern religions of Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism. Confucianism (from my limited knowledge of only having read the book once) is completely a social control structure, so escapes many of the tenets that plague the more spiritual religions.
It's confusing. There is no clear answer. I have asked Satanists exactly what it is & I get different answers every time. I evaluate more by what they do than what they say & I agree, they tend to hold themselves most high. Christianity on the other hand, tends to hold God & the other higher. Of course they all influence each other & have over time
Some Satanists just say that Satan is "the advisory" in the way that Christ once called Saint Peter and even that Christ himself could be seen as the adversary of the old Jewish religious hierarchy. Yes, there are elements of each in each other but ultimately, in Christianity one tends to humble one's self in respect to God & their fellow human. Satanists tend to exalt themselves not just in relation to others but even to God! They would call themselves "god" I saw one Satanist once write: "I don't worship Satan, Satan worships me"
Personally, I think that one big lie & at some point, they are going to get one very rude awakening......
Yes, there are elements of each in each other but ultimately, in Christianity one tends to humble one's self in respect to God & their fellow human. Satanists tend to exalt themselves not just in relation to others but even to God!
I did not mean to suggest that they were the same across the board. I did not mean that at all. I agree with your assessment of differences. I was merely pointing out (without providing actual evidence) Luciferian influences within the Bible, or perhaps rather, influences from the same source that influenced Luciferianism.
Here is something I wrote in another post on this topic. It shows these potential influences in the RELIGION we call Christianity (something completely separate from the TEACHINGS of Jesus).
The Nicene convention (NC) three centuries after Jesus' death was the final editor of the Bible most people ascribe as "complete". It was overseen by the Editor in Chief, Emperor Constantine, a self proclaimed worshiper of the Sun God (Lucifer). Was it based on previous works? Almost certainly. There is no dispute of that coming from me. But based on previous works and "final edit" means changes were made, or decided upon, or whatever.
The bible describes itself as "complete".
“For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Revelation 22:18-19)
Who ordered that? Who decided that little sentence? Was it in fact the apostle John as many wish to believe (but for which there is much debate)? Did he maybe write it slightly different, but a few word changes made it into a closed circle that would forestall any future questions of the Christian Religion created at the NC? How could such a sentence make sense Prior to when the conventioneers decided on which books to include and which to leave out?
How do you know there weren't many other previous revisions or edits to create the Religion between the time of the original author and the NC? I mean, that is exactly what the NC did: formalize the tenets of the Religion, creating a formal work of dogma which was thereafter used as a means of social control of several continents for almost two millennia.
The bible as known today was a work of dogma created at the convention. A change of phrase here, a word there, can make all the difference in the world. It doesn't take much to completely alter meaning.
It's also very important to realize (which most do, but don't fully grasp) that the entire concept of "the law" part of the bible (Torah) is in large part the Jewish bible. Within it are stories of things like God demanding, or desiring first born son blood sacrifices, etc..
"Oh, but that's just the way the world was then." Really? So God wanted first born son sacrifices just like Moloch?
Look at the original Passover event. The Torah (old Testament) version of the "Creator God" apparently wanted all first born Egyptian sons to die so badly, he sent his angels to kill them all. "Oh, but that was only a last resort because they wouldn't let 'God's chosen people' go" (think about who those "chosen people" were, one chosen race above all humanity in the entire world). Please note that murder by angel directive is not the same thing as "allowing bad things to happen". This is a direct act of murder by thug. So God wouldn't have killed them all (because presumably such a direct action of murder is bad) if they had only let the people go. God had to choose the lesser of two evils...
What kind of Creator God has to choose the lesser of two evils? Does that make ANY SENSE AT ALL?
Of course, the bible also says "if you run into logic that doesn't allow this book to make sense, take it on faith that the book is right and the logic is wrong".
ONE form (life) within ALL flow (inception towards death) for the sustenance of self (blood aka the shared identity of multiple ONEs within ALL aka that which remains of form within flow).
From the energy perspective...velocity of flow causing momentum aka the resistance of form within the velocity of flow causes friction aka vibration aka resonance aka heat; which requires cooling for balance (liquid based cooling such as water; seed; oil...blood).
Satanism, in its current form, according to the evidence I have seen, predates all philosophers of note
Any and all -isms represent suggested meaning as "words" to the free will of those who consent to believe them. Believing a suggested word represents a) submission to the free will of others who then gain the power to act in the name of the suggested word; brand; label; symbol; idol and b) it uses choice to evaluate a suggested value by the choice of others; which implies ignorance of being choice responding to balance causing choice.
The evidence you base your assumptions upon are based on the suggested words of others aka spell-craft aka idolatry of meaning within a system that does not use words to define itself; but movement to communicate inspiration.
PHILOS'OPHY, noun [Latin philosophia; Gr. love, to love, and wisdom.] represents the "want" for KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists"; which ignores that we a) perceive ALL existence has to offer and b) that adaptation by choice to the balance of ALL moving inspiration is "needed" for self sustenance of form within flow.
"current form" implies temporary form within ongoing flow, yet consenting to believe the suggested information by other form tricks us to ignore adaptation to flow, and the choice of ignorance corrupts ONEs comprehension of ALL perceived.
Religion of Nature
RELIGION, noun [Latin religio, from religo, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind.] The original bond represents offer/consent aka flow/form aka balance/choice. The "new" bond represent ignorance of the original bond for consent to believe suggested information (-isms) by other form.
