Sunday, September 24, 2017


 Scarlet Red in the religion of Thelema represents the whore of Babylon, the goddess of chaos. Dilara Findikoglu pushes satanism through fashion at St. Andrews in London. A London church has apologised for hosting a satanic fashion show. St Andrew's Church in Holborn received criticism after it offered up its building as part of London fashion week on Monday evening. The Anglican church's alter was transformed into a runway for models wearing inverted crosses, devil horns and vampire costumes to walk down in Turkish designer Dilara Findikoglu's Spring/Summer 2018 collection.
 Black Mass Disguised As Fashion Show In London
 church satanic fashion show
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
St. Andrew Holborn church in Holborn is on the northwest edge of London, and goes back at least to the year 959AD. The church is still funded through a trust of a local weapons dealer, which has been carefully funded throughout the centuries and still provides for the buildings upkeep, which survived a lightning strike in 1563, the Great Fire of London in 1666, having to be partially rebuilt in 1713, and nearly destroyed by German bombing in 1941. The iconic church was referenced in the classic novel, Oliver Twist. It is not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, as was reported elsewhere. In fact, one of its patrons was executed for serving a Catholic Mass in 1591. It is affiliated with the Church of England.
The church was also recently host to a satanic fashion show.
The Dilara Findikoglu, the Turkish designer whose favorite band is Black Sabbath, put on the fashion show to reveal her line that is based upon her occultic vibe. She told Vogue Magazine
I’m into parapsychology and all the occult and magic stuff, so when I was reading those books, [her Muslim parents] thought I was going to be a Satanist.”
Findikogulu says she’s not a satanist, but that the occult has informed her fashion. In fact, she says that she doesn’t like how “religion divides people into groups.”

The highlight of Findikogulu’s fashion show was the drag queen model, Violet Chachki (his given name is unknown, or we would use it instead), dressed in a devil outfit, whose hair was shaped to look like horns.

Sometimes, devils are disguised as angels of light (2 Corinthians 11:14). Sometimes they’re just showing off.
 satanic fashion show

satanic fashion show


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
A few things you’ll learn from this clip.
First, Bakker claims that Trump watches the Jim Bakker Program.
Secondly, Bakker claims Trump admires Bakker for “getting back up.”
Third, the applause you hear after Bakker says the above is a sound effect. You can hear the few (25-30) people in the audience clap and then you’ll hear an added-in applause sound effect added in post-production to make it sound like hundreds are in the audience. Listen closely; you can hear it. It’s pretty obvious.
Fourth, Bakker claims he might get shot for wearing a cross hat. Okay.
Fifth, while extolling the religious virtue of Donald Trump, Bakker claims that all of his prophecies have come true.
“Everything God’s ever spoken to me has come to pass. And everything…you give minutes, almost. Your prophecies – the words God has brought  – you’ve given us to the minute…what this book is going to reveal to you is the warfare we are in.”
As usual, Tammy Fae #2 chimed in with total agreement when Bakker claimed “everything God’s ever spoken to me has come to pass” with an agreeable “that’s so true.”
First, you might recall an ornery fellow pointing out some of Bakker’s false prophecies just last month. Watch below.

Ironically, Bakker was speaking also of Jonathan Cahn as being so prophetic he was giving “minutes” and telling people that his latest book is revealing the words of God. Of course, Jonathan Cahn is best known for his false prophecy, claiming that 2015 would be a year of great prophetic and economic “shaking” (it was not), called The Shemitah. And yet, Bakker claims that Cahn – like Bakker himself – give accurate prophecies.
Here’s a list of just of some of Bakker’s prophecies that have NOT come to pass.
1. A great Earthquake would occur on September 15 of 2015.

Oh, hold up. We don’t need to list more false prophecies because God’s Word says that one is enough to classify someone as a false prophet.
What Bakker does do is regularly claim to prophesy things after the fact that he never – in reality – ever prophesied beforehand. Here’s a good example of a woman with documentation calling him out on this nonsense ex post facto prophetic claims. He claims to have prophesied very specific things (like 9-11) back in 1999. Guess what…she was there, and took notes. And he’s full of garbage (also, thanks for the warning, Jim).


