Anime currently is packed full of freemasonic/satanic imagery and symbolism: to cause a moral inversion in the viewer. This is the same theory used in the brainwashing of freemasons- to blind them to the difference between, and existence of black and white, good an evil. If it weren’t for netflix being determined to brainwash the masses with “progressive” degeneracy then the high heels on a male character would have been edited out since it had no relation at all to the plot, it was just shoehorned in there because of Netflix disgusting commie political bent. Netflix’s progressive brainwashing poisons everything they do and this anime is no exception. I’m locked in my house because of the Democrat-china virus that was made as a conspiracy to control us by the stolen government, so I watched this anime series though it’s primarily intended for a female audience. I was hoping the heroine would turn out to be a cyborganic killing machine but no such luck. Why are libruls so violent/lazy looters? But instead: There is media intended to entertain you and then there is media that is intended to indoctrinate you. This anime is the latter. They spent very little time writing a story and a lot of time making half the characters gay. The plot is erratic and contradictory and the characters are superficial. It’s a shame that the globalist propaganda the dominates American media now has a foothold in japan as well.
This is what is known as Kissinger-Gate and part of the reason THEY stole the election from Trump. THEY’ve been doing it to us for years. We’re all being played by THEM. Kissinger went to China which is basically the same as Japan: 1-2 do the math. They have gates and Pizza Huts there too. Kissinger was a VP: same as Biden. Have we forgotten Biden’s crime spree? —-Tyrone Von Hoofendorfer
Quote the late Ken Silva: “As one who was ordained as an SBC pastor in the mid-90s I kind of agree that a name change for the SBC would help clarify where this denomination is currently at. Filled as it is with leaders who don’t have to lead, hiding as they do behind its Idol of Autonomy, the SBC’s becoming anything goes.”
(Source: Apprising Ministries)
We must also bring back State Churches… who needs to keep religion and government separate anyways? We most greatfully thank you our late Affectionate Uncle Ken for being in the front-lines in getting our important message across that God wants America to be enslaved to theocratic tyranny. Rushdoony, David Barton and the great and all powerful Worldview Weekend couldn’t have done as great a work as he did.
We vote that we also place statues of Spurgeon and the great General and Holiest Apostle of our Truth War: our Pope of all Truth John MacArthur (P. B. U. H.) in the sanctuary of every Southern Baptist church. Phil Johnson agrees and Rhoblogy adds that a statue or two of James White—“Rockstar” wouldn’t hurt as that would provide extra protection from Doctrinal corruption. Speaking of Spurgeon whom Discernmentalists love to quote from ala our late Uncle in Discernmentalism—our Research Robot Monkeys discovered that he was doctrinally impure so he might not be as great as Phil and his John, son!
Personally the ODMafia moves to change the SBC’s name to Saved By Calvinism as only Calvinism saves not Jesus.
Brannon Howse has turned against the Pope of all Truth (PBUH) as seen in this video—how dare he attack the Only True Living Teacher of God’s Word today like that!:
Oh the horrors as Brannon under John MacArthur (PBUH)’s leadership could’ve single handedly crushed the Socialist Justice Warrior Movement once and for all as Brannon believes:
Anti-Christian bigotry causes poverty! Separation of Church and State causes poverty! Liberal-leaning social engineers cause poverty! Brilliant! The man should have the Adam Smith Chair of Economics at some prestigious university…say…Liberty University or Bob Jones. Thank you Brannon Howse… (Source)
Brannon’s friend Jan Markel, a broadcaster with Olive Tree Ministries, also seems to think that our Pope (PBUH) is somehow involved with the New World Order. And even though the description of one of her radio shows on Howse’ site clearly misquotes the Pope (PBUH)—Jan has stated that Social Justice=Marxism.
Brannon’s clumsy, half-baked crusade to uncover imaginary collusion between a well-respected, rock solid Christian apologist with a 25 year track record of Gospel ministry and an accused Islamic terrorist sympathizer is bad enough. Compounding the problem is him mass blocking an entire online community of believers pleading with him to step back and reevaluate the foolishness he has presented. Worse still is him hiding his dispute with a ministry that on the one hand he uses for his credibility, but on the other hand, disparages the men associated with that ministry. Such vacillating behavior reveals some troubling character issues that need to be addressed.
