As the people of Rouen laid their fallen priest to rest with the whole world looking on, few believed for one moment that there would not be more attacks like those of the past few weeks, when Europeans faced islamic jihad on a scale and with a regularity previously experienced only in countries where islam is already dominant or approaching dominance, yet many persist in skirting the issue or attempt to deflect and diminish the jihadist reality with which we now live.
This avoidance was clearly demonstrated by the unabashed glee with which our liberal media pounced on the vague possibility that the Munich McDonalds’ attack was the work of a right-wing extremist. It is interesting to note that we rarely see a corresponding joy when those warning of islamic jihad are vindicated, only a sober determination to continue the fight for truth.
But for all the horrors we have witnessed, and knowing that there are more to come, some things make matters far worse than they need be. To many of us, at least those not yet deprived of our sanity, the most galling aspect of this darkening world is the inexplicable position taken by religious leaders, particularly here in the West.
We know about the media agenda, and also that politicians and businessmen can be corrupted, bought and paid for by promises of power and petrodollars; but when lifelong Christians and theologians, proudly proclaim that islam is a religion of peace, and there is nothing to fear and no objection can be made to the growing threat to our life and society, we rightly wonder, along with Mr Trump, ‘What the hell is going on’ ?
This situation is all the more confusing, given that Christians and Christianity are primary targets for eradication, along with Jews and Judaism. It is also fact that almost from it’s inception, Christians, including the saints themselves, have warned about the gathering threat of islam.
So why now, when the danger is more pressing than ever before, have Christian leaders abandoned their flocks to the brutal mohamedan onslaught?
After that callous murder and desecration in a small Catholic church in Normandy, Pope Francis has again called for the introduction of potential assasins into Poland, even against the will of the people of that most Catholic of countries.
Remembering how the tenure of Pope Benedict was unusually terminated, especially after the fuss surrounding his Regensburg lecture, we may speculate whether his poor health were the only reason for his early retirement, and many theories have been forwarded about the subsequent change of Papal direction.
These range from dementia and cowardice, to his secret conversion to islam and pacts with the devil, and this clip (with over 2 million views) seems to add weight to this last conjecture.
In it we see what appears to be an incantation to Lucifer, vowing allegiance and declaring him God, and father of Jesus.
- Before we get too upset by this, let’s take a look at the word, which is not necessarily satanic, it simply means "bringing light", derived from Latin lux "light" and ferre "to bring".
- There were even a couple of 4th Century bishops who bore the name before it’s modern, more sinister association. See Lucifer of Sienna and Lucifer of Cagliari
What is this then, truth, misinterpretation or hoax?
Well, I contend that it’s all, some, and none of the above, but it may provide the key to some of the most important questions facing Western civilization today:-
- Why are Christian leaders empowering islam to propagate and destroy Western culture, such that, within a very few years, Christianity, Democracy, and our Secular and Humanitarian values will be overrun and our descendants either killed, subjucated, or forced into never ending and relentless conflict with the forces of barbarism?
And why does the Pope say that this is not a religious war, when everyone with an eye to open, can see that is exactly what it is?
There is one important thing to consider here; despite it’s apparent superstitious obsessions, and archaic institutions, the Catholic Church is highly structured and organized, and has remained so for nearly two millenia. Achieving such continuity has not come from random changes in direction or belief, and any change in policy will have been scrutinized and debated, theologically analysed and validated against accepted doctrine.
The Pope may look like a dictator, but he is subject to the Senate more than Caeser ever was. So for the Catholic heirarchy to embrace islam, we can be sure that there is some strong basis within Christian dogma.
Another important consideration, is that Christians and particularly Catholics, when accepting the Bible as the foundational text for humanity, must believe that an omnipotent Deity would know about anyone seriously threatening to destroy His Church, and such a person would be foretold and warned about, within it’s pages.
This should be obvious, and not even controversial whether we are believers or not; for any God who produced such a book, by whatever means and through whatever messengers, as Creator of the Universe, He must always have known that His Church and people would one day be faced with extinction, to not know that, is surely inconceivable, and must be an unassailable test of the Bible’s authenticity.