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Rod Dreher wants conservatives out of the culture wars. Dreher is a “crunchy con,” who holds to economic Marxism while simultaneously – if not inexplicably – holding to more conservative social principles. Dreher is also an Eastern Idolater and has written The Benedict Option, encouraging Christians to retire from political engagement and build “communities” (his use of the term is vague) to exit political engagement and hunker down, so as to best prepare society for the fruits of our current post-Christian culture. Dreher has been promoted heavily among America’s evangelicals including Carl Trueman, Albert Mohler and Russell Moore.
JD Hall has written a response to Dreher’s book entitled The Benedict Arnold Option: Why Christians Must Not Retreat From the Culture Wars, available now at Amazon.
Dreher congratulates a Twitter user in his August 18 blog post at the American Conservative, lauding him as an example of someone who has decided to wave the white flag (pun intended, you’ll see why in a minute) of cultural surrender. You can find his post, here. Dreher writes…
My TAC colleague Scott McConnell tipped me off to this extraordinary tweetstorm by someone whose name I don’t know, but who appears to be a conservative who is now going offline. I’m going to post the whole thing here for you who don’t use, or know how to use, Twitter:
Dreher then posts screenshots from Twitter user @RetiredSOBL1 (Retired Social Critic), applauding his Twitter posts explaining why he is bowing out of the “fight.”