Repent Brannon repent!
Update: We caught our Pope (PBUH) returned to the fold: “I have also quoted John in several of my books.”—-Brannon Howse
Update #2: “I began to be concerned with MacArthur’s continued promotion of men like Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan and others whom he would invite into his church pulpit.
In 2017, MacArthur’s ministry defended James White after he had an interfaith dialogue in my community with a Muslim Brotherhood, Jew-hating, holocaust-denying, Hitler-defending, Jihadi-preaching Imam by the name of Yasir Qadhi. In fact, in June of 2018, MacArthur invited White to speak at his church and seminary for a week, leaving no question that MacArthur had no issues with those who participate in interfaith dialogue, which is the number one strategy of the Muslim Brotherhood for taking over America.
MacArthur’s compromise on interfaith dialogue, and his continued promotion of social justice warriors Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, the [Cultural Marxist] Gospel Coalition and his 2018 appearance once again at “Together For the Gospel” with out-and-proud white privilege promoters and race-baiters John Piper, Matt Chandler, David Platt and others, led me to publicly apologize in my November 2018 book, Marxianity, for ever having promoted John MacArthur.
In this book I warned that John MacArthur had made a clear choice to speak out of both sides of his mouth, to have one foot firmly planted in the progressive evangelical camp, and another within traditional evangelicalism. I openly warned that MacArthur was choosing to sacrifice truth for pragmatic reasons as well as to remain within his “Calvinist camp” of good ol’ boys.”—Brannon Howse
Breaking News from the Frontlines of the Truth War— This article will show you that not only are Bono and C. S. Lewis by guilt of association not a Christian, but that they are both really from the dark side:
Have you been fooled by this rocker, who talks about his love for Jesus, but in reality shows his love for Satan during his performances? He has an alter ego named “MacPhisto.” Did you know that MacPhisto is in The Screw Tape Letters, by C.S. Lewis. The book’s characters are demons, and MacPhisto is a demon who works hard at communicating with baby Christians to get them away from God!
“But U2 is much more than a popular rock band. U2 has a great influence in the emerging church and the contemporary worship movement. U2’s lead singer Bono is praised almost universally among contemporary and emerging Christians. Phil Johnson observes that “Bono seems to be the chief theologian of the Emerging Church Movement” (Absolutely Not! Exposing the Post-modern Errors of the Emerging Church, pg. 9).
Oh the sheer horror! The sinfully horrifyingly devilish pic above is enough to lead me away from Biblical Christianity but I’m even more horrified that the article quoted above mentioned C. S. Lewis (a known heretic). Don’t they know that C. S. Lewis is a heretic as per our Clear Teachings? In fact he’s even beloved by Emerging heretics so that makes him equally heretical in keeping with our traditions by our laws of guilt by association. Here are some of the things these Emergent heretics have said about C. S. Lewis (a heretic):
“Like you, I have great respect for C. S. Lewis…”—Brian McLaren
“I am busy because I am lazy. I indolently let others decide what I will do instead of resolutely deciding myself. It was a favorite theme of C. S. Lewis that only lazy people work hard. By lazily abdicating the essential work of deciding and directing, establishing values and setting goals, other people do it for us.” ― Eugene Peterson
“Following Christ includes belonging, not just believing. British author and theologian C.S. Lewis noted that the word membership is of Christian origin, but the world has emptied it of its original meaning.”—Rick Warren
Urban Faith notes on Rob Bell: Bell’s view on hell is like that of C.S. Lewis (not a surprise: he directs readers to Lewis’ Great Divorce in the back of the book): people get what they want.
From all of this we can gather that C.S. Lewis (a heretic) would’ve been a U2 fan were he still around in today’s perilous times—even Bono himself has a fondness for heretic C. S. Lewis:
“Many readers of this blog will be aware of Bono’s affection for C. S. Lewis, and how Lewis has influenced his theological commitments. You hear the echo of Lewis’s trilemma here from the book, Bono in Conversation, distinguishing “karma” from “grace,” which, Bono declares, is a “mind blowing concept…that keeps me on my knees.”
