Quote# 105318

Do not see this movie. Like Harry Potter it is meant to appeal to kids and will only lead them astray using clever marketing techniques and product tie-ins. Furthermore, I find it unhealthy for our kids to go on thinking God created other planets and that they are alien robots inhabiting them. Once your kids see this movie they are going to want to play with Transformer toys, Legos, and all other sorts of toys that enable them to build robots like they saw in the movie. They will fantasize about other worlds that are not in the Biblical account of creation and believe that robots are created with life in the same way God made man. Our youth cannot help but be corrupted by such robot fantasies and it encourages them to grow up worshipping manmade technologies like robots. Obviously this has clear implications for other man-made creations, like stem cell research. We should not mess with Creation or with the story of it. If you want your kids to worship robotic life then take them to this movie. If you want them to know that God made man on the sixth day and stopped there—he didn’t make another planet filled with evil robots—then avoid this movie at all costs. Don’t be 'Decepticon'-ed by this movie.


Jonathan, age 31, christian answers 53 Comments [12/17/2014 4:30:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 26

Quote# 105314

There were many reasons why BJU seemed to fail its student victims so thoroughly, but the problem seemed to start with the state of counseling at the school, which wasn’t just limited to a student mental health center, but was an active part of daily life. Residence halls were overseen by “Dorm Counselors” who served as a first line of both help and discipline for students. Students who broke one of BJU’s long list of possible infractions were assigned weekly counseling sessions as punishment. And BJU’s ultimate disciplinary enforcer, longtime Dean of Students Jim Berg, was also active in both counseling individual students and heading up BJU’s academic counseling program.

But what BJU called counseling wasn’t exactly based on psychology’s best practices; instead the school relied on a sort of psychology-alternative known as biblical counseling, common in fundamentalist circles, which argues the Bible is sufficient treatment for almost all mental and emotional problems—and that the root of most people’s problems is sin. To become a biblical counselor didn’t require degrees or experience in psychology or training, but only a strong grounding in the Bible. Indeed, Berg’s only degrees were in Bible studies and theology, and his knowledge of counseling victims of sex abuse came from reading a few books and attending one conference—training he acknowledged to GRACE was “paltry among the research” that is available.



Unsurprisingly, the pattern of treatment that victims at Bob Jones experienced was poorly suited to their needs. When Berg was told of students who alleged abuse or rape, he usually met with them for only one to three sessions, and bragged to a colleague that “in five minutes I can tell you what is wrong with somebody,” and provide them with the proper sheet of scripture verses, “and say go study this and you will be all right.”

Berg often began to immediately ask them probing, accusative questions about their own “moral life”: whether they had been drinking or using drugs when assaulted, whether they were using them at present, whether they watched pornography or indulged in sexual fantasies—and, for women, whether they had experienced pleasure while being raped. One alleged victim says that when she told Berg about being raped by a coworker, he told her “there is a sin that happens behind every other sin,” and they had to figure out what hers was. Though Berg told GRACE he didn't recall this, in a training video he made that GRACE reviewed, he explains that he asks alleged victims these uncomfortable questions at the beginning of their counseling because “I have to find out where there is guilt that they have to deal with.”

While Berg suggested this was merely to separate victims’ potential guilt about related issues—if, say, they had been raped after they lied to their parents about where they were going that night—and not to make them feel they were to blame, that’s not necessarily the message those he counseled heard. As one rape victim who spoke to Berg explained to me last spring, “I already had a plate full of shame when I walked into Dr. Berg’s office, and he put more shame on that, more than I could bear.”

Jim Berg, The American Prospect 22 Comments [12/17/2014 4:29:05 AM]
Fundie Index: 18

Quote# 105312

Faith and Science

Faith and logic are essential ingredients of real science and an informed understanding the world.

Faith, a Christian concept, accepts truth without requiring visible proof.

Logic guides the faculty of human reason to determine the truth. However, liberal logic may appear logical, but is actually nonsensical.

