Coming to the Aid of a Satanist Only Gets You Burned

The Self-Styled Satanist. Not his real name.

Late yesterday afternoon, in lieu of three articles I had written on “Queer”fest 2017 Laramie, a self-styled Satanist decided to write me a poorly written screed that pretended to be a defense of another Satanist in one of those articles. It was filled with all kinds of personal attacks, four-letter expletives, and personal threats, that read more like a comedy of errors than something to be taken seriously.

In relation to his boorish drivel, though, two characters by the names of Jay James and Chuck Blankenship decided to chime in with their brilliance by offering support and rebuttal to some of the things I wrote. Of course, I am being facetious, for both Jay’s and Chuck’s offerings were as misguided as Ollie’s attempt at using multi-syllabled words. First, I’ll address Jay’s comments and then Chuck’s to explain why.

Jay James: Boy wannabe

Jay James: Girl Wannabe

First of all, Jay is not a boy or man, but a mixed-up female who cannot decide if it wants to be a girl, a boy, a woman, a man, or just a weirdo. Nevertheless, its first comment was concerned about “tone,” but as is usual with the confused, touchy-feely, snowflake types, they refuse to deal with substance. This is because in our postmodern culture, substantive comments are anathema, until it becomes subjectively advantageous to use them. Of course, persons like Jay never recognize the hypocrisy or contradiction by approaching life that way. They simply “feel” that it is okay to spout off, because they believe the world revolves around them.

Second, its comment about “love” is equally misguided, since it fails to address the fact that there is nothing loving about homosexuality. It is a perversion that God further labels an “abomination.” The proof of just how unloving homosexuality is comes by way of the commentary spewed by those attempting to defend it. Jay impugns Christians and Christianity, which further means it hates Jesus too, who also condemns homosexuality. And if all the verbal vomit displayed in previous posts, coming from those engrossed in homosexuality and/or Satanism, is actually a demonstration of love, then love has no substantive, absolute meaning, which is fine for all the Jays out there, who, once again, believe that they are the measure of all things.

Please note the “disgusting,” “full of bigoted hate,” personal attack. Jay offers nothing by way of example to prove its accusation. It simply passes irrational judgment, which is another contradiction those of its ilk are constantly guilty of, and then moves on to the silliness of alluding to something that is equally pagan or subjective: karma. Clearly, Jay’s thought processes are as confused, conflicted, and cockeyed as its hairdo. Perhaps, if it really read my articles with any amount of comprehension or spiritual conviction, it would recognize that all of the projections it made are really nothing more than reflections of its own personality.

Now, let’s turn our attention to Chuck Blankenship. On Ollie’s Facebook page he wrote the following:

First of all, I’ve read and re-read the Bible so many times over the course of the past 36 years of my Christian life and earned a few advanced degrees along the way, all in theological studies, that while I have only scratched the surface of God’s wisdom and knowledge, it is surely more than any clown defending a Satanist over something like homosexuality will ever have achieved.

Chuck “the Bible scholar–not” Blankenship”

Second, Chuck–like Jay above–makes a bald-faced assertion, but offers nothing to back it up. What exactly did I “spout,” but only did so in part? If it is an allusion to children born out of wedlock, then I quoted nothing from the Bible. All that was written was that Chelsea Henry (aka “Zoe”) was contradictorily covering up her pregnancy by getting married for all the wrong reasons.

Nevertheless, the Bible is quite clear about bearing illegitimate children into the world. Not only is illicit sexual intercourse forbidden, but one cannot bear an illegitimate child without engaging in illicit sexual intercourse. In the Old Testament, before Israel entered the Promised Land, God, through Moses, told the Jews, “No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD” (Deut. 23:2).

Later, in the New Testament, Jesus said, “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders” (Matt. 15:19). The Apostle Paul wrote the Corinthian Christians, who were bombarded by the sexual perversity of the Hellenistic Greeks, “Flee [sexual] immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body” (1 Cor. 6:18). So, for Chuck to be writing that the Bible says nothing about bearing children out of wedlock is just plainly ignorant.

As for Chuck’s equation of Jesus’ birth with illegitimacy, let him be reminded–if he ever knew it in the first place–that Joseph and Mary were husband and wife, even though the official ceremony that involved all the revelry had yet to take place.

Matt. 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. 20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as [“as” does not appear in the Greek text] your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.”