Nature doesn't have a religion; because nature doesn't require consent by belief; by faith; by trust; by submission...it demands adaptation by choice of reaction, and that's what we ignore when consenting to believe; trust; have faith in, submit to the suggestions of others, who then parasitically exploit our ignorance of free will of choice by use of their free will of choice...the choice we are being deceived to consent to by our choice.
he axiom of my own lack of knowledge of what is truth.
KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists". Each ONE perceives ALL; yet lacks comprehension (understanding) of what ALL perceived (knowledge) means. Adaptation as ONE by choice of reaction to ALL is what builds ONEs comprehension of ALL perceived.
Our senses perceive movement aka inspiration to react to. Others suggest us information to believe in; which then causes the conflict of reason (true versus false) between those who believe and those who do not, which is called division (reason) by suggestion (-isms).
You have lack of understanding (comprehension); not lack of knowledge (perception). The parasites suggest you information as knowledge so that you understand them...while ignoring the reality that communicates to your perception; which in return corrupts your comprehension.
True and false information do not exist within nature. Suggested words deceive you to consent to believe they do; which puts you into the conflict of reason (true vs false) among each other about the suggested words. You are tricked to fight each other over idols of suggested meaning (words aka spell-craft). Nature does not communicate itself through words; it moves us which causes the sound we need to resonate with by choice of reaction to it. Shaping sound into words to define meaning represents ONEs ignorance of ALL; which in return causes dissonance.
Knowing that I know nothing
Nature does not offer you "nothing"; it offers your perception everything aka ALL. Nothing originates in your consent to believe the suggestion thereof by others who deceive you to build your comprehension upon nothing aka fiction over reality aka 0 over 1 (which is what transhumanism perpetuates).
You know (perceive) everything; you lack comprehension of what it means tho, and need to use your free will of choice to build it...to transmute potential (comprehension) out of potentiality (perception) by choice of reaction.
The Book of the Law
Aka the suggestion of "in the beginning was the word" laying the foundation for spell-craft; for others to suggest meaning by suggesting words; which when consented to gives the few the power to act in the name of the words the many believe in...fictitious meanings within an ignored reality. Your ego represents a self inflicted corruption of communication; based on consented to meaning of words; which endlessly tempts you to ignore adaptation to that which is (moving reality) for contemplation over that which ignores it (affixed word based meanings).
Someone disagreeing with you does not constitute a "shill". This is not an echo chamber. Don't try to make it one on the strength of your personal belief system.
It's true. There is the truth and there is deception. There is ONE TRUE RELIGION and the rest are variations of the same deception that Lucifer sold Eve in the Garden of Eden: self worship and man becoming his own god (Qabballah, Freemasonry, Hermeticism, Rosicrucianism, Mormonism, etc).
Saying there is one reality, one objective truth is not self-worship.
You expressing your beliefs is not offensive. It would only be offensive if you tried to force me to adhere to your "truths" in an attempt to try to shut down my own investigation and use of critical thinking and discernment.
I've heard of both and used to watch their presentations back in the day. Michael Tsarion's were especially interesting with his lectures on the symbology they insert everywhere.
can you expound on what you mean in your third sentence? other than it being a well known Q-ism, i have always wondered the meaning of this.
The "satanic" part does not actually refer to Satanism. Many who do not worship Satan or even know anything about Satanism, are Satan's instruments.
"satanic" - small "s" - refers to who is in charge, the purpose and direction. The context is squarely in a world view were the Creator is God, the Father, and the force of evil opposed to God and His purpose, and intentions for Humanity, are rooted in the fallen archangel, who became "Satan".
The small "s" gives this away. Anything that destroys families is satanic. Anything that undermines humanities free will and capacity to build a relationship with God is satanic. Heck, a lot of Holly wood content is "satanic" in as much as it advances a satanic agenda.
Whether the upper echelons actually practice Satanism or Luciferianism or whatever, or not, their actions, purposes and agenda is "satanic" - they are instruments advancing the agenda of Satan.
Note: "Satan" - hebrew word meanings "the adversary", "the one who resists"
I agree with your vibe totally. For every "manufactured" thing - there is ALSO a "manufactured" conspiracy. Most people call that "controlled opposition." My most recognizable example is 9/11. Let me explain.
The sheep think "terrorists" flew planes they learned how to fly using microsoft flight simulator.
Almost everyone else left over thinks it was "controlled demolition."
Like 0.0001% see the logic in DEW (directed energy weapons.) Read Judy Wood's 500+ page book PROVING what did NOT happen. She didn't outright say what did happen - but you can be educated on what did not happen. Then things will fall into line.
You see my point? Maybe "Satanism" is truly a controlled opposition?
Although on this point, I am not sure. Look at the ancient orient. The whole "Yin/Yang" thing exists for a reason. Maybe half the world is just evil.
Maybe the whole concept of Ying/Yang is designed to distract or mislead. That there is a "reason" for the concept of dueling duality is indisputable, but what that reason is, is imo not clear.
The two sided nature of our reality is a complete illusion. The reality is, there is only one side (reality), or perhaps it is that there is a thousand sides, a million, billion, trillion sides (each individual perception of reality). The entire concept of "two parties", Red v. Blue e.g., is almost certainly contrived specifically to keep us distracted from the truth; that the real enemy is the Bankers (or whatever you want to call them today).