Science is based on observation in determining the truth. However, in recent years, science has become increasingly atheistic,[1] rejecting God and his works in explanations of the world and all of human experience. Instead readily embracing pseudo or junk science such as evolution, relativity, global warming and much of cosmology and geology based on a time frame which predates creation. Consequently the rigid logic of creation science is gaining in importance, enabling intelligent people to distinguish real science from atheistic secular junk science.

Andy Schlafly, Conservapedia 38 Comments [12/17/2014 4:23:12 AM]
Fundie Index: 17

Quote# 105310

If I were an atheist, and wanted to land a right hook on the chin of Christianity, I would aim first at its disunity. If one took serious inventory of the differences between Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Reformists, Pentecostals and the endless myriad of non-denominational churches (some estimate such churches to be numbered in the 10,000 range worldwide) one would find more disagreement in thought and practice than in nearly any other “ism” on the planet (granted, its “Christianity” and not “Christianism,” but you get the point).

One will find that the average Christian who engages in debates with atheists will often lack concern for such things. Those on the outside can’t help but see the overwhelming disunity among Christians; but often, those on the inside never see it, or they see it but simply don’t care. Regardless, it is a serious problem. The early Christian apologists hung their hats on the fact that there was one unified Church; for Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch, Church unity was the ultimate apologetic trump card for Christianity among the pagan religions of the day. Today the situation is exactly reverse, Church disunity is the ultimate trump card for atheists against the faith.

Very simply put, Christ promised that He would build His Church and the gates of hell would never prevail against it. Christ also said, “A house divided cannot stand.” Popular modern day Christianity is the epitome of a house divided.

Many in the various Protestant faiths would openly and proudly proclaim that the apostolic faith ceased from the earth soon after the death of the Apostles and was miraculously revived when their particular establishment was created. For example, the Pentecostal movement could not be more proud of the fact that authentic, Spirit-filled Christianity was revived in a tiny mission on Azusa Street in Los Angeles at the turn of the 20th century. In other words, the gates of hell had apparently prevailed against Christ’s Church for nearly 1800 years. And the irony of ironies is that this authentic movement of the Holy Spirit—the same Spirit which united the Church at Pentecost as recorded in the book of Acts—resulted in literally 1000’s of schismatic splits within its first hundred years.

But the same could be said for Protestantism in general. According to the Protestant worldview, the early Roman Catholic Church was a fraudulent Church that had been corrupting the faith for who knows how long (the precise period in which the Church had been corrupted is a matter of opinion depending on which Protestant you happen to be talking to). The true faith was finally restored by Martin Luther and the Reformers in the 16th century, which makes the gates of hell victor over the Church for, potentially, more than a thousand years. Remarkable!

If I were an atheist there would be no need for me to attack Christianity head on with topics such as evolution, or what have you. Christianity has done a fine job of attacking itself for generations. I would feel under qualified to attack the faith when it had so many internal experts attacking it for me. My job would rest in simply reminding Christians of their schismatic track record in the West for the last 500 years and counting. If they cannot agree with each other, why should society at large agree with any of them on anything?

So, why am I still a Christian?

Indeed, if anyone should be convinced that Christianity is a sham it should be someone who is writing an article to give atheists tips for debating Christians. In truth, a few years ago I was on the edge in my relationship with modern, popular Christianity. I was ready to declare the whole thing a fraud. The fact that there was not a Church, in the sense described in Scripture and in the Nicene Creed, present in the world (or at least in my little world) was enough to finally push me to the brink after almost 20 years of participating in the independent, Evangelical movement. Then, during my studies in a private Evangelical seminary, I found the Church that was there and had been there since the day of Pentecost right in front of my nose. After some time of inquiry and prayerful soul searching, my wife and I were baptized into the Orthodox Church on Easter of 2010.

Someone once said that if counterfeit coins are discovered in circulation, it does not follow that authentic coins do not exist. The same is true with the myriad of churches within Christianity. Their incredible disunity is not, for me, a sign that the whole thing is a gigantic parlor trick played on society for two millennium. If I went shopping and while unpacking my groceries I discovered orange peels in every bag I would not resolve that because I did not find a full orange that an orange did not exist. It would be just the opposite. The abundance of evidence that an orange did exist would be found in the fact that it’s peels were everywhere. The true Church does exist, and the evidence is contained in the fact that there are so many copycats. But I digress.

