new

[From "Modernity’s Moloch"]

At the end of the month of March, the LGBTXYZ community celebrated their “International Transgender Day of Visibility,” which may or may not be some kind of holiday for ritualistic occultists. March 31st was dedicated to “raising awareness” and recognizing the struggles, “sucesses” (infringements), and daemon worship of the transgender community. Well, maybe not that last bit, not openly at least (for now).

The grotesque tradition began in 2009, and has spread to different countries and communities across the globe in the decade since then. The alarming speed at which they are normalizing this kind of thing is certainly enough to give one a degree of worry, but more interesting is the macabre, occult element that is rather undeniable, especially within the realms of entertainment and the high offices of the land.

Many are familiar with the name Moloch or Molech, even if from some kind of fantasy or sci fi trappings. Briefly, Moloch is the biblical name of a pagan Canaanite god associated with child sacrifice, specifically with fire. This figure is identified as Ba’al Hammon by Greco-Roman authors, equated with Cronus from the Hellenistic traditions. While some scholars suggest that much of the depictions of Punic child sacrifice to bloodthirsty gods is war time or post-war propaganda on behalf of the Romans, the attestations to Canaanite/Phoenician gods demanding child sacrifice in flame predates the Roman accounts by several centuries.

[...]

It would thus indicate that even among Hebrews, who had been commanded to turn away from such sacrifices by God, Canaanite influence was strong even in Jerusalem; Kabbalic traditions only strengthen these occult undertones. It may be hard to fathom, but there is sufficient coincidence to suspect that the sacrifices to Ba’al Hammon/Molech never quite ended. From the classical era unto modern times, the Jewish people have been associated with ritualistic cruelty and abuse of children, specifically those who belong to the populations they immerse themselves in, such as the “blood libel” controversey in Europe. While maintained that these stories and records are anti-semitic propaganda, there is a very odd and very inseparable bond between the Jewish diaspora and the mystical, the occult. Even the self declared atheistic ones engage in, or state admiration or interest in such things, even if guised as a hobby or eccentricy.

[...]

Which takes us back to the LGBTXYZ movement and their machinations. Many will note that what began decades ago as “please dont beat up gay people” became “sell us cakes and services even if you dont want to” and “we just want to get married.” Many Republicans and socially conservative Democrats let these things slide, more or less, because they were promised that it would not lead to a slippery slope like those evangelical bible thumpers were worrying it would; fools that they are, they believed the lavender mafia and their leftwing stooges would keep such a promise. Fast forward 10-15 years, and it is completely undeniable that said promise wasn’t just broken, it was entirely shattered into dust. Drag queen story hours, the sexualization of teens and children only grows more open and promoted.

Is this to say that modern leftwing parents are knowingly sacrificing their children to this apparatus, this devouring Beast? Knowingly, likely not, but willingly, entirely so. A keen thing to keep in mind when it comes to the occult and sorcerous matters is that intent often matters just as much as actual action; these parents who place their children on the altar of social progress, to be fed into the fire pit of acceptance and equality, are doing something that in their mind is a good thing: their children are expected to become tolerant, friendly, and altogether, moral. But this instinct of theirs is the result of a manipulation, a perverted lie repeated ad naseum to completely saturate and indoctrinate those it is targeted at. Parents are baraged, be it at their chidlren’s schools, their public libraries, or even the children’s networks on television, to relent to this “progress.”

Even liberals who are uncomfortable with the idea quickly find themselves shamed and alienated into position; after all, you wouldn’t want to be one of those bigoted cisheteros, would you? It would displease Moloch to have your child grow strong of mind and body, pure of heart and soul. That cannot be; in order to truly advance or even maintain one’s place in society, you *must* render sacrifice to the gods. You must place your own flesh and blood, the blessing of your own creation, onto the altar to be burned. So sayeth the undercurring theme of the progressive movement and their attitude towards children.

[From "The Author of Sin"]

When Reformed Christians are questioned on whether God is the “author of sin,” they are too quick to say, “No, God is not the author of sin.” And then they twist and turn and writhe on the floor, trying to give man some power of “self-determination,”[1] and some kind of freedom that in their minds would render man culpable,[2] and yet still leave God with total sovereignty.

On the other hand, when someone alleges that my view of divine sovereignty makes God the author of sin, my reaction is “So what?” Those who oppose me stupidly chant, “But he makes God the author of sin, he makes God the author of sin.” However, a description does not amount to an argument or objection, and I have never come across a decent explanation as to what is wrong with God being the author of sin in any theological or philosophical work written by anybody from any perspective.

The truth is that, whether or not God is the author of sin, there is no biblical or rational problem with him being the author of sin. For it to be a problem, it must make some point of Christianity false, or contradict some passage of Scripture. But if God is the author of sin, how does it make Christianity false? One must construct an argument showing this by citing established premises that necessarily lead to the conclusion that Christianity would be false if God is the author of sin. What is this argument? And what passage of Scripture does it contradict? You can cite any passage you want, but you have to show that it necessarily applies to the question and makes it impossible for God to be the author of sin. Where is this passage of Scripture?

Among the many fallacious replies is the appeal to James 1:13.[3] Using this verse to deny that God is the author of sin is one of the worst misapplications of Scripture, and because this error is very popular and influential, it has caused much damage and generated an unnecessary burden for those who would defend the faith.

[...]

Unless this happens, for God to be the author of sin does not make him a sinner or wrongdoer. The terms “author,” “sinner,” “wrongdoer,” and “tempter” are precise – at least precise enough to be distinguished from one another, and for God to be the “author” of sin says nothing about whether he is also a “sinner,” “wrongdoer,” or a “tempter.” And for one not to be a wrongdoer by definition means that he has not done wrong. Therefore, even if God is the author of sin, it does not automatically follow that there is anything wrong with it, or that he is a wrongdoer.

However, this is not to distance God from evil, for to “author” the sin implies far more control over the sinner and the sin than to merely tempt. Whereas the devil (or a person’s lust) may be the tempter, and the person might be the sinner, it is God who directly and completely controls both the tempter and the sinner, and the relationship between them. And although God is not himself the tempter, he deliberately and sovereignly sends evil spirits to tempt (1 Kings 22:19–23) and to torment (1 Samuel 16:14–23, 18:10, 19:9). But in all of this, God is righteous by definition.

The verse is telling you that when you deal with temptation, you must directly address your lust, and not just blame God and then do nothing, or remain in your sin. Read all of James 1 and see if this is not his obvious emphasis. He deals with joy, faith, perseverance, doubt, pride, lust, anger, moral filth, and being a doer of the Word. He is dealing with the Christian’s direct responsibilities in practical living, and he does this by relating it to the internal motives and characteristics of the person.

[...]

This is the Bible’s approach. It rebukes the objector and answers the objection at the same time. The answer does not deny that God is the direct cause of sin; instead, it boldly says that God has a right to make whatever he wants and do whatever he wants. Instead of stepping backward or sideways, it steps toward the objector and slaps him in the face.