The Gay Agenda Isn't About Gays

[ScreamingEagle]

Is it really "gay rights" that they're after, or is it something else?

The San Francisco judge who stands the Constitution on its head so that persons of the same sex can be "married"; the gay militants who plan a mass rally this summer in the Holy City of Jerusalem; the liberal church leaders who boldly contradict the Bible--are they making all this fuss only because their hearts bleed for the gays?

What kind of world do they offer us--these self-anointed judges, militants, renegade clergy, Planned Parenthood, GLSEN? These academics, pundits, and movie stars? Ignoring the obvious folly of promoting high-risk behavior in an age of AIDS, where are they going with this business?

Quite simply, to a world in open rebellion against God.

And why?

Because they wish to be as gods themselves.

Why else overturn timeless, universal taboos? Why else redefine and reconfigure institutions as basic as marriage and the family?

What these people seek is the authority to define how we shall live. They reject the Biblical view that "it is He that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are His people, and the sheep of His pasture" (Ps. 100:3).

God has not made us, they say. We are the product of random natural processes by which inanimate matter became life and evolved into human beings. The Earth is not the Lord's. It belongs to those who are powerful enough to rule the others.

Secret societies have always bound their initiates by getting them to violate the most profound taboos. It's a way of radically cutting them off from the rest of society. The Bacchic Conspiracy, aimed at subverting Rome in the 2nd century B.C., used homosexual orgies as its initiation ritual. It was intended to alienate young men and women from their families.

Today we see this being done openly instead of in secrecy, and on a global scale. To take God's place as the shepherd, the self-anointed of this world first need to rustle His sheep.

As G.K. Chesterton observed, when a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn't believe in nothing; he believes in anything.

The plan here is to lead God's people into rebellion, encourage them to violate God's laws governing marriage and the family, and leave them with nowhere to turn, in the end, but to the wise, worldly powers who brought them to this pass.

It's not about "helping" gays. It's about grabbing for the power to define good and evil.

It won't work, of course. Nothing "shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom.8:39). God won the battle for men's souls when Christ died on the cross. It is not possible that He will abandon his sheep to the care of other sheep disguised as shepherds.

The self-anointed offer us slavery disguised as freedom, nothing more. They have deceived many; they have especially deceived themselves. Someday their whole enterprise will be brought crashing into ruin.

We who have not followed them into moral chaos have one duty: to stand firm, and bear witness that God's word is truth.

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/c-e/duigon/2005/duigon031605.htm

 

[dmp]

Excellent...you're a local...we should drink a beer together.

 

[Yurt]

I agree, the left's attack on the people who want to defend traditional notions of marriage, defend biblical notions of marriage, is a true grab of power.

I have a gay aunt. We are very close. We were having this discussion about a year ago concerning whether or not the libs actually care about gay rights, namely, Wedont Kerry. She and her partner, who have no interest in marriage in terms of biblical understanding, because they respect that as an institution (they only want rights such as visitation in hospital, probate..) agree that JK does not care about the gay agenda, in fact he is against it, though maybe he changed his mind. They also feel that the demo party as a whole is only using them to grab power, ie, more votes. When pressed on a personal level, they feel that most senators, congressman (people, whatever) would truly not support gay marriage.


Spot on with this article.

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

What these people seek is the authority to define how we shall live.

How does letting 2 gays marry each other have any effect on defining how you live? From what I've seen, they aren't even asking the church's recognition of their marriage, only the government's. I would be 100% opposed to forcing churches to conduct gay marriage ceremonies if it ever came to that but that doesn't seem to be the request. So how exactly does a gay couple getting a piece of paper from some government official that you've never met "define how you shall live"?

They reject the Biblical view that "it is He that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are His people, and the sheep of His pasture" (Ps. 100:3).

So what if they reject Biblical views? So what if they believe in 8 armed gods with elephant trunks (don't shoot me, I'm no expert on Hindus)? So what if they believe in nothing... or anything? I don't think you should use someone else's religion (or lack thereof) to attack their viewpoints any more than they should dismiss you and your ideas simply because you are Christian. As far as I'm aware, the US Constitution protects their right to reject Biblical views.