I guess what I’m saying is, this argument will work on “almost” all Christians.

Good luck, and thanks for reading.

Eric Hyde, Eric hyde's Blog 32 Comments [12/17/2014 4:22:58 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 105308

Science is at war with religion. The conflict can be traced back to the Dark Ages, a period in which the church vigorously asserted dogma and persecuted anyone who questioned its authority, including scientific pioneers such as Galileo, Copernicus, and Bruno. Fortunately the Enlightenment came along in the eighteenth century and validated methods of acquiring knowledge through evidence and testing. These methods freed scientists to pursue truth without fear of recrimination from the church. Thus the scientific revolution was born. Yet the war between religion and science continues to this day.

If you believe this rendition of history, there’s a good chance you’ve been reading a public school textbook or the New Atheists. The idea that science and religion are at odds is a popular myth in our culture, perpetuated by news headlines like “God vs. Science” in Time magazine. Of the perceived conflict, Christopher Hitchens writes, “All attempts to reconcile faith with science and reason are consigned to failure and ridicule.” Richard Dawkins writes, “I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise… It subverts science and saps the intellect.”

Although it is widely believed that science and Christianity are at odds, the opposite is actually true. There is no inherent conflict between Christianity and science. We don’t mean to suggest that religious antagonism to science has never existed. It has and does. But the history of science shows that such claims of antagonism are often exaggerated or unsubstantiated. “Once upon a time, back in the second half of the nineteenth century,” says Alister McGrath, “it was certainly possible to believe that science and religion were permanently at war… This is now seen as a hopelessly outmoded historical stereotype that scholarship has totally discredited.”

The scientific enterprise as a sustained and organized movement emerged in Christian Europe. During the sixteenth century, people from every culture studied the natural world, and yet modern science emerged in Europe, a civilization primarily shaped by the Judeo-Christian world- view. Why? Because Christianity provided the philosophical foundation as well as the spiritual and practical motivation for doing science. The Christian worldview — with its insistence on the orderliness of the universe, its emphasis on human reason, and its teaching that God is glorified as we seek to understand his creation — laid the foundation for the modern scientific revolution.


God’s Universe


Most scientific pioneers were theists, including prominent figures such as Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543), Robert Boyle (1627–1691), Isaac Newton (1642–1727), Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), Louis Pasteur (1822–1895), Francis Bacon (1561–1626), and Max Planck (1858–1947). Many of these pioneers intently pursued science because of their belief in the Christian God. Bacon believed the natural world was full of mysteries God meant for us to explore. Kepler wrote, “The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order which has been imposed on it by God, and which he revealed to us in the language of mathematics.” Newton believed his scientific discoveries offered convincing evidence for the existence and creativity of God. His favorite argument for design related to the solar system: “This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”


Christopher Hitchens discounts the religious convictions of these scientific pioneers, claiming that belief in God was the only option for a scientist of the time. But this puts Hitchens in a curious dilemma. If religious believers get no credit for their positive contributions to society (e.g., shaping modern science) because “everyone was religious,” then why should their mistakes, like atrocities committed in the name of God, discredit them? This is a double standard. One cannot deny religious believers credit on the basis of “everyone was religious” and also assign blame on the same foundation. To make the case that “religion poisons everything,” Hitchens has to ignore evidence to the contrary. And he is more than willing to do so.


Dawkins accepts that some early scientific pioneers may have been Christians, but he believes Christian scientists are now a rarity: “Great scientists who profess religion become harder to find through the twentieth century.” However, in the same year that Dawkins published The God Delusion (2006), three leading scientists released books favorable to theism. Harvard astronomer Owen Gingerich released God’s Universe, arguing that an individual can be both a scientist and a believer in intelligent design. Internationally renowned physicist Paul Davies published Goldilocks Enigma, in which he argued that intelligent life is the reason our universe exists. Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project, published The Language of God, in which he presents scientific and philosophical evidence for God. Incidentally, President Barack Obama appointed Francis Collins as the director of the National Institutes for Health, one of the world’s foremost medical research centers.