The concept of a duality to nature, "two sides to every coin", is an inherently self-limiting concept (or as I stated above, not "self" limiting, but intentionally limiting). But even if it is true, do the two sides need to be equal? Is the balance of the universe REALLY two equal sides of something?
Where in nature do we see that? I can't think of a single place where such balance exists. On the contrary, entropy suggests exactly the opposite of Yin Yang.
Within the scope of human existence, Yin Yang makes a lot of sense, but perhaps that is exactly because human existence has been controlled for a very long time by the creation of a dueling duality matrix overlaid on what would otherwise be a very dynamic society of a billion independent voices.
You just perpetuated it by trying to describe it...mechan (ism) aka a suggestion of meaning; that tricks those who consent to believe it, to ignore the mechanic underneath everything (energy) aka the energizing aspect of reality which not just moves us; but offers ALL information to each ONE within through movement representing communicated inspiration for our free will of choice to react to.
What defines choice? Balance. What defines balance? Flow. What does flow define balance for? For the choice of form (life) within the balance of flow (inception towards death). What does consenting by choice to suggestions made by the choice of others imply? Ignorance of balance.
Consent to believe the suggestions of others domesticates the free will of choice of the many under the suggestions made by the free will of choice of the few; thereby causing a chain of command under false authority aka a pyramid scheme.
Truth be told
Nature does not tell us true information; neither does it offer false information; instead it moves us; which we perceive as movement with our senses; which inspires us to adhere to the demanded need for adaptation by choice of reaction.
The few utilize spell-craft to suggest idolized meaning to the many in form of "words"; words that when consented to by free will of choice; allows those who suggested them to act in the name of (in nomine) them; while the perception of reality by those who consented to believe them will be shaped by the free will of the few who act for example in nomine patris (ALL) et filii (ONE) et spiritus sancti (spirit; from spiro "to breathe" aka adaptation as ONE to ALL).
The highest value in ALL existence represents ONEs choice to evaluate it, and evaluation as form within flow isn't about defining value into flow; but about maintaining balance as form for the sustenance of self; which requires constant adaptation by evaluation of ever changing circumstances.
ALL represents ALL predefined value aka the source of ALL information (potentiality of energy); which causes flow (loss of potentially); which causes the momentum within which form (growth of potential) can temporarily sustain itself within flow.
Choice (form) is defined as a reaction to balance (flow); the choice to ignore this (want over need) is what causes the few to parasitically exploit the ignorance of the many by suggesting them the choice of want over need aka deadly temptations that feed form back into flow.
Not that I think that Satanism isn't real;
"not" represents your consent to believe in suggested nothingness; "think" represents adaptation to flow; yet is being corrupted by the consented to beliefs into you thinking about word based definitions suggested to you by others for what you believe represents "reality". Nature doesn't brand itself as real or false; because any such label; brand; idol would ignore that nature (energy) is constantly changing aka in motion. Movement demands adaptation from those within; upholding beliefs (-isms) of meaning represents stagnation in ignorance of adaptation.
There's no "isn't" aka "is nothing" within energy; which represents everything (ALL) for the ONEs within; who have the free will of choice to transmute out of ALL aka out of base (alchemy). The few utilize alchemy to transmute suggestion and consent by free will to it into corruption of ONEs comprehension (potential) towards ALL perceived (potentiality) inspiration.
it may not be the actual religion of those at the very top
RELIGION, noun [Latin religio, from religo, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind.] aka the exploitation of the original bond (offer/consent aka balance/choice aka flow/form aka loss/growth) through suggestion of meaning by spell-craft (words).
The few offer the free will of choice of the many another choice to submit to; which represents the choice to ignore being choice within balance in need of adaptation by choice to balance.
The few suggest; the many consent to ignorance; the few then farm the ignored potential of the many while directing their self destruction by ignorance through the so called beast system of "society"; where suggestion 'enter tame minds' (entertainment) and religion binds anew; where govern (control) ment (from mens; mind) is suggested as representatives for choice and so on.
psychological control
Offer (suggestion) meets consent (choice of want over need aka ignorance of need over want). The rest represents a sales-pitch to get the many to consent to the suggestions of the few like for example the laws of men as the suggested inversion of the laws of nature (as defined by flow upon form); or deities as unquestionable authorities as the suggested inversion of free will of choice representing ONEs sole authority over self within ALL; or money as the suggested inversion of evaluation by choice by using choice to suggest value to others (which afterwards allowed them to utilize usury to devalue everything the ignored evaluation of the many consented value to; including "intellectual property").
for world domination
Freedom represents form having "free" will of choice within the "dom"-inance of balance within flow. Flow dominates form, yet the ignorance thereof by form allows other form control over ignored potential within flow.
It may have been created or adapted for the specific purpose of control.
Creation doesn't exist within ALL energy; since ALL already exists (it's each ONE within that lacks comprehension thereof; hence allowing the growth of potential). Form transmutes out of flow aka reacts (adapts) by choice to ALL offered (to perception), and doing so is what allows the building (growth) of potential (comprehension).
the very tippy top of the pyramid.