I know many here will disagree but you don't do your cause any good by bringing religion into the gay marriage debate. It makes it too easy for them to write you off as "just another wacko fundamentalist Christian" and then convince other more moderate Christians of their viewpoint. You will also have to be very careful about making this debate about religion because legally, it may pit your religious problems with gay marriage against freedom of religion, something that really shouldn't have any part of this debate.

In the end, I hope the US does have a referendum on the matter and then the majority can truly decide.

 

[dilloduck]

How does letting 2 gays marry each other have any effect on defining how you live? From what I've seen, they aren't even asking the church's recognition of their marriage, only the government's. I would be 100% opposed to forcing churches to conduct gay marriage ceremonies if it ever came to that but that doesn't seem to be the request. So how exactly does a gay couple getting a piece of paper from some government official that you've never met "define how you shall live"?


So what if they reject Biblical views? So what if they believe in 8 armed gods with elephant trunks (don't shoot me, I'm no expert on Hindus)? So what if they believe in nothing... or anything? I don't think you should use someone else's religion (or lack thereof) to attack their viewpoints any more than they should dismiss you and your ideas simply because you are Christian. As far as I'm aware, the US Constitution protects their right to reject Biblical views.

I know many here will disagree but you don't do your cause any good by bringing religion into the gay marriage debate. It makes it too easy for them to write you off as "just another wacko fundamentalist Christian" and then convince other more moderate Christians of their viewpoint. You will also have to be very careful about making this debate about religion because legally, it may pit your religious problems with gay marriage against freedom of religion, something that really shouldn't have any part of this debate.

In the end, I hope the US does have a referendum on the matter and then the majority can truly decide.

Humans are social animals and what we do somehow affects the rest of us. Don't try to tell me that gays don't want to mark their mark. No one can criticize a gay person for the same reason you can't criticize any minority---you get called a bigot. I agree with the article--the gay agenda is just another front on the war against religious value systems.

 

[Nienna]

How does letting 2 gays marry each other have any effect on defining how you live? From what I've seen, they aren't even asking the church's recognition of their marriage, only the government's. I would be 100% opposed to forcing churches to conduct gay marriage ceremonies if it ever came to that but that doesn't seem to be the request. So how exactly does a gay couple getting a piece of paper from some government official that you've never met "define how you shall live"?


So what if they reject Biblical views? So what if they believe in 8 armed gods with elephant trunks (don't shoot me, I'm no expert on Hindus)? So what if they believe in nothing... or anything? I don't think you should use someone else's religion (or lack thereof) to attack their viewpoints any more than they should dismiss you and your ideas simply because you are Christian. As far as I'm aware, the US Constitution protects their right to reject Biblical views.

I know many here will disagree but you don't do your cause any good by bringing religion into the gay marriage debate. It makes it too easy for them to write you off as "just another wacko fundamentalist Christian" and then convince other more moderate Christians of their viewpoint. You will also have to be very careful about making this debate about religion because legally, it may pit your religious problems with gay marriage against freedom of religion, something that really shouldn't have any part of this debate.

In the end, I hope the US does have a referendum on the matter and then the majority can truly decide.

In every state where marriage protection initiatives were on the ballot last year, every one passed, most of them by overwhelming majorities. The majority of the American people do not want gay "marriage" legalized.

How does gay marriage affect Christians/ other straights? Ask the clergy in Canada and the Netherlands who were arrested for "hate speech" after gay marriage was legalized. This country was "founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and none other." "All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." The reason we have freedom of religion in this country is because this country was founded upon Christian principles. Religion is an intrinsic part of this debate, as it is of this country.

Wherever gay marriage is legalized, the free speech of Christians is curtailed shortly thereafter.

Now, look at the declining marriage rate in the Netherlands; where more people are allowed to marry, you would expect more marriages, but the marriage rate is dropping. Gay marriage and no-fault divorce have made a mockery of the institution.

Children who grow up with both biological parents who are married to each other do better in every measure of well-being, from physical to academic to staying away from crime, etc. Men and women each have something unique to give to their children. Gay couples deprive children of either a father or a mother.

These are all reasons the government has a vested interest in preserving traditional marriage. It is disingenuous to claim that what a gay couple does has no effecet on the rest of us. Gays can already do what they want in the privacy of their homes. They are seeking to change the law, and that is by nature a public thing.