So, even if the Holy Spirit was not responsible for Jesus’ conception, then he still would not have been an illegitimate child. But since we know that God was his father, then Chuck’s blind attempt at equation falls short, just like all other attempts by others have that are meant to demean the person of Jesus.

Thirdly, Chuck never provided a statement made by me where I wrote that I hated the sinner. Instead, he did like so many, who do actually hate the sinner, by engaging in hateful rhetoric. He would rather attack the messenger, than the message, and then self-righteously condone the sin that condemns the sinner. Worse yet, he imposes a religious cliché upon the Bible as a biblical verse—”hate the sin, love the sinner”—when no such verse exists.

Fourthly, nowhere in the Bible does it say that God loves Satan. Instead, the Bible does say that God hates “Pride and arrogance and the evil way, and the perverted mouth” (Prov. 8:13), the chief exponent of each is none other than Satan himself. Later, the Bible makes it clear that Jesus came to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn. 3:8), the culmination of which will be that God casts the devil, along with his minions, into the Lake of Fire, where “they will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Rev. 20:10). Satan’s damnation is final and there is no turning back, and it is hardly because God loves him that such an end will come.

Fifthly, the debauchery of homosexuality is not confined to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:1-ff. cf. Judg. 19:1-ff.). Homosexuality is both an Old and New Testament blight, the former of which is condemned in the Levitical code (Lev. 18:22; 20:13) and affirmed later by Jesus himself (Matt. 5:17-18). It is one of the most egregious sins that anyone could commit and worthy of capital punishment (Lev. 20:13 cf. Rom. 1:24-32; 13:1-5). Moreover, to distort another biblical passage in order to condone what God calls an “abomination” is tantamount to Peter’s description of “the untaught and unstable” who “distort” the Scriptures “to their own destruction” (2 Pet. 3:16).

Finally, Chuck’s arrogance in assuming that he corrected anything is rooted in biblical ignorance and stupidity. He neither knows the Scriptures, nor does he care to know them. If he did, then he would not be running to the aid of a self-styled Satanist to defend the indefensible. Chuck, in other words, is a fool that abuses the tidbits of what he thinks he knows about the Bible in an effort to undermine it. He is a fraud, a fake, and phony, just like the devil that is leading him around by the nose.

A freaky satanic “friend” of Ollie Overdose.

Such is the latest attack stemming from “Queer”fest 2017 Laramie that ultimately only confirms everything already written before. Homosexuality and Satanism are bedfellows (see 2 Pet. 2:4-6), so it does not come as a surprise that one would cry out for help from the other. Yet, the more diabolically insane and duped individuals who come crawling out of the woodwork to wage war against God and His elect, the more it should tell everyone everywhere that “Queer”fest is not something to be lauded, but something to be pitied, condemned, and avoided. May God’s will be done to see that that is exactly what happens. Otherwise, a whole bunch of people will end up eternally burned.

6 Comments on "Coming to the Aid of a Satanist Only Gets You Burned"

  1. You’re really going to complain about ad-hominem attacks, when that’s basically all this article is? More ad-hominem attacks? I find it disgusting that you feel the need to attack a minor to validate your own “spiritual convictions”. Argue with adults all you want but honestly I would expect more mature behavior from a child of God. Disgusting.

    • Please note the lack of any evidence to back up Orin’s charges. This is similar to a threatening letter addressed to CAPro this morning, which will be published shortly, as per Disclaimer policy. As was written in response to Skylar Evans, if you’re going to make critical and/or threatening statements, then it is in your best interest to at least read the articles and procedures. Otherwise, you will not only make a fool out of yourself, your comments will fall on deaf ears. Cheers.

  2. Go fuck yourself you blind bible humping moron. Good luck when you die alone hating others you bigoted troglodyte

  3. I really hope that you realize that you just posted a libelous article about a minor…a CHILD. That is illegal. You disclosed a minor’s name on a public website and used photos of her against her will. It is one thing to attack an adult and create false accusations about them but it is another thing entirely when you try to attack a child. Just wait until the authorities are notified. Rest assured that they will be.

    • Please note, “Seductress of the Crows” (not Anonymous, as recorded above) does not provide any documentation to validate her practice of law without a law license, which is illegal. All she did was spout specious allegations and make veiled threats. Again, if any of the persons associated with those mentioned in any of the articles wish to hire a real lawyer to pursue something that you are destined to lose out on, go right ahead. You know the protocol, as stated in the Disclaimer. We are awaiting the letter. Maybe someone from Sheridan, which is the Seductress’s location, will be willing to help out for $300-400/hour.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*