There's none. The "all seeing eye" is above the pyramid (comprehension). The few even suggest a sleight of hand by removing the capstones. A pyramid scheme of form within flow deceives all consenting participants within the want progress aka ignore self sustenance for the temptations by the pull of flow upon form. Those within the chain of command will kiss up; while kicking down; which inspires those above to unite in the exploitation of those below to stay in control, while chasing towards progress aka death.
This pyramid scheme aka the chain of command aka a world wide caste system of consent to ignore free will for submission to the suggested choices of others...represents self perpetuation of ignorance of form through flow.
The few with eyes to see (comprehension) use suggestion to feed wants to the participants of this self destructive system; while harvesting the chain of command which submits to any suggested orders; while fighting among each other about any attempt of free will to not follow the suggested orders of others.
The few also suggest "blame" so that the many can shirk responsibility of their ignorance onto others; while staying ignorant, to the point where the few suggest persecution of themselves as the most convenient defense against the ignorance of the many. For as long as the many have a few to blame; they will not question their own choices aka the response as form to flow aka the responsibility of having choice within balance.
The few represent a reaction to the ignorance of the many; and that mass ignorance is what inspires the few to ruthlessly exploit the many. There's no us versus them within energy...no conflict whatsoever; just the choice of adherence (need) and ignorance (want) in balance with each other.
Just a thought based on some hints here and there.
Aka adaptation to inspiration over consenting to believe suggested information.
It goes back to ancient egypt and possibly before then. Pharaohs were the original illuminated ones. Pyramids invariably referred to as where the light of heaven touches the Earth etc.
Frued theorised that Moses was actually an Egyptian noble who knew the dark arts in Moses and Monotheism. Interesting fact, Frued was literally suicided that year after being chewn out by the [press] for publishing such wrong think. Also interesting is that Solomon was the descendent of Moses, who built the temple with the seal of solomon, which is basically the seal of satan. Interesting again is that the fires that consumed the temple were witnessed and recorded by (iirc) 3-4 distinct scholars from different religions and political creeds.
What happened after that temple fell? Roman Empire, Holy See, British Empire, East India Corporation, City of London, 1776, Washington DC.
They kill babies. They support killing babies up to nine months, and some even support post-birth abortion. How is that not satanic? It's about as satanic as you can possibly get.
Truth be told, I am not actually completely on board with the "Satanic" thing.
Not that I think that Satanism isn't real; the evidence is overwhelming. Not that I think that it isn't used to control the pieces on the board (Presidents, entertainers, Prime Ministers, Kings, Queens, Media heads, etc.). The evidence for that also is overwhelming. Not even that it hasn't been around for a very long time, controlling the masses; again, the evidence is very compelling that it goes back as a top level down social control mechanism for millennia.
My thought on it though, is that it may not be the actual religion of those at the very top of the food chain; the actual players (not the pieces on the board). Satanism (or Moloch(ism)) has all the elements of psychological control for world domination. It may have been created or adapted for the specific purpose of control.
This is a larger theory I am working on (my evidence is not yet great), but I am thinking there may be even more to the story, and Satanism is a contrivance of control from whoever, or whatever, is at the very tippy top of the pyramid.
Just a thought based on some hints here and there.
Luke.4 [5] And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. [6] And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. [7] If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.
And his greatest trick is convincing mankind he doesn’t exist. 👈🏼
Keyser Soze!!!
I gotta rewatch Usual Suspects 👍🏽
This is such a turning point in the outlook on Jesus. He replied against the temptation of all earth and knew his kingdom was mightier
This was a real temptation. Everything was given to Satan by God, and it was his to give to Jesus. Satan challenged God in the garden of Eden. God basically said, "Okay wise guy, prove it."
Jesus didn't know the future. He had faith in the Almighty that it would be so. He was so afraid that he even prayed on the day of his death that God's will, not his own, take place. And don't forget, he could have a legion of angels at his side and the suffering ended if he asked for it.
We think we're so special when we endure a little suffering, but we can't actually ever stop it and might if we could... Jesus endured the worst and could have stopped it at any time. Think about that for a minute.
Our Constitution was written by people with basic values of right and wrong. If you put your hand on a Bible and swore to tell the truth, it was the truth. No one would lie. They would turn bright red and sweat and everyone would know it was a lie.
But we have people now that rape, mutilate, kill and eat children so it's a piece of cake to pull off a lie with a straight face.
Hi Relhok,
I would like to offer a view that differs in some ways. Not to contradict your faith, but to offer a view that perhaps looks at certain other aspects that can be gleaned from scripture.
I suppose I'm not trying to contradict, but actually I strongly disagree with the view that God gave everything to Satan. That view is NOT held up by scripture.
Rather, the truth, I think is that God created Adam and Eve as his precious, pure children. God gave Adam the authority to "name all things", which indicates that essentially Adam was to be the king of the whole world, the Lord of all God's creation.
As God's son, he stood to inherit everything God had created, but like all wise father's, the Creator knew that without his own responsibility, and heir is not worth too much. That's one reason why God gave Adam the commandment - do not eat of the fruit.
In the state of immaturity, Adam and Eve would be susceptible to temptation. The commandment was to keep them on track. As long as they kept faith in God and his commandment, the devil would not be able to cause them to fall.
