Sponsored Link


Capture
Salt Lake City, UT | A baby named Lucifer is being hailed as the new “Antichrist” by members of the Salt Lake City Church of Satan chapter, reports the Mormon Messenger this morning.
The baby that was born yesterday at Salt Lake City’s University Hospital has stemmed controversy amongst Mormon and Christian communities alike after flyers were found posted around the downtown area claiming “the birth of the Antichrist” and inviting non-members and members of the Church of Satan to celebrate this “sacred birth”.
In some Christian belief systems, Jesus the Messiah will appear in his Second Coming to Earth to face the emergence of the Antichrist figure, who will be the greatest false messiah in Christianity. Just as Christ is the savior and the ideal model for humanity, his opponent in the end time will be a single figure of concentrated evil, whom some believe would be the living incarnation of Satan, also known as Baphomet or Lucifer.


satanist
The newborn boy, who was born Gabriel Lucifer Whitcome, is believed to be an “incarnation of the Antichrist” by his parents, both members of the local Salt Lake City Church of Satan chapter
If both parents admit the flyers might have shocked non-members of the Church of Satan, they did not expect their beliefs to create such a stir.
“All we wanted was to share the good news to fellow members of the community” admits the 34-year old dad, that is presently unemployed and president of the local Church of Satan chapter in salt Lake City. “In our belief system, this is a time for celebration. Our messiah is born. All we wanted was to share the good news, although we understand the birth of the Antichrist could be interpreted as a bad thing if you are of the Christian faith” he told local reporters.
The baby born under “auspicious astrological conditions” according to his parents would make him the living incarnation of Satan or Lucifer.
Local legal expert, John Burroughs, admits the name is “unusual” but not illegal. “As long as the parents take good care of the child, there is no reason for Child Protective Services (CPS) to be involved”.






Follow Us on Twitter!

Like Us on Facebook!



0 comments:

Post a Comment

 
Top