Naming scientists whose Christian worldview motivated their work doesn’t settle the issue of how science and religion relate. Entire books have been written on how science and religion intersect. But we do hope you see that many early scientific pioneers, as well as cutting-edge scientists today, derived their motivation for scientific research from the belief that God created the world for us to investigate and enjoy. These scientists did not view Christianity as incompatible with science.

Hemant menta, Patheos 26 Comments [12/17/2014 4:08:29 AM]
Fundie Index: -7

Quote# 105307

Argument # 29: Atheists don’t claim that God doesn’t exist. They lack belief in God. The burden of proof for God is on the Theist, not the Atheist.

This is a technicality that Atheists use to try to put the burden on the other side. They claim that since “A-theism” means “without a belief in God”, they are not claiming anything and therefore do not have to prove anything. Thus, they claim, the burden of proof is on the Theist, who claims that God exists.

However, this makes little difference either way because their core philosophy toward God is still the same. Deep down, they believe that there is no God, and they know it. The reason why they emphasize this is to try to put themselves in an unattackable position. It’s a semantic ploy. To try to be consistent with it, they will say “There is no evidence for God” rather than “God doesn't exist”, but sometimes they slip up.

They can’t really prove that God doesn’t exist because you can’t prove a negative. Regardless, the Atheist obviously believes deep down that there isn't a God or deity anyway, which is prevalent in their attempts to debunk and refute every single argument for the existence of God. Therefore this trivial debate about the implications of the word “Atheism” seems pointless in substance.

For some critiques of Atheist arguments, see these links:

"How to respond to a Supercilious Atheist": http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/how_to_respond_to_a_supercilio.html

"The Irrational Atheists", has a free ebook you can download: http://www.irrationalatheist.com

(No name given), Debunking Skeptics 29 Comments [12/17/2014 4:08:22 AM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: Louis "Lou" C. Fer

Quote# 105305

White” Girls are “good to go” by 13, easy, with exceptions for those not yet “bleeding.” Some of the sub-Saharan’s may skew younger, as may some other particular breeds, but the age we’re taught to prefer in modern society, early 20’s, is about ten years late.

tteclod, Chateau Heartiste 44 Comments [12/17/2014 4:08:05 AM]
Fundie Index: 29
Submitted By: TB

Quote# 105304

They had it right in the old days – women were married off at 13/14, in fact in Roman times it was customary for men in their mid 40’s to take wives in their mid teens (the lucky bastards) in order to ensure children and that the wives could look after their husbands in old age. Modern society expects a man like me to marry a modern mid 30’s woman with her shrivelled ovaries instead of a dewy, juicy teen and the thought of it makes me almost nauseous.

Sparks, Chateau Heartiste 46 Comments [12/17/2014 4:07:49 AM]
Fundie Index: 22

Quote# 105294

"Your idea of "starting somewhere" assumes that discriminating against disabled people and committing the widespread murder of selected groups is going to change the world for the better, or at least be a good start."

First of all, it's only murder if it's against the law so saying that under a legal eugenics program I'm murdering people doesn't make a lot of sense, so either you're trying to appeal to emotions or I'm being overly analytical.

Diogenes, Personality Cafe 41 Comments [12/16/2014 4:24:02 AM]
Fundie Index: 19

Quote# 105292

Okay, so let's bring up some facts:

• You can have a romantic non-sexual relationship.
• You can have a non-romantic sexual relationship.
• You can have a non-romantic non-sexual relationship.
• You cannot have a romantic sexual relationship*

* Such a thing does not exist. Romance is non-sexual. Sex is non-romantic. These two things does not work out together at any time. When you “crush on” someone, your brain sees the non-sexual beauty on someone. Both the inner non-sexual beauty (approachability, intelligence, interest in you, personality, etc.) and the outer non-sexual beauty (look, voice, clothing, and all those things). Basically, every positive thing that you can find on someone that does not include anything sexual. Love is like a magic thing that can vanish ALL sexual feelings and temptations, and replace them with all the non-sexual qualities of that one special person that you’re having a crush on.