What happened? The Archangel Lucifer (symbolized by the "serpent") approached Eve and by lying to her, undermined her faith in God. So he tempted her to "eat" of the fruit. Two things happened. One, Lucifer fell in that moment to become Satan. Two, Eve was 'reborn' as Satan's daughter, now under his influence. Satan used Eve to then approach Adam, to tempt Adam via Eve. She did, and Adam also fell.
Adam was the one given the responsibility to grow to his completion, and then return everything back to God. Then, with Father and Son united, God would rule the world thru Adam. Instead, Adam actually handed over everything to Satan.
Because Adam was in that position, this is how Satan gained control and an illegitimate sovereignty over the world. "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."
Spiritual death is separation from God, and Satan became ruler over the world because the legitimate ruler, Adam, handed it over to him. This is why Satan has a claim.
God did not hand it over, Adam did. We, the descendents of Adam, must take it Back. This is why we must be reborn through Jesus. Jesus reclaimed it all spiritually by salvation through the cross, but because he had to hand over his body to Satan as the price, this is why Christ must return (to reclaim the sovereignty over the physical world, in addition to the sovereignty over the spiritual world that Jesus accomplished via the Cross).
This is why since Jesus, the world has continued under Satan's rule, despite the fact that spiritually, we can be reborn through Jesus & the Holy Spirit. But to be reborn, WE have to choose. Jesus offers us the door, but We must walk through it. Jesus restores what Adam did, but for each of us to escape Adam's (satan's) lineage, we too must choose and step through the door.
I expound some aspects of why this process takes so much time, in the post below:
https://greatawakening.win/p/12izuPiIYz/why-judgment-takes-time-holding-/
Amen
THIS 👆 The scriptures above say it ALL!
Q in his posts let us know that what is important is that THEY believe it.
I agree that that is important. It doesn't mean that such knowledge should halt a deeper investigation.
Have fun, Don Quixote.
Like, PRIDE?
The worst sin
I think Anton LaVey, founder of LaVeyan Satanism was inspired by Satanism. I think Nietzshe and Rand were also inspired by Satanism.
Satanism, in its current form, according to the evidence I have seen, predates all philosophers of note. It has its roots in Paganism and the worshiping of Moloch, which likely have a common root. While I agree with your assessment of its "self above all" idealism, those began with the Religion of Nature (i.e. Paganism) many thousands of years ago, not Anton LaVey.
As for the rest, I'd love to express my opinions and present my evidence, but it sounds like you have your mind pretty solidly made up on what is truth. It sounds to me like any evidence to the contrary wouldn't start a conversation, but rather an emotional response of adamant belief.
I personally start with the axiom of my own lack of knowledge of what is truth. Knowing that I know nothing allows me to see evidences that others might miss or immediately dismiss because it doesn't fit within the framework of a larger belief system of "truth". You however seem to be pretty certain of what is truth. It shuts down any earnest investigation contrary to that "truth" out the gate.
If you wish to start with a more open mind, I'd be happy to show you evidence that the Bible itself has Satanic influences and was likely written as it was purely as a social control structure. In no way does the evidence negate the teachings of Jesus (for which I have great appreciation), but it is compelling evidence that the religion called Christianity, and many of the tenets of it, especially those that come from the teachings of the Old Testament (Torah, i.e. "The Book of the Law") are in no small part influenced by the tenets that influence Satanism, Paganism, Molochism, Judaism (both forms), Muslim, Norse, Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Babylonian, etc., etc.. There are even similar influences in the Eastern religions of Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism. Confucianism (from my limited knowledge of only having read the book once) is completely a social control structure, so escapes many of the tenets that plague the more spiritual religions.
It's confusing. There is no clear answer. I have asked Satanists exactly what it is & I get different answers every time. I evaluate more by what they do than what they say & I agree, they tend to hold themselves most high. Christianity on the other hand, tends to hold God & the other higher. Of course they all influence each other & have over time
Some Satanists just say that Satan is "the advisory" in the way that Christ once called Saint Peter and even that Christ himself could be seen as the adversary of the old Jewish religious hierarchy. Yes, there are elements of each in each other but ultimately, in Christianity one tends to humble one's self in respect to God & their fellow human. Satanists tend to exalt themselves not just in relation to others but even to God! They would call themselves "god" I saw one Satanist once write: "I don't worship Satan, Satan worships me"
Personally, I think that one big lie & at some point, they are going to get one very rude awakening......
I did not mean to suggest that they were the same across the board. I did not mean that at all. I agree with your assessment of differences. I was merely pointing out (without providing actual evidence) Luciferian influences within the Bible, or perhaps rather, influences from the same source that influenced Luciferianism.
Here is something I wrote in another post on this topic. It shows these potential influences in the RELIGION we call Christianity (something completely separate from the TEACHINGS of Jesus).
The Nicene convention (NC) three centuries after Jesus' death was the final editor of the Bible most people ascribe as "complete". It was overseen by the Editor in Chief, Emperor Constantine, a self proclaimed worshiper of the Sun God (Lucifer). Was it based on previous works? Almost certainly. There is no dispute of that coming from me. But based on previous works and "final edit" means changes were made, or decided upon, or whatever.
The bible describes itself as "complete".
Who ordered that? Who decided that little sentence? Was it in fact the apostle John as many wish to believe (but for which there is much debate)? Did he maybe write it slightly different, but a few word changes made it into a closed circle that would forestall any future questions of the Christian Religion created at the NC? How could such a sentence make sense Prior to when the conventioneers decided on which books to include and which to leave out?