That’s just a few screenshots from Dreher’s article, but the paraphrase is this: The social critic is retiring because he says society is crumbling around him, and he wants to spend time with his family and cultivating and creating art and hippy garbage like that. Again, you can see the post here.
Dreher says…
RetiredSocialCritic says in a much more powerful way what I tried to say to Christian readers in my book The Benedict Option…If you think politics is going to turn around the spiritual, moral, and social dying that RetiredSocialCritic sees, you are delusional. Nobody is coming to save us from ourselves. Be the lighthouse. The storm is here, and it will only get worse. 
A photo from the podcast website of Ryan Landry, who Dreher gives the thumbs-up.
Here’s the problem. The fellow Dreher is congratulating for his soulful wisdom and higher plane of transcendent virtue is an “alt-right” White Supremacist.
The owner of that Twitter account (formerly @28ShermanSOBL1, which you can easily enough Google and it when you click on the former, it will take you to Landry’s new account, “@RetiredSOBL1) is Ryan Landry who contributes to the website, “Social Matter: Statecraft for American Restoration.” He is listed as a contributor on the website, and his bio says, “Midwestern family man and FIRE economy worker by day and social critic by night.”
Landry is also a podcaster, and in his latest episode of “Weimerica Weekly”  (posted at Social Matter, above) – entitled Episode 83, Charlottesville – in which he defends and sympathizes with the white supremacists who held the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville last month. In fact, he gives some helpful advice to the racist marchers on what to do when they run out of torches (literally) and said it was “pretty cool looking.”
He also goes on to favorably compare his own movement with the Nazi movement in the 1920s, mentioning the Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler’s imprisonment, and the publication of Mein Kampf.
The website posting Landry’s material also has a podcast called, “The Myth of the 20th Century,” which is a hat-tip to convicted Nazi war criminal, Alfred Roseberg, who wrote a book by that name which provided the framework for Nazi ideology in 1930.
There’s even more irony, here. Social Matter published a blog article defending racism against an article written by Rod Dreher himself (see the tweet here).
This irony was picked up on by a “neoreactionist” (read that: “Alt-Right”) blog, NRX Syndication (a neoreactionist website), here. The author gives Dreher credit for praising Landry, albeit admitting that it’s strange bedfellows. He nonetheless says, “Good on Dreher giving [Landry’s words] wider circulation.”
While it’s good that an alt-right, neoreactionist, white supremacist-sympathizing racist is retiring from podcasting or blogging, he’s not retiring from his worldview. For Dreher, that’s immaterial. His goal is to talk as many people as possible to retreat into a cultural monastery regardless of their worldview; to do so, for Dreher, is righteousness. And, Dreher’s  willing to promote a guy like Ryan Landry to sell more copies of his book.
Shame on him.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
This morning I spoke at the Young America’s Foundation September High School Conference.
My frequent references to the Los Angeles Times stem from the presence of a Los Angeles Times reporter in the room as I spoke. Watch for the Times hit piece on YAF and me.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Pope Francis welcomes to the Vatican the head of a Muslim group tied to the financing of jihad terror. My latest in FrontPage:
As if he weren’t already committed enough to foolish false charity and willful ignorance regarding the jihad threat, Pope Francis on Wednesday met in the Vatican with Dr. Muhammad bin Abdul Karim Al-Issa, the secretary general of the Muslim World League (MWL), a group that has been linked to the financing of jihad terror.
During the meeting, al-Issa thanked the Pope for his “fair positions” on what he called the “false claims that link extremism and violence to Islam.” In other words, he thanked the Pope for dissembling about the motivating ideology of jihad terror, which his group has been accused of financing, and for defaming other religions in an effort to whitewash Islam.
I don’t object to the Pope’s meeting this man. After all, Jesus was a friend of tax collectors and sinners. But the meeting appears to have been a pointless feelgood session, probably featuring some sly dawah from al-Issa. According to Breitbart News, “the two men reportedly exchanged views on a number of ‘issues of common interest’ including peace and global harmony, and discussed cooperation on issues of peaceful coexistence and the spread of love.”
The spread of love. Yes, that’s what the Muslim World League is all about.
Nor is this the first time a Muslim leader has thanked the Pope for being so very useful. Last July, Ahmed al-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Cairo’s al-Azhar, thanked him for his “defense of Islam against the accusation of violence and terrorism.”
Has any other Pope of Rome in the history of Christianity ever been heralded as a “defender of Islam”?
Of course not. But the Catholic Church has come a long way since the days of Pope Callixtus III, who vowed in 1455 to “exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet in the East.”
If time travel could be arranged and Pope Francis could run into Callixtus III, Callixtus could “expect a punch,” for Francis is not just a defender of Islam, but a defender of the Sharia death penalty for blasphemy: after Islamic jihadists murdered the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists who had drawn Muhammad, Francis obliquely justified the murders by saying that “it is true that you must not react violently, but although we are good friends if [an aide] says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch, it’s normal. You can’t make a toy out of the religions of others. These people provoke and then (something can happen). In freedom of expression there are limits.”
