'satanic' I will give a general and simple definition. Simply 'adversarial'. The original word, 'satan' is a common Hebrew noun meaning 'adversary'. It has neither a good nor evil connotation intrinsically. In the book of Numbers for instance, it first appears in the mouth of the (UNFALLEN) angel of the Lord, who describes himself thus" "I have come as a Satan against you (Balaam)." In the book of Job, again an Angel who has access to the Holy of Holies in heaven, and who has intimate chats with God Himself, is called the 'adversary' of Job. (not the 'adversary' of God.). So in this sense, actually the Freemasons are correct. There is no 'Satan' as such, i.e., a 'fallen angel' named "Satan" in the Old Testament. However, that doesn't translate into the erroneous doctrine that 'Satan' or "Lucifer' is the 'true' God. This is an oversimplification of correct doctrine. Taking the meaning of 'satanic' to be 'adversarial' in a neutral (non-prejorative) sense, the Freemasons are definitely 'satanic' to orthodox Christianity, since they twist, water down, blunt, and nullify basic Christian principles of both behaviour and world view. The question of whose doctrine is correct, or most correct, or correct on which points, is secondary to the fact that Freemasonry is 'satanic' to Christianity. The viewpoint of ordinary Freemasons is also irrelevant, since it is overridden by the plain facts. In a similar way, the Hitler Youth might believe they are defending motherhood, and young communists may believe that 'evolution' is the only true science, however, in both cases, they are just naive dupes.