How do you know there weren't many other previous revisions or edits to create the Religion between the time of the original author and the NC? I mean, that is exactly what the NC did: formalize the tenets of the Religion, creating a formal work of dogma which was thereafter used as a means of social control of several continents for almost two millennia.
The bible as known today was a work of dogma created at the convention. A change of phrase here, a word there, can make all the difference in the world. It doesn't take much to completely alter meaning.
It's also very important to realize (which most do, but don't fully grasp) that the entire concept of "the law" part of the bible (Torah) is in large part the Jewish bible. Within it are stories of things like God demanding, or desiring first born son blood sacrifices, etc..
"Oh, but that's just the way the world was then." Really? So God wanted first born son sacrifices just like Moloch?
Look at the original Passover event. The Torah (old Testament) version of the "Creator God" apparently wanted all first born Egyptian sons to die so badly, he sent his angels to kill them all. "Oh, but that was only a last resort because they wouldn't let 'God's chosen people' go" (think about who those "chosen people" were, one chosen race above all humanity in the entire world). Please note that murder by angel directive is not the same thing as "allowing bad things to happen". This is a direct act of murder by thug. So God wouldn't have killed them all (because presumably such a direct action of murder is bad) if they had only let the people go. God had to choose the lesser of two evils...
What kind of Creator God has to choose the lesser of two evils? Does that make ANY SENSE AT ALL?
Of course, the bible also says "if you run into logic that doesn't allow this book to make sense, take it on faith that the book is right and the logic is wrong".
Where else have we seen such statements?
ONE form (life) within ALL flow (inception towards death) for the sustenance of self (blood aka the shared identity of multiple ONEs within ALL aka that which remains of form within flow).
From the energy perspective...velocity of flow causing momentum aka the resistance of form within the velocity of flow causes friction aka vibration aka resonance aka heat; which requires cooling for balance (liquid based cooling such as water; seed; oil...blood).
Any and all -isms represent suggested meaning as "words" to the free will of those who consent to believe them. Believing a suggested word represents a) submission to the free will of others who then gain the power to act in the name of the suggested word; brand; label; symbol; idol and b) it uses choice to evaluate a suggested value by the choice of others; which implies ignorance of being choice responding to balance causing choice.
The evidence you base your assumptions upon are based on the suggested words of others aka spell-craft aka idolatry of meaning within a system that does not use words to define itself; but movement to communicate inspiration.
PHILOS'OPHY, noun [Latin philosophia; Gr. love, to love, and wisdom.] represents the "want" for KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists"; which ignores that we a) perceive ALL existence has to offer and b) that adaptation by choice to the balance of ALL moving inspiration is "needed" for self sustenance of form within flow.
"current form" implies temporary form within ongoing flow, yet consenting to believe the suggested information by other form tricks us to ignore adaptation to flow, and the choice of ignorance corrupts ONEs comprehension of ALL perceived.
RELIGION, noun [Latin religio, from religo, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind.] The original bond represents offer/consent aka flow/form aka balance/choice. The "new" bond represent ignorance of the original bond for consent to believe suggested information (-isms) by other form.
Nature doesn't have a religion; because nature doesn't require consent by belief; by faith; by trust; by submission...it demands adaptation by choice of reaction, and that's what we ignore when consenting to believe; trust; have faith in, submit to the suggestions of others, who then parasitically exploit our ignorance of free will of choice by use of their free will of choice...the choice we are being deceived to consent to by our choice.
KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists". Each ONE perceives ALL; yet lacks comprehension (understanding) of what ALL perceived (knowledge) means. Adaptation as ONE by choice of reaction to ALL is what builds ONEs comprehension of ALL perceived.
Our senses perceive movement aka inspiration to react to. Others suggest us information to believe in; which then causes the conflict of reason (true versus false) between those who believe and those who do not, which is called division (reason) by suggestion (-isms).
You have lack of understanding (comprehension); not lack of knowledge (perception). The parasites suggest you information as knowledge so that you understand them...while ignoring the reality that communicates to your perception; which in return corrupts your comprehension.
True and false information do not exist within nature. Suggested words deceive you to consent to believe they do; which puts you into the conflict of reason (true vs false) among each other about the suggested words. You are tricked to fight each other over idols of suggested meaning (words aka spell-craft). Nature does not communicate itself through words; it moves us which causes the sound we need to resonate with by choice of reaction to it. Shaping sound into words to define meaning represents ONEs ignorance of ALL; which in return causes dissonance.
Nature does not offer you "nothing"; it offers your perception everything aka ALL. Nothing originates in your consent to believe the suggestion thereof by others who deceive you to build your comprehension upon nothing aka fiction over reality aka 0 over 1 (which is what transhumanism perpetuates).
You know (perceive) everything; you lack comprehension of what it means tho, and need to use your free will of choice to build it...to transmute potential (comprehension) out of potentiality (perception) by choice of reaction.
Aka the suggestion of "in the beginning was the word" laying the foundation for spell-craft; for others to suggest meaning by suggesting words; which when consented to gives the few the power to act in the name of the words the many believe in...fictitious meanings within an ignored reality. Your ego represents a self inflicted corruption of communication; based on consented to meaning of words; which endlessly tempts you to ignore adaptation to that which is (moving reality) for contemplation over that which ignores it (affixed word based meanings).