 

[Bonnie]

Humans are social animals and what we do somehow affects the rest of us. Don't try to tell me that gays don't want to mark their mark. No one can criticize a gay person for the same reason you can't criticize any minority---you get called a bigot. I agree with the article--the gay agenda is just another front on the war against religious value systems.

Absolutely Dillo!!

Great article Eagle!!

 

[Bonnie]

Mom4 These are all reasons the government has a vested interest in preserving traditional marriage. It is disingenuous to claim that what a gay couple does has no effecet on the rest of us. Gays can already do what they want in the privacy of their homes. They are seeking to change the law, and that is by nature a public thing.

Great point!

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

In every state where marriage protection initiatives were on the ballot last year, every one passed, most of them by overwhelming majorities. The majority of the American people do not want gay "marriage" legalized.

I agree. I think if it ever did go to a referendum, it would pass and that would hopefully be the end of that. I'm not naive enough to think that it will be the end but that is life in a democratic, open society.

How does gay marriage affect Christians/ other straights? Ask the clergy in Canada and the Netherlands who were arrested for "hate speech" after gay marriage was legalized.

I'm not familiar enough with the cases you are talking about but let's, for the sake of argument, assume that the clergy were not saying anything hateful against gays and that they should never have been arrested. The fact that they got arrested says nothing about whether gays should be allowed to marry or not. It would be like saying blacks shouldn't be allowed to go to white schools because it might cause people who want segragated schools to protest and be arrested. The hate law issue is separate from the gay marriage issue.

This country was "founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and none other." "All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." The reason we have freedom of religion in this country is because this country was founded upon Christian principles. Religion is an intrinsic part of this debate, as it is of this country.

I must admit that the religious situation in the US confuses me. On the one hand, there is no denying that the US is a very Christian country. On the other hand, US laws have purposely been written to protect people from oppression based on religion. It is difficult to balance the majority's desire that everyone live by the Christian code of ethics, one of which is that heterosexuality is the only accepted sexual orientation, while not oppressing people with those Christian code of ethics. If religion becomes an intrinsic part of this debate, it isn't too far of a stretch to say that people who don't believe in Jesus Christ are an abomination in the eyes of the Lord and maybe athiests shouldn't be allowed to marry. After all, those who don't believe in God are just as wicked as homosexuals according to the bible. In fact, athiests are probably more wicked since they are breaking one of the 10 commandments. Of course I don't think that would ever happen but when you bring up religion as a basis for banning gay marriage, it is difficult to turn around and say that athiest marriages are okay.

Now, look at the declining marriage rate in the Netherlands; where more people are allowed to marry, you would expect more marriages, but the marriage rate is dropping. Gay marriage and no-fault divorce have made a mockery of the institution.

I refuse to believe that marriage, as an institution, is so weak that allowing a tiny fraction of the population to marry will destroy marriage for the other 95%. There are many reasons why marriage rates could be declining in the Netherlands. Marriage rates have been declining in Quebec for many, many years, long before the gay marriage issue came up. Maybe the rates in Netherlands are falling for the same reason as they are falling in Quebec, who knows? I have faith in the desire of man and woman to marry each other and I refuse to believe that allowing gays to marry will somehow wipe out that desire in heterosexuals. If our desire to marry is that weak, we have far bigger problems.

Children who grow up with both biological parents who are married to each other do better in every measure of well-being, from physical to academic to staying away from crime, etc. Men and women each have something unique to give to their children. Gay couples deprive children of either a father or a mother.

Here is probably the best argument against gay marriage. Unfortunately, I suspect that most of the research has compared single parent families to dual parent families and found that dual parent families are far better for the children. It says nothing about whether the 2 parents have to be man and woman. It would be very interesting to see how well adjusted kids in happy gay homes are compared to kids in happy heterosexual homes.

These are all reasons the government has a vested interest in preserving traditional marriage. It is disingenuous to claim that what a gay couple does has no effecet on the rest of us. Gays can already do what they want in the privacy of their homes. They are seeking to change the law, and that is by nature a public thing.

And I think it is good that there is debate, and that people think about it, and eventually vote one way or another so the issue can be laid to rest. However, just because they are seeking to change the law doesn't automatically mean that you will be affected. There are hundreds of laws that don't affect me at all and it doesn't matter one bit to me if those laws are struck down or if new laws are created until there are thousands of laws that don't affect me.