One might even conclude that an atheist, when debating Christianity, should be able to point to the Bible and say ‘Show me where it speaks of Mohamed!’ as a demand of verification.
We do not need to believe this is truth, to be assured that the Pope and his peers do, for anything less indicates such impotence, as to deny the very existence of God.
Returning to our earlier questions about why Christian leaders are ignorant or oblivious to the dangers we face, it may be explained by them thinking that islam is the church of Lucifer, not the devil as popularly understood, but an angel who sat at God’s side, then through pride and ambition fell from grace.
And as such, it becomes a compelling picture, which perfectly fits today’s narrative of one, universal Religion with the same God, where muslims are all peaceful and pious – just christians minus Christ; waiting to be shown the nature of that which has been hidden from them. Led astray, but only a little, by mohamed - a kind and benevolent prophet whose only fault was in his jealosy of Jesus as God’s only Son.
Now this may seem a harmless bit of theatrics, a convenient way of bringing Christianity and islam together, in some sort or interfaith dialogue of equals, but it is fallacy, a terrible fallacy.
Please bear with me now, for it is not what you or I believe that matters here, but what Christian theologians, ecumenical councils and the rest, might believe, and what governs their thoughts and drives their actions that matters, and if they believe that islam is just an offshoot of Christianity and that mohamed was once a heavenly angel, then that really does matter to us all.
There are many discussions on lucifer as the bringer of light, a fallen angel or even the devil himself, it seems that the name can be anything or anyone that you want, but I feel this cannot include mohamed.
Firstly, it is logical that lucifer predates or is contemporary with Jesus, and it was when Jesus became God incarnate, that Lucifer fell from grace. But islam appeared six centuries after Christ, also, according to any scripture that I know, only Christ has been manifest on Earth, and Lucifer has never taken Man’s body and blood, to walk among us.
Secondly, this fallen angel idea ignores what mohamed actually did:- his earthly crimes and excesses, his callous and unholy actions that have shamed mankind to the extent that we might hope he was a mere invention of others who sought to use this infamy for their own gains, but sadly we see that such evil can and does exist; and by his collaboration, it is this very evil that Pope Francis seeks to visit upon us.
And Lucifer refused to recognise Christ, but mohamed neither ignored or disputed Jesus, but rather he made distortions and perversions, portraying Christ as one like himself, a coward and deceiver, who sent another to be crucified in His place and who will return to destroy His own Church and people. And that includes you, pope Francis.
So, if Lucifer was not mohamed, we still need to answer our atheistic brethren: Where does the Bible talk about a historical figure who comes after Jesus, one with the aim of destroying Christianity and Judaism, and setting the world on a path to ultimate destruction?
No prizes here, as most still reading this piece will already have identified the antiChrist of Revelation, so for now, you’ll just need to content yourself with being right.
But what’s the big deal, what’s the difference, aren’t they just names?
Well, Pope Francis was fine washing the feet of the unenlightened, (christians without Christ) the followers of one of our own fallen angels, but could we similarly imagine him washing and fawning over disciples of the antiChrist?
Can we also conceive of our religious leaders calling for the introduction of armies of antiChristians into our homelands, to fight and struggle against our laws and God-given freedoms?
There are millions of reasons to identify mohamed as the antiChrist, probably somewhere around 1.6 billion, to be accurate, and by not doing so we are driving deeper into unfathomable darkness, than We have ever gone before.
To call mohamed Lucifer, is to accord a spiritual dimension that was never there. This removes responsibility from his followers, for they are merely human, so how could they resist the devil’s own influence? Fr. Hamel reportedly denounced satan, rather than his murderers, as they committed their ritual sacrifice, and while their acts were certainly demonic, they were born of anti-Christian ideology, not some transcendent, evil force.
Whether we believe in the Bible as Truth or myth, a greater and more dangerous myth is that islam has anything to do with the teachings in that Book, beyond those which mohamed took and perverted, for his own earthly ends.