So for the Pope, murdering people for violating Sharia blasphemy laws is “normal,” and it isn’t terrorism for “Christian terrorism does not exist, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and Muslim terrorism does not exist. They do not exist,” he said in a speech last February. “There are fundamentalist and violent individuals in all peoples and religions—and with intolerant generalizations they become stronger because they feed on hate and xenophobia.”
So there is no Islamic terrorism, but if you engage in “intolerant generalizations,” you can “expect a punch.” The Pope, like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, apparently thinks that the problem is not jihad terror, but non-Muslims talking about jihad terror; Muslims would be peaceful if non-Muslims would simply censor themselves and self-impose Sharia blasphemy restrictions regarding criticism of Islam.
For Pope Francis has no patience with those who discuss such matters: “I don’t like to talk about Islamic violence, because every day, when I read the newspaper, I see violence.” He said, according to Crux, that “when he reads the newspaper, he reads about an Italian who kills his fiancé or his mother in law.” The pontiff added: “They are baptized Catholics. They are violent Catholics.” He said that if he spoke about “Islamic violence,” then he would have to speak about “Catholic violence” as well.
That comparison made no sense, for Italian Catholics who killed their fiancés or mothers in law were not acting in accord with the teachings of their religion, while the Qur’an and Islamic teaching contain numerous exhortations to violence.
But Pope Francis, defender of Islam, cannot concern himself with such minutiae. Nor does he appear to be particularly concerned about the fact that all his false statements about the motivating ideology behind the massive Muslim persecution of Christians over the last few years only enables and abets that persecution, for if that ideology is not identified and confronted, it will continue to flourish.
The Pope of Rome, whom Catholics consider to be the earthly head of the Church, should be a defender of Christianity, not a defender of Islam, the religion that has been at war with Christianity and Judeo-Christian civilization since its earliest days. That any Christian leader would be called a “defender of Islam” by anyone only casts into vivid relief the absurdity of our age and the weakness of the free world. The creeping idolatry of the papacy that is rampant in today’s Catholic Church, with all too many Catholics treating every word of the Pontiff as if it were a divine oracle, only makes matters worse.
Can you imagine any Muslim leader ever being called a “defender of Christianity”? Of course not: Muslim leaders are more aware than their fond defender in the Vatican that Islam mandates warfare against unbelievers, not defense of their theological views.
Pope Francis is not only disastrously wrongheaded about an obvious fact that is reinforced by every day’s headlines; he is also deceiving and misleading his people about a matter of utmost importance, and keeping them ignorant and complacent about a growing and advancing threat.
“Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 The Roman Catholic priesthood attracts – or creates – pedophiles. 
Whether it’s forbidding priests to marry or its general satanic 
corruption, there has perhaps been no religion on Earth more associated 
with the molestation of children. To this day, the systemic and 
institution pedophilia continues in the Roman Catholic Church.
The Vatican announced on Friday that U.S. officials notified them that one of its diplomats (they have four on staff in Washington D.C.) at the United States embassy had been suspected of child pornography. The American authorities asked the Vatican to officially repeal the suspected pervert’s diplomatic immunity. The Vatican refused to remove his diplomatic immunity and put him on a plane to the Vatican. Because the Vatican essentially serves as its own state, it alone will be responsible for investigating, trying and sentencing the diplomat for his alleged pedophilia.
The Vatican has been notoriously lax on pedophilia and did not officially condemn the possession of child pornography until 2014 in the “Holy See’s” official comments on “Convention on the Rights of a Child.” Should the Vatican investigate, charge and convict the diplomat for crimes against children committed while in the United States (which is unlikely), he faces a maximum of 2 years in prison and a 12 thousand dollar fine. Should he have been convicted in the United States, he would have faced a maximum of 30 years in prison. But in fact, the Vatican has a huge backlog of unaddressed sexual abuse cases, and it’s unlikely the diplomat will be investigated or tried anytime soon.
The connection between the Papist religion and pedophilia is well documented. For a list of “priests” accused of sexual crimes upon children, click here. But be forewarned – it might take a few days to go through, and that database is only for the United States.
The current holder of the Anti-Christ’s office, Pope Francis, promised to get tough on the plague of child molestation among Roman Catholic leaders. His first real test was Cardinal George Pell, one of the Pope’s chief advisors – who was wanted in Australia for crimes against children earlier this summer. Francis defended his friend and papal leader, and attacked the victims of his alleged sexual abuse as being guilty of “relentless character assassination.”