In the end, I can only speak for myself, living in a country where some provinces do allow gay marriage, and knowing that I am as happy with my wife today as I was when we first got married. I don't feel that our marriage is now dirty because somewhere, there are two men who are recognized as husband and husband. If the existence of those 2 men makes someone never want to marry, it is my belief that that someone would have found another reason not to marry even if gay marriage was outlawed.

 

[dilloduck]

I'll say it again---WHY DO THEY INSIST ON CALLING THEIR UNION "MARRIAGE?" Civil union not good enough for em or are they pretending to be a hetero couple when they are not. Let em come up for their OWN term for whatever it is they want but sorry, "marriage" is already taken by heteros.

 

[Merlin]

If homosexuals would admit it is a sickness and try to get some kind of help for it, I may would try to learn to tolerate them. But until then, I don't want them around me or my family and anything that happens to them is deserving. Send them to an uninhabited island somewhere and let them do their vile and stupid life style things. Just keep them away from me. They have already taken a beautiful word in the English language, gay, and made it into a vulgar, disgusting word.

 

[Gem]

Horhay,

When our government allows gay marriage...when it changes the language of marriage, as many Canadian provinces have done, from "husband" and "wife," "mother," and "father," to "partner 1," and "partner 2," and "parent 1" and "parent 2"....when it states that marriage is a legal joining of two parties...where does it stop?

Once our society has become comfortable with the notion of marriage as a legal arrangement between two parties how long will it be before some one asks our society to become comfortable with the notion of marriage as a legal arrangment between any number of consenting parties?

How do we stop the redefining of marriage once we have allowed it to be redefined?

While you may not see any problem with two people who love eachother (regardless of sex) getting married, and might not think it would cause any harm to our society...do you see how a marriage of 3 people...or 5...or 10 people might create problems in our society?

We have a problem in this nation with being unwilling to discuss the uncomfortable aspects of a decision without belittling or insulting the opposing side. In this debate, a person who is against gay marriage is a fundamentalist bigot while a person who supports gay marriage is immorral...while in some cases, both might be true....such classifications and name calling is useless to the real problem...

Would allowing the US Gov't to recognize and sanction gay marriages harm our society in the short or long term? What changes would such a decision bring to our society?

And one of the problems I return to is...once your start changing what a marriage is...how do you STOP changing it?

 

[Nienna]

I'm not familiar enough with the cases you are talking about but let's, for the sake of argument, assume that the clergy were not saying anything hateful against gays and that they should never have been arrested. The fact that they got arrested says nothing about whether gays should be allowed to marry or not. It would be like saying blacks shouldn't be allowed to go to white schools because it might cause people who want segragated schools to protest and be arrested. The hate law issue is separate from the gay marriage issue.

I am researching to find the article I read on this. I'll let you know when I find it. However, the hate law issue is not a separate issue from gay marriage. The entire gay agenda is about subverting the traditional/Christian worldview, be it marriage or free speech.

I must admit that the religious situation in the US confuses me. On the one hand, there is no denying that the US is a very Christian country. On the other hand, US laws have purposely been written to protect people from oppression based on religion. It is difficult to balance the majority's desire that everyone live by the Christian code of ethics, one of which is that heterosexuality is the only accepted sexual orientation, while not oppressing people with those Christian code of ethics.

Each individual has the right to worship God in his own way, or not to worship Him at all. However, they must still follow the laws, which, in the beginning of our nation, were based on the Bible. The US Constitution and Declaration of Independence were written under the belief that the Christian God is the Creator who defines goodness and truth, not the belief that the majority of the people define goodness and truth. People have a God-given right to believe in Him or not-- hence the establishment clause. However, "Only a moral people will remain free," and they are talking about Christian morality here. America is becoming increasingly secular, rejecting Christianity, and so it is no suprise that we have a lack of understanding of our own founding documents.