The more in love you are with someone, the more inappropriate it feels to think of them in a sexual way. When you’re truly in love, you might even forget that sex is a thing that exists in this world, temporarily! Love is simply the most powerful feeling in the world, and the more you feel it, the more distant the idea of sex becomes. This is why I think EVERY SINGLE PERSON in this world NEEDS to read, and think about this quote: “Love is an anti-sexual feeling” before even talking about, and using the word “love”.

Also, make sure you don't misunderstand my point! If you want to have a child, and reproduce, go ahead and do it! Just make sure my message is clear, and you're doing what you have to do for the right reason ?

This has nothing to do with religion. I am 100% atheist, and this is nothing but pure knowledge that comes from years of experience with being in love, and being part of the loving nature in mankind.

David Wright, Love Explained 58 Comments [12/16/2014 4:23:32 AM]
Fundie Index: 25
Submitted By: Scolipendra

Quote# 105291

Charles Darwin was a high-level Freemason and Luciferian-worshipper. Darwin's theories on evolution were nothing more than fraudulent so-called “scholarship” intended to form the basis for dehumanizing mankind in order to murder millions. In 1775, The Order Of The Illuminati founder, Adam Weishaupt (1748-1830), revealed a blueprint for world government. In order to succeed, a sinister ideal was required to reduce humans to the level of cattle to be slaughtered. The infamous father of 20th century communism, Karl Marx (1818-1883), published his Communist Manifesto in 1848, which reiterated Weishaupt's blueprint for world government.

Tragically, it was Darwin's very philosophies that would consequently inspire the brutal murder of 100,000,000 people during the 20th century. Monstrous dictators: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and PolPot were all devout followers of Charles Darwin's evolutionary theories, because they lowered human beings to the mere level of animals to be taken and destroyed on a whim.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Precious.org 41 Comments [12/16/2014 4:22:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 19
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 105290

Sorry folks but the proof of the pudding is in the tasting as they say. I have lived with and know many people who have thriving beautiful vegan cats and these cats are around 10 years old now and look like a young cat, never need vet visits for bad health. I think you need to understand this equation- Newton’s Law of Motion : “To every action there is always an equal and contrary reaction; the mutual actions of any two bodies are always equal and oppositely directed.” Action and reaction are thus exactly equal. “To have a single force is impossible. There must be, and always is, a pair of forces equal and opposite.” Any time someone pays for an animal to be killed for them (buying pet food or a baby cow or sheep) to eat or for their pets, you end up with this equation Violence = Violence The violence of killing a cow for example is returned (equal and opposite reaction) in the form of ill health, accident, loss etc it could happen anytime after the first act of violence and come in any number of ways, but one thing is sure, IT WILL COME!!! AS the song says “You only get what you give” It works like gravity, even if you dont beleive in gravity it still affects you. This is a scientific fact that Mr Newton discovered and it applies to ALL physical matter. That is why we are taught from a wee kid to do good and be nice because thats what we get in return. Wake up people, use your logic you cannot create good health from a viloent act and killing is ALWAYS violent!

Ruth, Veterinary News 45 Comments [12/16/2014 4:22:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 23

Quote# 105289

Ray Comfort is the most dangerous kind of false prophet, because he hides a lie between two truths. The half-truth is the most effective lie, because in part it can be defended with incontestable logic. In fact, it is challenging to expose such false prophets, because most people have difficulty seeing the problem. Author Mark Twain said, “It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” So true! The Devil is sneaking heresies into our Independent Fundamental Baptist churches by the hour.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Precious 51 Comments [12/16/2014 4:15:55 AM]
Fundie Index: 9

Quote# 105286

God hates cross-dressing, effeminacy and sissified behavior for men! Someone needs to wipe the eye-shadow off Bieber's eyes, get that lipstick off his mouth, give him a crew-cut and take him out to the football field for some toughing up in a gentleman's game of tackle. There's nothing more repulsive and disgusting than to see a masculine female or an effeminate male. Welcome to queer USA! You haven't seen anything yet America! Proverbs 14:34, “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” America was exalted in times past because of righteousness within our churches and having the fear of God; but today in 2013 our country is a cesspool of wickedness and apostasy, Bible-believing churches are becoming scarce, and our sins have made us a reproach (disgrace and shame) around the world. Sin always undermines a nation!