“We serve the same master, he is a lunatic, and he is ungrateful.”
Steven Seagal as Cook Casey Ryback in Under Siege
Someone disagreeing with you does not constitute a "shill". This is not an echo chamber. Don't try to make it one on the strength of your personal belief system.
It's true. There is the truth and there is deception. There is ONE TRUE RELIGION and the rest are variations of the same deception that Lucifer sold Eve in the Garden of Eden: self worship and man becoming his own god (Qabballah, Freemasonry, Hermeticism, Rosicrucianism, Mormonism, etc).
Saying there is one reality, one objective truth is not self-worship.
No offense, but I think it’s quite obvious who is at the “tippy top” of satanism. It’s in the name.
You expressing your beliefs is not offensive. It would only be offensive if you tried to force me to adhere to your "truths" in an attempt to try to shut down my own investigation and use of critical thinking and discernment.
Synagogue of Satan.
Only one group of people goes to Synagogue.
I've heard of both and used to watch their presentations back in the day. Michael Tsarion's were especially interesting with his lectures on the symbology they insert everywhere.
can you expound on what you mean in your third sentence? other than it being a well known Q-ism, i have always wondered the meaning of this.
The "satanic" part does not actually refer to Satanism. Many who do not worship Satan or even know anything about Satanism, are Satan's instruments.
"satanic" - small "s" - refers to who is in charge, the purpose and direction. The context is squarely in a world view were the Creator is God, the Father, and the force of evil opposed to God and His purpose, and intentions for Humanity, are rooted in the fallen archangel, who became "Satan".
The small "s" gives this away. Anything that destroys families is satanic. Anything that undermines humanities free will and capacity to build a relationship with God is satanic. Heck, a lot of Holly wood content is "satanic" in as much as it advances a satanic agenda.
Whether the upper echelons actually practice Satanism or Luciferianism or whatever, or not, their actions, purposes and agenda is "satanic" - they are instruments advancing the agenda of Satan.
Note: "Satan" - hebrew word meanings "the adversary", "the one who resists"
nice! would love to know what you find.
I agree with your vibe totally. For every "manufactured" thing - there is ALSO a "manufactured" conspiracy. Most people call that "controlled opposition." My most recognizable example is 9/11. Let me explain.
The sheep think "terrorists" flew planes they learned how to fly using microsoft flight simulator.
Almost everyone else left over thinks it was "controlled demolition."
Like 0.0001% see the logic in DEW (directed energy weapons.) Read Judy Wood's 500+ page book PROVING what did NOT happen. She didn't outright say what did happen - but you can be educated on what did not happen. Then things will fall into line.
You see my point? Maybe "Satanism" is truly a controlled opposition?
Although on this point, I am not sure. Look at the ancient orient. The whole "Yin/Yang" thing exists for a reason. Maybe half the world is just evil.
Maybe the whole concept of Ying/Yang is designed to distract or mislead. That there is a "reason" for the concept of dueling duality is indisputable, but what that reason is, is imo not clear.
The two sided nature of our reality is a complete illusion. The reality is, there is only one side (reality), or perhaps it is that there is a thousand sides, a million, billion, trillion sides (each individual perception of reality). The entire concept of "two parties", Red v. Blue e.g., is almost certainly contrived specifically to keep us distracted from the truth; that the real enemy is the Bankers (or whatever you want to call them today).
The concept of a duality to nature, "two sides to every coin", is an inherently self-limiting concept (or as I stated above, not "self" limiting, but intentionally limiting). But even if it is true, do the two sides need to be equal? Is the balance of the universe REALLY two equal sides of something?
Where in nature do we see that? I can't think of a single place where such balance exists. On the contrary, entropy suggests exactly the opposite of Yin Yang.
Within the scope of human existence, Yin Yang makes a lot of sense, but perhaps that is exactly because human existence has been controlled for a very long time by the creation of a dueling duality matrix overlaid on what would otherwise be a very dynamic society of a billion independent voices.
You just perpetuated it by trying to describe it...mechan (ism) aka a suggestion of meaning; that tricks those who consent to believe it, to ignore the mechanic underneath everything (energy) aka the energizing aspect of reality which not just moves us; but offers ALL information to each ONE within through movement representing communicated inspiration for our free will of choice to react to.
What defines choice? Balance. What defines balance? Flow. What does flow define balance for? For the choice of form (life) within the balance of flow (inception towards death). What does consenting by choice to suggestions made by the choice of others imply? Ignorance of balance.
Consent to believe the suggestions of others domesticates the free will of choice of the many under the suggestions made by the free will of choice of the few; thereby causing a chain of command under false authority aka a pyramid scheme.
Nature does not tell us true information; neither does it offer false information; instead it moves us; which we perceive as movement with our senses; which inspires us to adhere to the demanded need for adaptation by choice of reaction.
The few utilize spell-craft to suggest idolized meaning to the many in form of "words"; words that when consented to by free will of choice; allows those who suggested them to act in the name of (in nomine) them; while the perception of reality by those who consented to believe them will be shaped by the free will of the few who act for example in nomine patris (ALL) et filii (ONE) et spiritus sancti (spirit; from spiro "to breathe" aka adaptation as ONE to ALL).