If religion becomes an intrinsic part of this debate, it isn't too far of a stretch to say that people who don't believe in Jesus Christ are an abomination in the eyes of the Lord and maybe athiests shouldn't be allowed to marry. After all, those who don't believe in God are just as wicked as homosexuals according to the bible. In fact, athiests are probably more wicked since they are breaking one of the 10 commandments. Of course I don't think that would ever happen but when you bring up religion as a basis for banning gay marriage, it is difficult to turn around and say that athiest marriages are okay.

People are not defined and bound by their behavior, unless they choose to be. God does, indeed hate atheism as well as homosexuality. (However, He loves both atheists and homosexuals.)

God created marriage. "...From the beginning, God made them male and female. And he(Jesus) said, 'This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife (in the act of sex), and the two are united into one.' Since they are no longer two but one, let no one separate them, for God has joined them together." (Matthew 19:4-6) Religion is the reason that marriage is what it is. God made it that way.

God doesn't ban all "abominable" people from marriage. If so, none of us would be allowed to marry, since "No one is righteous, not one."(Psalms14:1-3). But He specifically created marriage/sex as a bond between one male and one female. As long as the atheists are one male and one female in an exclusive lifelong committment, the act of their sex/marriage is not a sin.

I refuse to believe that marriage, as an institution, is so weak that allowing a tiny fraction of the population to marry will destroy marriage for the other 95%. There are many reasons why marriage rates could be declining in the Netherlands. Marriage rates have been declining in Quebec for many, many years, long before the gay marriage issue came up. Maybe the rates in Netherlands are falling for the same reason as they are falling in Quebec, who knows? I have faith in the desire of man and woman to marry each other and I refuse to believe that allowing gays to marry will somehow wipe out that desire in heterosexuals. If our desire to marry is that weak, we have far bigger problems.

Homosexuality is one factor in the disintegration of marriage, along with extramarital sex, divorce, and secularism. However, it certainly is a contributing factor. Marriage is disintegrating because of the lack of understanding what marriage is, as outlined above. Some people still choose to adhere to this definition, thank goodness. But more and more people are rejecting it, and homosexual advocates are at the forefront of this initiative.

Here is probably the best argument against gay marriage. Unfortunately, I suspect that most of the research has compared single parent families to dual parent families and found that dual parent families are far better for the children. It says nothing about whether the 2 parents have to be man and woman. It would be very interesting to see how well adjusted kids in happy gay homes are compared to kids in happy heterosexual homes.

I would not be willing to perform this social experiment on young, innocent children. There is a body of evidence which shows that both men and women have something special to contribute to a child of either gender.

http://family.org/cforum/pdfs/fosi/marriage/examining_research_on_ss_parenting.pdf

And I think it is good that there is debate, and that people think about it, and eventually vote one way or another so the issue can be laid to rest. However, just because they are seeking to change the law doesn't automatically mean that you will be affected. There are hundreds of laws that don't affect me at all and it doesn't matter one bit to me if those laws are struck down or if new laws are created until there are thousands of laws that don't affect me.

In the end, I can only speak for myself, living in a country where some provinces do allow gay marriage, and knowing that I am as happy with my wife today as I was when we first got married. I don't feel that our marriage is now dirty because somewhere, there are two men who are recognized as husband and husband. If the existence of those 2 men makes someone never want to marry, it is my belief that that someone would have found another reason not to marry even if gay marriage was outlawed.

Congratulations on your happy marriage!
Of course, your marriage would not be considered "dirty." It seems to be within the parameters that God stipulated for marriage.

I am also thankful to live in a country where open debate is encouraged! But,here in America, Christianity was the basis the framers used to create this government. No one is "free" to do whatever he chooses; that would not be government. It would be anarchy.

There are practical reasons, too, for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032427.cfm

Thanks for hearing me out and keeping the posts rational, not angry!

 

[Avatar4321]

The gay agenda is only about one thing. Making everyone as miserable as they are. Its a common agenda for groups on the left.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I must admit that the religious situation in the US confuses me. On the one hand, there is no denying that the US is a very Christian country. On the other hand, US laws have purposely been written to protect people from oppression based on religion. It is difficult to balance the majority's desire that everyone live by the Christian code of ethics, one of which is that heterosexuality is the only accepted sexual orientation, while not oppressing people with those Christian code of ethics. If religion becomes an intrinsic part of this debate, it isn't too far of a stretch to say that people who don't believe in Jesus Christ are an abomination in the eyes of the Lord and maybe athiests shouldn't be allowed to marry. After all, those who don't believe in God are just as wicked as homosexuals according to the bible. In fact, athiests are probably more wicked since they are breaking one of the 10 commandments. Of course I don't think that would ever happen but when you bring up religion as a basis for banning gay marriage, it is difficult to turn around and say that athiest marriages are okay.