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Precious 47 Comments [12/16/2014 4:15:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 13

Quote# 105285

Islamic State [Isis] jihadists say they have thrown a gay man off a rooftop and stoned him to death for blasphemy.

The jihadists have also published a photograph to corroborate the punishment handed over to the victim, by what they call as the Islamic court.

"The Islamic court in Wilayet al-Furat [Iraq-Syria frontier] decided that a man who has practiced sodomy must be thrown off the highest point in the city, and then stoned to death," read a statement released by the IS.

While the first picture released by the Sunni extremist group shows the homosexual man being dragged to the top of a building in an unknown location, the second image shows a man lying on the ground.

In a related incident another man in northern Syria was beheaded for blasphemy charges by the Islamists.

Islamic State court of al-Furat, International Business Times 25 Comments [12/16/2014 4:00:03 AM]
Fundie Index: 16
Submitted By: JeanP

Quote# 105284

Even though many people still believe in evolution (perhaps many more than believe in creation), it is nonetheless an endangered species because it cannot survive on its own. Our government has generously protected evolutionism, by ensuring that it alone may be taught in government schools where it can flourish unimpeded by science, rational scrutiny, or competing models. Teachers are not permitted to discuss or acknowledge the existence of competing models, thus ensuring that students are brainwashed into only one unquestionable doctrine.

Jason Lisle, Jason Lisle's Blog 39 Comments [12/16/2014 3:59:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 105283

Some days I think it would be easier to move to the ME wearing a sign proclaiming the Lord Jesus as Savior and face Muslim terrorists as it would be to have to endure another 8 years of Democratic rule.

TimeWarpWife, Rapture Ready 38 Comments [12/16/2014 3:57:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: solomongrundy

Quote# 105282

a truly sick epidemic is beginning to take hold over the county, and world as a whole. If you do not know what I speak of, then rejoice, for you are uninitiated to the darkness of the situation! what i am talking about...is "bronies". the name is just absolutely disgusting, is it not ? well, it gets worse. these..."bronies"..a re adult fans of the most recent reboot of the series "My Little Pony ", and they are aboslute pedophiliac drones of Satan.

for one thing most of these zealots are fully grown males who indisputably have a craving to violate OUR CHILDREN using the best route they can: common interests. it has been observed that "bronies" will lure small girls in with shirts depicting the characters, only to kidnap them to use as living dolls for outfits created to look like said characters! it is also known that they hold large conventions for others like themselves, where they sacrifice real horses to channel the imaginary ones they hold an obsession with!

however, the multitude of "fans" aren't what makes this truly disgusting, it's the satanic, homophiliac messages in the program that are conveyed to our children!

for one thing, the supposed "democracy" depicted in the show's society has a ROYAL as a leader! this is no doubt a nod to another high powered royal - Satan, Lord of Darkness! the other chracters seem to also epitomize all that good Christians understandably fear. the character "rainbow dash" is an obvious lesbian, serving to coerce children into believing homosexuality is ok in today's society! well, I read the bible, and it said that a man lying with a man was an abomination. that implies nothing about lesbianism being taboo, but we cannt deny the true fact that it is! the other characters are no better. "applejack" bears heavy symbolisism of the forbidden fruit that got adam and eve expelled from paradise, and "pinkie pie" engages in what can only be described as g rated orgies, showing exactly how twisted the cartoon's makers were when they made this abomination.

we can only rely on God to help us with ridding the county of this horrifying people, but we must actively show that we do not tolerate such taboo to aid in His struggle against these perverts. friends, if you see a "brony", please urge him to accept Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ instead of one of these false equestrian idols! remember, we are the only ones who can mortally continue His mission!

Stay true to Him and keep fighting the good fight, my friends!

gassawaybaptistveteran34, Topix 43 Comments [12/16/2014 3:57:16 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: TheReasonator

Quote# 105281

I personally don't see how homosexuals can argue marriage is something that can be regulated by any of the states and they are therefore entitled to participate in it. Marriage is a covenant agreement between God and a man and his wife that they will be together until death. And if one subscribes to the notion of separation of church and state (as liberals purport to) then one cannot petition a state to obtain a marriage license as that would be the same thing as saying there is an official government religion and the petitioner is a participant in that religion. And that religion is one that recognizes the traditional definition of marriage, ie one derived from the Judeo-Christian. So as usual, they are trying to have it both ways.

Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and as with all choices, there are consequences. Instead of choosing to fit into society, they want society to pat them on the back and tell them they can do whatever they want without any negative consequences. That is delusional. If I eat nothing but ice cream I will eventually suffer the consequences of an unhealthy diet and I shouldn't expect everyone else to tell me it's okay because that is just who I am.

Reason, Sufficient Reason 34 Comments [12/16/2014 3:55:24 AM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: Ace

Quote# 105280

The reality is that "marriage" is a religious standard for the union of A man and A woman. That the liberals and homosexuals cannot seperate their desires from the basis of what a marriage is only amplifies the ignorance of their belief (not right) that they be 'allowed' to be married.
The slippery slope is one that they choose to ignore - that being that once you open the door anyone with whatever deprived mental capacity can walk through...but if you simply look at it from a biological standpoint there is no point in having homosexuality and that alone makes a compelling and unambigious truth that it is not meant to be..and from a religious stand it is clearly against any religion.
Simply stated: it is wrong, it is immoral, it is not natural and it is not wanted or accepted by an overwhelming majority of Americans despite the Liberal media and hollywoods attempts to make it acceptable!

DJ (IS RIGHT), Sufficient Reason 21 Comments [12/16/2014 3:55:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Ace

Quote# 105277

In an interview, Jon Stewart said, "We may not agree on the way [to handle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict], but to compare me to the Jews who helped Nazis? ... Since when does disagreement with the policies of the Israeli government makes you a lesser Jew? It is very rude for other Jews to say things like that.”

“Stewart” is correct on one thing. The Jews who “helped” the Nazis did so because, in their mortal peril, they’d abandoned their moral principles for the glimmer of hope of personal survival. “Stewart” – a pampered, self-centered, deluded king of his world – is nothing like those wretches in his attacks on the Jewish state and its defenders.

He is incomparably worse.

Arik Elman, The Algemeiner 29 Comments [12/15/2014 4:38:19 AM]
Fundie Index: 19

Quote# 105274

I couldn’t give a fuck less if we torture terrorists. I mean have you noticed ISIS cutting people’s heads off on TV lately? Did you notice Terrorist #1 and Terrorist #2 blow up the Boston Marathon? Remember 9/11? So yeah I’m not gonna feel bad if we waterboard or slam detainees against walls or do fake executions. Don’t care. All is fair in War and they declared War on us.

kingmj4891, The Continuing Committee 56 Comments [12/15/2014 4:37:16 AM]
Fundie Index: 17

Quote# 105273

So there is tremendous chatter about this guy from Liberia, and we now have enough of the backstory to see just how maliciously negligent the so-called protection agencies really are. But what I want to focus on is Thomas Eric Duncan – the Liberian who after hauling his sister’s still living yet rapidly disintegrating body to and from the hospital thought it would be a great idea to take a three-legged flight to Dallas, and then just casually forget to mention at the Dallas emergency room the whole “I hauled my sister, dying of Ebola, to and from the hospital a couple of weeks ago.”

There is speculation that Duncan is a psychopathic arch criminal, or that he was recruited by musloids to make the trip. Nope. I doubt this very, very seriously. Then how in the world, you may ask, could he possibly DO THIS? I’ll tell you the likely answer if you really want to know, but I warn you, our culture has conditioned even the “strongest” of you to reject the truth I am about to lay out. Are you sure you want it? Fair warning has been given. Complaints will not be fielded.

The AVERAGE I.Q. amongst Liberians is 67. Anything below 69 is considered severe impairment. Only people who are profoundly mentally retarded, such as with severe Down Syndrome, have lower I.Q. scores, and many folks with milder Down Syndrome actually have I.Q. scores in the 70s and 80s. What we are talking about in Liberia is the AVERAGE IQ of non-impaired human beings. AVERAGE. Which means, by definition, that half the populace is above 67, and half the population is below 67.