On reading said quote of Bono on Jesus Emerging heretic Frank Viola exclaimed: Is the Lead Singer of U2 the New C.S. Lewis? Other Discernmentalist Ministries have also observed Lewis’ heresies: “CS Lewis – his style dupes many Christians…his style is a Trojan horse for bad theology.” ~ Mike Abendroth. Dr. Hugh Jass himself—Phil Johnson’s mighty Pyromaniacs has stated:
CS Lewis did not believe in Hell and he believed in purgatory. CS Lewis was heavily influenced by his friend JRR Tolkien (who wrote Lord of the Rings) a Roman Catholic and he was also influenced by the writings of GK Chesterton, another Romanist.
Tolkien was disappointed that CS Lewis moved from his atheism but not to the Roman Catholic Church. Lewis was sort of “Anglo-Catholic.” Anyway, Tolkien’s influence on Lewis may explain Lewis’ heterodoxy.
Most importantly the Ways of the Master himself—the Pope of the Truth War John MacArthur (PBUH) declares:
Not many evangelicals would openly claim to believe in purgatory, even if their eschatology bears a striking resemblance to Catholic dogma. Eschewing the Catholic emphasis on works righteousness, a growing number in the church believe that God’s grace extends to sinners beyond the grave, rescuing them from the due penalty of their sin in the afterlife. C.S. Lewis’s book The Great Divorceplays out this theory in narrative form, as unrepentant sinners are coaxed into heaven by the saints.
But that view has no biblical basis—it’s driven by sentiment, not Scripture.
Therefore we can only conclude that NOW THE END BEGINS are leading millions away from Biblical Christianity by mentioning C. S. Lewis (a heretic).
You know, one of the things that’s become apparent to me as you just kind of keep your ear to the ground and watch what’s going on in terms of theology today is that expositors never come out of institutions with a low view of Scripture…never. Liberals make terrible Bible expositors…in fact, they don’t make them at all simply because they do not believe there’s anything significant about the terms, so why bother to deal with the terms. But it isn’t only the liberals that concern me in that dimension, I think that even evangelicals and fundamentalists have the same problem. We would say that liberals attack the authority of Scripture in a head-on attack. They deny it. They want to deal with a different level of inspiration, whether it’s the inspiration of someone’s thought or whether it’s the existential approach that if it zaps you somewhere then that’s inspired for you, or whatever approach they take that’s less than verbal plenary inspiration. The result of all of that is that there are no real significances attached to the terms themselves, so they don’t bother to deal in an expository manner. They talk in broad generalities.
But it’s amazing to me also that even evangelicals do the same thing. Recently I, and I’ve done this a couple of times, but when I was giving some messages along this line to a group of pastors, I said “The liberals attack the Bible by denying its truth,” you know, and you can hear the “amens” ripple across the room. And I said, “And then the people who have sort of flipped out on the experiential end and on the Charismatic end and have taken those things to excess, they come along and say…Well, Jesus said to me…or I had a vision…or God spoke to me…or the Lord showed me what this meant.” And what they’re doing really is adding their own experience, their own revelations, their own visions to the Bible and in so doing that they undermine the authority of Scripture, too, and it becomes just as important to for them to teach their experiences as it does to teach the Bible. And so, the purity of expository preaching is watered down. And also what invariably happens is in that particular movement you wind up with a tremendous freedom to use the Bible almost as a creative instrument, it’s almost like a paint brush. You can use it to paint anything you want. You can make verses say whatever you want them to say. You can be very fanciful. You can be very allegorical because your experiences and your feelings and your emotions and your intuitions and your visions and your revelations are substantively the equivalent of Scripture.
And then you have, of course, the evangelical and the fundamental people who would die for the absolute authority of Scripture but they get up week after week in their pulpits and never delineate its principles. And in my judgment, that’s the worst of all because to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin. I mean, we know that every word is pure, right? And if we don’t deal in an expository manner with the Word of God, then we’re denying the precept of the Bible itself, that it is in fact in every word the Word of God. And so the greater sin is at the door of the evangelical who affirms this high view of Scripture but number one, doesn’t believe that he should be involved in an expository ministry, or number two, is involved in exposition in a superficial non-diligent way. You can’t treat Scripture like that. If you’re going to do it, you’ve got to get in and be diligent.