The highest value in ALL existence represents ONEs choice to evaluate it, and evaluation as form within flow isn't about defining value into flow; but about maintaining balance as form for the sustenance of self; which requires constant adaptation by evaluation of ever changing circumstances.
ALL represents ALL predefined value aka the source of ALL information (potentiality of energy); which causes flow (loss of potentially); which causes the momentum within which form (growth of potential) can temporarily sustain itself within flow.
Choice (form) is defined as a reaction to balance (flow); the choice to ignore this (want over need) is what causes the few to parasitically exploit the ignorance of the many by suggesting them the choice of want over need aka deadly temptations that feed form back into flow.
"not" represents your consent to believe in suggested nothingness; "think" represents adaptation to flow; yet is being corrupted by the consented to beliefs into you thinking about word based definitions suggested to you by others for what you believe represents "reality". Nature doesn't brand itself as real or false; because any such label; brand; idol would ignore that nature (energy) is constantly changing aka in motion. Movement demands adaptation from those within; upholding beliefs (-isms) of meaning represents stagnation in ignorance of adaptation.
There's no "isn't" aka "is nothing" within energy; which represents everything (ALL) for the ONEs within; who have the free will of choice to transmute out of ALL aka out of base (alchemy). The few utilize alchemy to transmute suggestion and consent by free will to it into corruption of ONEs comprehension (potential) towards ALL perceived (potentiality) inspiration.
RELIGION, noun [Latin religio, from religo, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind.] aka the exploitation of the original bond (offer/consent aka balance/choice aka flow/form aka loss/growth) through suggestion of meaning by spell-craft (words).
The few offer the free will of choice of the many another choice to submit to; which represents the choice to ignore being choice within balance in need of adaptation by choice to balance.
The few suggest; the many consent to ignorance; the few then farm the ignored potential of the many while directing their self destruction by ignorance through the so called beast system of "society"; where suggestion 'enter tame minds' (entertainment) and religion binds anew; where govern (control) ment (from mens; mind) is suggested as representatives for choice and so on.
Offer (suggestion) meets consent (choice of want over need aka ignorance of need over want). The rest represents a sales-pitch to get the many to consent to the suggestions of the few like for example the laws of men as the suggested inversion of the laws of nature (as defined by flow upon form); or deities as unquestionable authorities as the suggested inversion of free will of choice representing ONEs sole authority over self within ALL; or money as the suggested inversion of evaluation by choice by using choice to suggest value to others (which afterwards allowed them to utilize usury to devalue everything the ignored evaluation of the many consented value to; including "intellectual property").
Freedom represents form having "free" will of choice within the "dom"-inance of balance within flow. Flow dominates form, yet the ignorance thereof by form allows other form control over ignored potential within flow.
Creation doesn't exist within ALL energy; since ALL already exists (it's each ONE within that lacks comprehension thereof; hence allowing the growth of potential). Form transmutes out of flow aka reacts (adapts) by choice to ALL offered (to perception), and doing so is what allows the building (growth) of potential (comprehension).
There's none. The "all seeing eye" is above the pyramid (comprehension). The few even suggest a sleight of hand by removing the capstones. A pyramid scheme of form within flow deceives all consenting participants within the want progress aka ignore self sustenance for the temptations by the pull of flow upon form. Those within the chain of command will kiss up; while kicking down; which inspires those above to unite in the exploitation of those below to stay in control, while chasing towards progress aka death.
This pyramid scheme aka the chain of command aka a world wide caste system of consent to ignore free will for submission to the suggested choices of others...represents self perpetuation of ignorance of form through flow.
The few with eyes to see (comprehension) use suggestion to feed wants to the participants of this self destructive system; while harvesting the chain of command which submits to any suggested orders; while fighting among each other about any attempt of free will to not follow the suggested orders of others.
The few also suggest "blame" so that the many can shirk responsibility of their ignorance onto others; while staying ignorant, to the point where the few suggest persecution of themselves as the most convenient defense against the ignorance of the many. For as long as the many have a few to blame; they will not question their own choices aka the response as form to flow aka the responsibility of having choice within balance.
The few represent a reaction to the ignorance of the many; and that mass ignorance is what inspires the few to ruthlessly exploit the many. There's no us versus them within energy...no conflict whatsoever; just the choice of adherence (need) and ignorance (want) in balance with each other.
Aka adaptation to inspiration over consenting to believe suggested information.
It goes back to ancient egypt and possibly before then. Pharaohs were the original illuminated ones. Pyramids invariably referred to as where the light of heaven touches the Earth etc.
Frued theorised that Moses was actually an Egyptian noble who knew the dark arts in Moses and Monotheism. Interesting fact, Frued was literally suicided that year after being chewn out by the [press] for publishing such wrong think. Also interesting is that Solomon was the descendent of Moses, who built the temple with the seal of solomon, which is basically the seal of satan. Interesting again is that the fires that consumed the temple were witnessed and recorded by (iirc) 3-4 distinct scholars from different religions and political creeds.
What happened after that temple fell? Roman Empire, Holy See, British Empire, East India Corporation, City of London, 1776, Washington DC.
I agree and think that there is probably a ton more to all of it!
They kill babies. They support killing babies up to nine months, and some even support post-birth abortion. How is that not satanic? It's about as satanic as you can possibly get.
Based on your response, I'm guessing you didn't get past the first sentence of my post.