CITATION HERE. A ranking of nations by average IQ. Fascinating.

Mr. Duncan, in all likelihood, got on a plane bound for Dallas because all was [sic] was thinking was “the Americans will save me”. He gave NO THOUGHT whatsoever to the consequences of his actions or to other human beings, nor did any of his family members, because people who are dim-witted think only about themselves and the immediate gratification of their immediate needs and wants. We see this manifested in our own western cultures, wherein people who OBVIOUSLY have lower I.Q.s are far, far more prone to crime – such as theft – and sexual promiscuity, as well as drug use, because they lack the powers of impulse control and consideration for other human beings that is an undeniable characteristic that goes along with an IQ that is several standard deviations “left” on the bell curve. When all you are capable of pondering is yourself and your own physical pleasure, or the maintenance of your own life, when a person or people is so collectively impaired that thinking through the consequences of actions three or four steps ahead, or of thinking of how one’s actions will affect other people, is almost impossible, then Thomas Eric Duncans happen.

Ann Bernhardt, The Thinking Housewife 24 Comments [12/15/2014 4:36:06 AM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 105267

["what's your opinion on gun control in the wake of so many shootings in the usa?"]

The root cause of these shootings is not a function of the instrument used, it is a function of the value we place on human life. Abortion devalues human life. After all, if we are willing to kill even our own sons and daughters in the womb, why not kill strangers when they, too, are inconvenient or unwanted?

cultureshift, In Defense of the Defenseless 35 Comments [12/15/2014 4:34:40 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: Wykked Wytch

Quote# 105263

The Illuminati Tells Us to Look for Signs in "Signs"
The 2002 blockbuster "Signs" was basically a film about humans fighting aliens, but director M. Night Shyamalan intended for it to be much more. Throughout the storyline, Mel Gibson's character (Graham Hess) talks to his brother (Merrill Hess) about how to interpret events. He says that things can be viewed two different ways. The first is that something could be a sign or message, and that the other is just a moment of chance or coincidence. As the movie progresses, events reveal that everything is a sign in actuality. This occurs when Graham realizes that everything that had been happening to his family over the past year (spousal death, son's asthma, and daughter's fixation on fresh water) was necessary in order for them to survive the aliens. In the end, he realized that he saw signs and not coincidences. Ultimately, this was the theme of Shyamalan's movie, but he wasn't referring to God.

For the Illuminati, every movie released has a purpose. Most of them serve to perpetuate the order's brainwashing efforts and to suck more money from the masses. However, some films seek to achieve alternative goals. First and foremost, the Illuminati is a religious organization that seeks to establish a new world order that serves Satan. As part of its agenda, it releases messages to the public. In many ways, pop culture can be interpreted as some kind of unholy testament filled with prophecies and wisdom. "Signs" falls into the latter category. The Illuminati is preaching a message of perspective.

This movie is about much more than having faith. It's a message from the Illuminati telling us that they place signs for us to see. Graham Hess realized that at the end. He discovered that everything had a purpose. What the secret order places in pop culture functions the same way, it all has a purpose. In reality, there are two types of people. The first consists of the believers, those who see the symbols and realize their greater significance. Then there's the other, the skeptics who think that triangles, eyes, and numerology are just coincidence. These people dismiss all of the dark references as mere accidents or inspiration. What they see is nothing, and that's if they're even looking.

The film is really saying that we need to see the signs. Everything out there no matter how small and insignificant is a deliberate message. We may not realize their true meanings for some time, but we will have the knowledge when we need it most. Graham wondered why his wife babbled incoherently before dying, and Merrill questioned his insatiable desire to swing during every at bat. Their answers could not have come at a better time.

"Signs" says much more than that, too. Not only is it telling us to see the many Illuminati references as part of something greater, it's telling us that we must heed these messages to survive whatever ordeal in which we're about to endure. The secret order is planning some kind of apocalyptic event. It could be a war, space invasion, global epidemic, or even zombies for that matter. Those who will survive are the ones that are prepared, the ones that see the signs.

Illuminati Watchdog, Illuminati Watchdog 29 Comments [12/15/2014 4:33:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: Louis "Lou" C. Fer