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
We notice it happening more and more among Protestants. “Discernment” is being redefined.
Often, those with the most nuance, vagueness and whimsy in the public statements are considered “discerning” because they know what to say and how to say it in order to receive the acclaim of men or cause the least controversy possible. Biblical discernment is the opposite, however; discernment is to make judgments between right and wrong and to do so based upon the objective Scripture rather than subjective appearances (for more explanation of Biblical discernment, click here).
The Bishop of Rome, also known as the Pope (or Antichrist, depending upon your Confession of Faith), similarly seems to have redefined discernment. For him – like for so many evangelicals – discernment is not being clear on important Biblical issues.
Pope Francis – a committed Marxist and globalist – has departed from the “moral orthodoxy” of the Roman Catholic Church by speaking in unprecedented terms of homosexuality and applied an assumed Universalism towards virtually every class of unrepentant sinner. In short, this leftist Pope has moved hard left at breakneck speed. It would only make sense that Pope Francis would desire to redefine “discernment,” something sorely needed by Papists – some of whom might disagree with his hard left-turn even though they agree with him on superstition and idolatry. The redefinition of discernment has been a goal of the Pope for some time, having used the word, “discernment,” over 30 times in his 2016 Amoris Laetitia. His usage of the term in this papal declaration was designed to allow divorced couples receive communion (a startling departure from Romish teaching), saying, “discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits.”
Anyone familiar with Biblical discernment would understand that using discernment for the sake of doctrinal compromise (this is how a traditional Romanist might view it) is hardly the proper use of the term. Demonstrating that the infallible Popes often disagree, Francis has heralded the work of German theologian, Bernard Häring (who was a dissenter of Paul John Paul VI) because Häring argued discernment required not making hard moral stands. Defending his dissent from Pope John Paul VI, Francis was quoted in La Civilta Cattolica  as saying…
“Discernment is the key element: the capacity for discernment. I note the absence of discernment in the formation of priests. We run the risk of getting used to ‘white or black,’ to that which is legal. We are rather closed, in general, to discernment. One thing is clear: today, in a certain number of seminaries, a rigidity that is far from a discernment of situations has been introduced. And that is dangerous, because it can lead us to a conception of morality that has a casuistic sense…”
Discernment, to the Pope, has always been not being “rigid” on…you know…Bible-related stuff. This is, of course, the opposite of Biblical discernment as taught in the Scripture. Leave it to the Antichrist to twist the Scripture.
In an interview in Katolikus Valasz, the Pope spoke of discernment again…
“Discernment does not decide what is right or wrong but leads the person to inform himself as fully as possible, so that he can make a right judgment in a particular matter, that is, so that he can act in accord with the truth which God has written upon his heart or conscience.” 
Notice the subtle deception. Discernment is not judging between “right and wrong” from the Bible, but allowing someone to make a judgment based upon one’s own conscience.
Most recently, Francis told a group of recently graduated bishops, “[We must not be] imprisoned by nostalgia for being able to give just one answer to apply in all cases,” and that discernment is an “antidote against rigidity, because the same solutions aren’t valid everywhere.”
The Pope of Rome and evangelicals are growingly accepting the same definition of discernment.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Frank Page is the CEO of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention (not to be confused with the president of the SBC, who currently is Steve Gaines). Page has served in this capacity for the SBC since 2010, and was president of the SBC itself from 2006 to 2008 and was vice president of the scandal-ridden North American Mission Board (NAMB) from 2008 to 2010.
Since his service as CEO of the Executive Committee, Page has been instrumental in focusing the SBC on race relations and attracting non-white churches to the convention by creating a position of “Presidential Ambassador for Ethnic Relations” and starting various advisory committees consisting of different races. Page also authored Trouble with the Tulip, a book designed to negate the doctrines of Calvinism. Page (an ardent Arminian) made peace with Russell Moore (a rumored Calvinist), when Moore came under fire earlier this year for advocating for a Mosque to be built in New Jersey, probably because they both share the color-tinted, politically correct and segregated worldview of Cultural Marxism. Page was seen as the last, best hope to reign in Moore’s progressivism at the ERLC, and conservatives were generally disappointed with Page regarding the parlay.
The Baptist “Press” tweeted out a quotation from Frank Page just a few days ago…