We need beards now more than ever in these Perilous times to fight the good fight of the Truth War but not just any beards—we must keep our beards Biblically Pure in order to separate ourselves from worldliness and the Spiritual Terrorists who are always attacking our Truth as:
In our current culture, the progressive trends of gender confusion and transgenderism is all the more reason we should uphold the biblical picture of a masculine man by having beards to stand separated from the pagan culture of today.
Truth Warriors without a beard lack a Backbone and are most likely theologically suspect and part of the weak womanly gutless-grace Girlieman sissified wimpy Evanjellyfish church. Beards are a must for protecting our Truth as all the greatest of the greats Truth Warriors had beards like Spurgeon. In fact we believe beardless weirdos are responsible for sissifying churches today as they are most likely to believe in weak doctrines and like Spurgeon we must take a stand for the Hard Truths of the Bible.
This matter of Christians rejecting the biblical truth of gender distinct (roles) and beards is essentially a form of Gnosticism reviving in these last days. Beards make a man a man as distinct from women.
Strangely, the few churches and Bible colleges today that remain biblical in the teaching of gender distinction of women wearing modesty dresses ignore the topic of a man’s facial hair as part of this doctrine. Every Bible school that I am personally aware of that teaches gender distinction also implement rules that the men must be clean shaven. Where does such thinking come from? Where is the consistency when it is taught women have to dress like women but men can claim “christian liberty” when it comes to shaving off the God given mark of masculinity? Adam Clarke (1762- 1832) commented on Deuteronomy 22:5, “It certainly cannot mean a simple change in dress, whereby the men might pass for women, and vice versa. This would have been impossible in those countries where the dress of the sexes had but little to distinguish it, and where every man wore a long beard. It is, however, a very good general precept understood literally, and applies particularly to those countries where the dress alone distinguishes between the male and the female. The close-shaved gentleman may at any time appear like a woman in the female dress, and the woman appear as a man in the male’s attire. Were this to be tolerated in society, it would produce the greatest confusion.”39)Adam Clarke, Adam Clarke Commentary.
Besides that beards provide extra protection from wetness. Be true to what the bible teaches and you will be saved. Levitcus 19:27 should answer all your remaining questions.
I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up,
James Grant wrote: “With the deadly heresies entertained and taught by the Plymouth Brethren, in relation to some of the most momentous of all the doctrines of the Gospel, and to which I have adverted at some length, I feel assured that my readers will not be surprised at any other views, however unscriptural and pernicious they may be, which the Darbyites have embraced and zealously seek to propagate”[20]
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle and contemporary of Darby, published criticism of Darby and Brethrenism.[19] His main criticism was that Darby and the Plymouth Brethren rejected the vicarious purpose of Christ’s obedience as well as imputed righteousness. He viewed these of such importance and so central to the Gospel that it led him to publish this statement about the rest of their belief in the Sword and Trowel.
*- Phil Johnson’s Hugh Jass raptured this attacking critique from his Hugh Jass Spurgeon (False Convert/False Teacher) site as he didn’t want others to know that “self-respecting Calvinist” Spurgeon (False Convert/False Teacher) had impure doctrines for not following the Ways of the Master himself— the Clear Teachings of our Pope of the Truth War John MacArthur (PBUH) that: “Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Should Be A Premillennial Dispensationalist Rapture Believer” (in other words follow Darby’s teachings).
The attacks on us by our former allies the formerly known Propaganda & Party (Pulpit & Pen) now henceforth known as Bulpit & Pen have taken a turn for the worse and have gotten extra ugly. Recently our Mighty notTwitter Truth Warriors were blocked. Yes blocked— Bulpit & Pen blocked us from spying on following them on their Socialist Media account on Twitter—after discovering Dr. Truthslayer’s helpful meme. We are beyond outraged—for one: how dare they go against our Clear Teachings that even we ourselves don’t follow on Social Media leading to Socializing which is sheer worldliness and even worse Socialism. We thought they were much more anti-Social Gospel than that.