You bring up a very interesting point here and I think it goes to the very heart of the matter of why many think that gay marriage is ok. This line of thinking seems very reasonable and logical because Congress should make no law to establish religion. I think you will agree that the government has the right to grant marriage licenses to some and not to others, right? If you don't think so, then all bets are off as anybody or anything can get legally married. As Gem said in her last post, where does it stop?

But if you agree with the premise that the government has the right to grant/not grant marriage licenses then you must also agree that the government is not establishing any religion of any kind either. So that makes the argument about it being a religious matter totally bogus.

Next, (try to follow me here ) on what basis is any decision made whether or not a license should be granted or not? It's a pretty easy decision if the couple is straight, this has historically been the marriage couple and is considered a good thing. It's also pretty easy to not grant a marriage license between a brother and sister, everyone knows that marriage could produce injured children and most will agree that is a bad thing. But what about a man and a man? It is not so cut and dried for some people. However, the decision has to be made on some basis or another. This is where the VALUES of the people of the United States comes into play just as with the other two choices. No laws are made without corresponding underlying values. Values are connected to peoples' beliefs whether they are atheist beliefs or religious beliefs or any other kind of belief. Every American has a right to put forth his values and beliefs, religious or not, into the law. How do we resolve a difference in beliefs? With the vote, of course. Problem solved. No religion is being established.

The problem right now is that the Courts think they have the right to legislate from the bench on this matter when it is not in their job description to do so. Judicial activism is probably the most heinous activity happening in our country today and it must be stopped. But that is a separate issue.

 

[Nienna]

No laws are made without corresponding underlying values. Values are connected to peoples' beliefs whether they are atheist beliefs or religious beliefs or any other kind of belief. Every American has a right to put forth his values and beliefs, religious or not, into the law. How do we resolve a difference in beliefs? With the vote, of course. Problem solved. No religion is being established.

MmmmHmmm. That's what I'm talking 'bout!

 

[William Joyce]

This article is spot-on. I think the same thing could be said for a lot of other "movements": feminism, multiracialism, etc. They're all about ripping apart traditional white society. Who'd want to do that? Children, please leave the room...

The highlighted quote says it all:

It's not about "helping" gays. It's about grabbing for the power to define good and evil.

Or the power to define right and wrong. It's about creating an anything-goes society. If nothing is "wrong," anyone can step into the breach. The main target here isn't heterosexual marriage, it's the white society built up over thousands of years in Europe and America by those who would themselves be more powerful if it were less so.

 

[007]

The plan here is to lead God's people into rebellion, encourage them to violate God's laws governing marriage and the family, and leave them with nowhere to turn, in the end, but to the wise, worldly powers who brought them to this pass.

There is only one omnipotent power in the universe that can make people do what they do against God, and that is the devil.

The queers and all the rest of the Godless people waging war against Christianity and all it's moral lessons and values are being led around by the nose by the devil himself and all his disciples. They think and purport it's of their own free will, but it's painfully obvious what power lies behind their perverted agendas as they venture futher and further into the toilet of immorality.

I can't feel sorry for them. My one solace is knowing what lies in the end for them. Burning in hell.

 

[Avatar4321]

There is only one omnipotent power in the universe that can make people do what they do against God, and that is the devil.

Hate to nit pick, but the devil ain't omnipotent. He only has the power we give him.

 

[007]

Hate to nit pick, but the devil ain't omnipotent. He only has the power we give him.

You confirm what I just said... think about it.

The devil "is", the one and ONLY "omnipotent" power of "evil", in the universe.

Denying that leads you down the slippery slope of liberilism, and non belief in God our creator.

That's what these fags want. You NOT to believe in any kind of a God, and that is number one on the agenda of the devil. Why do people forget, the devil was kicked out of heaven, and the fucker is pissed. He wants to screw up this world as much as he can before the return of Christ our Lord.

It all makes sense to a Christian.