The statement was made during Page’s address at the 2017 Executive Committee meeting.
Of course, we don’t need a word from the Lord, and that’s good, because he’s not giving any more of them. While Article I of the 2000 SBC Faith and Message stops short of asserting full cessationism, most Baptist Confessions – like the Second London Baptist Confession (1689) do not. Baptists traditionally have been cessationists, and do not believe in continued direct, divine revelation. Recent decades of Baptist life prove an exception to this rule.
The CEO of the SBC, on the other hand, is still wanting a fresh word from God.
Polemicist Justin Peter’s response was most apropros.

We have 66 Books of Inspired Writ. Someone please inform Page that “SBC” does not mean, “Slowly Becoming Charismatic.” The SBC needs to understand the words written.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Technically, the Southern Baptist Convention doesn’t believe in female pastors. In reality, there are hundreds of female Southern Baptist pastor-preachers yet to be disfellowshipped from the denomination, thousands of women with the title “pastor” (usually with the word “children,” “youth” or “women’s” in front of the title), and it is becoming altogether commonplace to see women fill Southern Baptist pulpits as guest lecturers. The Southern Baptist pigeon-peddlers and money changers, Lifeway Christian Resources, sells, advertises, and promotes women pastors and preachers. And, it seems that all are excited about increased female seminary enrollment.

Paige Patterson

The Baptist “Press” reports a “remarkable” increase in the number of females enrolled in Southern Baptist seminaries. The BP quotes Southwestern Seminary Baptist President, Paige Patterson, with what has to be the most asininely absurd comment to be heard from leader since he defended enrolling Muslims in his seminary.
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary President Paige Patterson, in reporting to the EC Sept. 18, said female SBC seminary graduates are helping to fulfill a need in churches for “strong female Bible teachers.” He attributed the increased number of female students in part to the publication of high-quality theological resources for women by LifeWay Christian Resources.
Yes. Yes, let’s discuss the “high-quality theological resources for women by Lifeway Christian Resources.

Lifeway’s chiefest Cash Cow of Bashan is Beth Moore, who has become a full-blown charismatic, regularly revealing prophecies God has given her, and her Bible-twisting has growing increasingly incoherent. You can find Lifeway’s collection of her material here.
Lifeway promotes the material of Hillsong, Word of Faith, impastor, Christine Caine. This woman calls Joyce Meyer her “spiritual mother.” You can find Lifeway’s collection of her material here.
Lifeway sells the material of theoerotic siren, Ann Voskamp. In One Thousand Gifts, Voskamp writes about making love to God in erotic terms. You can find Lifeway’s collection of her material here. 
Lifeway sells the material from Sarah Young, who wrote Jesus Calling – a book literally claiming to be direct, divine revelation of Jesus’ actual words. You can find Lifeway’s collection of her material here.
Lifeway sells the material of Priscilla Shirer, who regularly partners with Joel and Victoria Osteen and Joyce Meyer, and teaches direct, divine revelation. You can find Lifeway’s collection of her material here.
Aside from the gross theological problems of all these women (use our search function to find out what they are), all of these women have two things in common; they preach to men as well as women and they are Lifeway’s best-sellers.
It’s time to see if Paige Patterson is mentally fit for the function of seminary president. He’s well beyond proving himself spiritually unfit. If it’s true that Lifeway is to credit for women enrolling in seminary, this is a very, very, very bad thing. Lifeway is the one worming their way into churches to lead captive weak women (2 Timothy 3:6).
Patterson continues…
One of the things we have all been convinced of at the seminaries,” Patterson said, “is that one of the things we greatly need is a generation of female Bible teachers who really have their act together, who really understand the Word of God.
The seminaries may be “convinced” that they need a “generation of female Bible teachers,” but we ask the simple question: Why do women need to learn the Bible from women? If God has appointed elders to be “apt to teach,” and women are not Biblically qualified to be elders (read Timothy and Titus), then why must women learn the Bible from other women? Such a notion is to treat women like second-class citizens, giving them less qualified Bible teachers merely because of their gender. Blacks shouldn’t sit at the end of the bus, and women shouldn’t be excluded from pastoral Bible teaching just because of their gender. To give women teachers like Shirer, Moore, Young, Caine, and the like is to relegate women to eating hotdogs while their husbands dine on steak.
The notion that women should learn or need to learn from women is not an idea found in the Bible. It’s an idea found in marketing research of the Christian retail industry.
In the meantime, Southern Baptists should think long and hard about whether or not increased female enrollment in seminary is a good thing. Regardless of what the Baptist Faith and Message says Southern Baptists claim to believe about the complimentary roles of men and women, the fact is that many female seminary enrollees will not be content teaching only women – especially if it’s Lifeway’s products that have inspired their aspirations for service to the church.
For example, a Southern Baptist Church in Tennessee called its first female pastor in June of this year. Maybe the bigshots should rethink exactly what it is they’re celebrating.