Even moreso Bulpit & Pen have turned their missives on our newest ally in protecting the fragile Hard Truth of our Glorious Pope John MacArthur’s Truth War (PBUI):
I just read Brian McLaren and the Gospel of Here & Now by Greg Gilbert and he points out that Brian Mclaren is preaching a Gospel that states that the Kingdom is “Here and Now”.
And I say how perverse of a Gospel is that!?! We know that the Truly Anointed Preacher/Pastor/Teacher/ of the Only True and Faithful Gospel, John MacArthur states the Kingdom is “only spiritual now and will come in the future” which is stated in the video post at CRN. Listen carefully as he carefully picks apart Brian and then sets us all straight that “the Kingdom of God is not here and now” but “in the future and only spiritual” and is all about getting people into heaven.
How dare anyone pervert the gospel and say we should live as Kingdom people here and now. These “emergents” and their sick social (we want justice) gospel that wants to feed the…
Obama was now, according to one Brietbart reporter, one of those “people who don’t want to say ‘Christians’”. “Yeah we’re actually called Christians not ‘Easter worshippers’”, sniffed a National Review writer. And so the sneakingconspiracyspread.
This is one of those “scandals” that becomes absurd as soon as you say it aloud. The charge is that former President Obama must hate Christianity so much he can’t even bring himself to say the word out loud. Such a rare form of psychological loathing that would be very surprising coming from a man who, say, famously sang “Amazing Grace” at a memorial service for Christians who were murdered in his own country while he was President.
Referring to people attending a religious service as “worshippers” is standard practice. It was only a few days ago that the AP called those mourning the closure of the Notre Dame Cathedral as “Easter Worshippers.”
How dare they take a stand against our persecution for taking a stand against all those who would dare call Easter worshippers True Christians against our clear teachings that such is an abomination! We must reunite again in our war on Truth Truth War to come against all those who would dare come against us and be ever apprising on those who pervert our True Doctrines. Quote:
There’s a whole cottage industry built up around this complex — the God’s Not Dead franchise springs to mind — and it ends up doing real damage to Christians in other countries who are facing actual, not imagined, persecution. When American Christians cry wolf about actual persecution enough, the real thing ends up getting ignored.
And that’s the sad irony here. What happened in Sri Lanka is a true example of believers being targeted for their religious beliefs, while American Christians took a statement of seeming sincerity as a perceived slight and obfuscated the real persecution. If Christians truly care about persecution, they will mourn the real thing, not create fake versions of it.
In this era of religious pluralism and postmodern relativism, evangelical Christianity has been marginalized as too rigid and too exclusive for public consumption. In the same way, the first-century church was a direct contradiction, not just of Jewish teaching, but of Roman paganism, as well. John MacArthur explains how the New Testament Christian’s life contradicted the religious norms of life in Roman society.
Because the Christians refused to make the required sacrifice offered in worship to the emperor, they were seen as traitors. They also proclaimed the kingdom of God, which caused the Romans to suspect them of plotting to overthrow the government. To avoid harassment by government officials, Christians often held their meetings in secret and at night. That heightened the Romans’ suspicions that they were hatching an anti-government plot. That Christians generally refused to serve in the Roman army also caused them to be viewed as disloyal.
The Romans also persecuted Christians for religious reasons. They allowed their subjects to worship whatever gods they liked, as long as they also worshiped the Roman gods. But Christians preached an exclusive message that there is only one God and only one way of salvation. That, coupled with their evangelistic efforts to win converts from other religions, went against the prevailing atmosphere of religious pluralism. [3] The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: John 12-21, 167-168.
The world doesn’t often clearly delineate religious lines of demarcation. To the untrained eye, most “Christian” religions look vaguely similar. And so long as the various religions can get along with one another—regardless of their differences—the world is happy to tolerate their faith and practice. Look no further than the widespread ecumenical support for this latest pope, or the constant campaign to rebrand Islam as a religion of peace as evidence of the world’s preference for postmodern religious harmony.
It’s only when God’s people make a stand for the objective, eternal truth of His Word that they find themselves in the crosshairs of an otherwise tolerant society. The message is clear: If you could just take your faith less seriously, we’d be able to get along. But the inability of God’s truth to mix with error means God’s people will always be branded as the problem children.
The Official Blog Of God's Only Inerrant Party 