JUST IN: Satanic Temple member found guilty of possession of 'very disturbing' child pornography in Idaho: police. "Numerous files of very disturbing child abuse and child pornography were found in Russell's possession during the investigation. Russell is a member of the Idaho chapter of The Satanic
(thepostmillennial.com)
🤢 FAGGOT-GATE 🤢
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (122)
sorted by:
you can't be serious
Maybe if you tone down the hyperbole we can entertain the notion, but as presented, no such cases.
Here's a question: Should people who not only worship Satan, but actively doom people to Hell by deceiving them deserve the death penalty? Religious freedom is all good and dandy until your population is filled with a subversive Satanist element that hates you and wants to destroy your faith in God grace.
This notably is not related to people simply... checks notes... reading the Bible.
https://www.catholicprotestantbridge.com/blog/2019/2/4/did-the-catholic-church-ban-burn-or-chain-bibles-to-keep-laymen-from-reading-the-bible
This dispels plenty of myths and is not explicitly pro-Catholic. It appears to be seeking to, as the name implies, bridge Catholics and Protestants and takes a neutral position. At least, as neutral as you can be when the theme of the article is dispelling myths about Catholicism. The site talks about Christian unity (as far as I can tell, I just found it).
Not a human death penalty as this crime is not lawfully codifiable. How many genocidal maniacs have operated their crime syndicates under such a banner??
Indeed, and at that stage they have stepped outside of God's grace and entered into the realm of national laws; or else tell me a crime they are guilty of which is not already codified against?
Thank you, I'll check this out. I am fairly new to the revelation of who Mystery Babylon is and what her daughters look like, so I appreciate these debates and new info. It'll either confirm or deny things I'm trying to piece together. Godbless. I'll get back to you 👊
Fair enough, and I'd agree. I did ask it as a question, I wasn't totally sure, however I find your answer satisfying.
This is the problem, it's not illegal to convert someone if they are a willing participant. So what do we do? Are we supposed to just sit back and watch as the Great Deceiver works his evil in the world? Impose no structure or order? Freedom at all costs? Even at the cost of our brother's souls? Sure, we can fight them in debate, but if something as simple as making it illegal to talk about Satan saved even 10 souls, is that not worth it? Free speech is obviously important, but what's the point of it all from the Christian perspective if we as a society at large are just on a fast-track to Hell?
Further, to cause someone to fall out of God's graces is murder. And my personal view is that people are so preoccupied with the material world that they forget the spiritual reality. How is it worse to kill someone and send them to heaven as opposed to dooming someone to Hell through coordinated effort?
And what is the purpose of having a society at all if not to do what is moral and just? To order ourselves towards God? Freedom used to meaning doing what we ought to do, but now it just means doing whatever we want to do. These days, I see no reason that the latter should be accepted and why we should impose some order in society with a strong religious foundation. We've been trying liberal democracy since the Enlightenment, but all that I can see is the darkening of everything for the last 300 years. Dimmer and dimmer as the years go on.
I appreciate this greatly. I'm always afraid I'll just get the usual response when I link to something that the site is just "some Catholic confirmation bias that tells you what to think", hence why I explained the site so much even though I just found it.
Very nice change of pace to see that someone is actually willing to give an opposing theology a fair shot.
God bless, and I await your reply :)
Hmm, it does seem this author got something wrong.
Conveniently the very one where the Papacy turned against the Knights Templar. Interestingff
•
There's quite a list here!
Quote copied from the book:
"
SOME ROMAN CATHOLIC HERESIES AND INVENTIONS and the dates of their adoption over a period of 1,650 years:
Prayers for the dead: began about A.D. 300.
Making the sign of the cross: A.D. 300.
Wax candles: about A.D. 320.
Veneration of angels and dead saints, and use of images: A.D. 375.
The Mass, as a daily celebration: A.D. 394.
Beginning of the exaltation of Mary, the term “Mother of God” first applied to her by the Council of Ephesus: A.D. 431.
Priests began to dress differently from laymen: A.D. 500.
Extreme Unction: A.D. 526.
The doctrine of Purgatory, established by Gregory I: A.D. 593.
Latin language, used in prayer and worship, imposed by Gregory I: A.D. 600.
Prayers directed to Mary, dead saints, and angels: about A.D. 600.
Title of pope, or universal bishop, given to Boniface III by emperor Phocas: A.D. 607.
Kissing the pope’s foot, began with Pope Constantine: A.D. 709.
Temporal power of the popes, conferred by Pepin, king of the Franks: A.D. 750.
Worship of the cross, images, and relics: authorized in A.D. 786.
Holy water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by a priest: A.D. 850.
Worship of St. Joseph: A.D. 890.
College of Cardinals established: A.D. 927.
Baptism of bells, instituted by pope John XIII: A.D. 965.
Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV: A.D. 995.
Fasting on Fridays and during Lent: A.D. 998.
The Mass, developed gradually as a sacrifice, attendance made obligatory in the 11th century.
Celibacy of the priesthood, decreed by pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand): A.D. 1079.
The Rosary, mechanical praying with beads, invented by Peter the Hermit: A.D. 1090.
The Inquisition, instituted by the Council of Verona: A.D. 1184.
Sale of Indulgences: A.D. 1190.
Transubstantiation, proclaimed by Pope Innocent III: A.D. 1215.
Auricular Confession of sins to a priest instead of to God, instituted by Pope Innocent III, in Lateran Council: A.D. 1215.
Adoration of the wafer (Host), decreed by Pope Honorius III: A.D. 1220.
❌ 30. Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Toulouse: A.D. 1229. ❌
The Scapular, invented by Simon Stock, an English monk: A.D. 1251.
Cup forbidden to the people at communion by Council of Constance: A.D.
The doctrine of Seven Sacraments affirmed: A.D. 1439.
The Ave Maria (part of the last half was completed 50 years later and approved by Pope Sixtus V at the end of the 16th century): A.D. 1508.
Jesuit order founded by Loyola: A.D. 1534.
Tradition declared of equal authority with the Bible by the Council of Trent: A.D.
Apocryphal books added to the Bible by the Council of Trent: A.D. 1546.
Creed of pope Pius IV imposed as the official creed: A.D. 1560.
Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX: A.D. 1854.
Syllabus of Errors, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX and ratified by the Vatican Council; condemned freedom of religion, conscience, speech, press, and scientific discoveries which are disapproved by the Roman Church; asserted the pope’s temporal authority over all civil rulers: A.D. 1864.
Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council: A.D. 1870.
Public Schools condemned by Pope Pius XI: A.D. 1930.
Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death), proclaimed by Pope Pius XII: A.D. 1950.
Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church by Pope Paul VI: A.D. 1965.
Add to these many others: monks, nuns, monasteries, convents, forty days Lent, holy week, Palm Sunday, Ash Wednesday, All Saints day, Candlemas day, fish day, meat days, incense, holy oil, holy palms, Christopher medals, charms, novenas, and still others.
There you have it—the melancholy evidence of Rome’s steadily increasing departure from the simplicity of the Gospel, a departure so radical and far-reaching at the present time that it has produced a drastically anti-evangelical church. It is clear beyond possibility of doubt that the Roman Catholic religion as now practiced is the outgrowth of centuries of error. Human inventions have been substituted for Bible truth and practice. Intolerance and arrogance have replaced the love and kindness and tolerance that were the distinguishing qualities of the first century Christians, so that now in Roman Catholic countries Protestants and others who are sincere believers in Christ but who do not acknowledge the authority of the pope are subject to all kinds of restrictions and in some cases even forbidden to practice their religion. The distinctive attitude of the present day Roman Church was fixed largely by the Council of Trent (1545-1563), with its more than 100 anathemas or curses pronounced against all who then or in the future would dare to differ with its decisions.
Think what all of this means! Each of the above doctrines or practices can be pin-pointed to the exact or approximate date at which it became a part of the system. And no single one of them became a part of the system until centuries after the time of Christ! Most of these doctrines and practices are binding on all Roman Catholics, for they have been proclaimed by a supposedly infallible pope or church council. To deny any doctrine or practice so proclaimed involves one in mortal sin.
"
I don't expect you to go through every one of these and I assume there is a complete refutation somewhere...let's focus on the ones in which you agree on the dates?
What if they're not Satanists, but merely people from a different religion or denomination?
Because ultimately, most religions are trying to get people to join them. So if they're trying to get people to give up religion "A" in order to join religion "One" wouldn't many people in religion "A" say they're trying to deceive people and that those people in religion "One" are all going to hell?
Just curious, have you ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition?
Based on both responses here, I'd wager the answer to my question is "no".
Don't see a way to actually make this work and not simply be a morally reprehensible disaster.
But there needs to be some give, and to be clear, this isn't some idealized dIvErSe community where religion A and religion One are living together in equal numbers. Most country have a majority religion, and it usually isn't close. Ours certainly does. Diversity doesn't work when it's diversity of "basic world-views" and should be avoided. Though I still concede that execution was likely a tad bit of an extreme suggestion.
And my take on this is that the Bible is completely correct on a deep philosophical level when it states that there's nothing new under the sun. Holy wars won't go away, and I don't necessarily see why they should. War is bad and should be avoided, but if Religion A wants to invade and convert the lands and people of Religion One, self-defense should be permitted.
The real solution is to not mass import people of different religions, and to not have so much societal decay that everyone becomes an Atheist. Then you don't lead to the inevitable holy war.
What about missionaries who go to foreign countries and try to convert the people there already?