Quote# 100394

For those of you who haven't figured it out, feminism is simply the belief that women and children are the property of the elite to be administered by the government/corporate system.

It has been said that feminists want women to be independent and have autonomy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Huge campaigns are openly conducted to influence the behavior of women. Any solo-mother who has dealt with social services or any woman said to have a mental illness who has dealt with mental health authorities will know the system is as paternalistic as all get out to women. In fact feminism is a particularly strong form of the traditional idea that women are mentally ill grown children and need to be protected and controlled. The only issue is who is to do the protecting and controlling. Feminists sometimes seem to be providing women with autonomy, but only because they are enabling behavior that separates the women from ordinary men and delivers them into the hands of the elite.

Cornfed, CoAlpha Brotherhood 189 Comments [4/6/2014 3:47:59 AM]
Fundie Index: 37
Submitted By: Saney

Quote# 100388

The Palestinians are not only ungodly enemies of Christianity and Israel, but they are also terrorists! Did you know that the Palestinians are members of a terrorist group called Hamas? Maybe they chose that name to scare the Jews in Israel since Jews are afraid to eat pork.

Jim Solouki, Creation of Science Study 28 Comments [4/6/2014 3:38:44 AM]
Fundie Index: 36
Submitted By: JohnTheAtheist

Quote# 100379

Dear reader, I myself in this essay helped to foster this false impression that the Leftist cult belief and their delirious vision is a theory by calling it ‘a theory.’

I lied. It is not a theory.

It is crack cocaine.

The Leftists are people who abandon their innate intelligence and moral stature and who deliberately make themselves to be stupider than average, less moral and upright and decent than average, who at once combine the worst features of a self-deceived fool and a self-deceiving conniving con-man. The only thing that saves them from the constant pain of the dentist drill of their conscience, the constant clamor of their wretched self-esteem telling them that they do not deserve to live, the only thing, indeed, keeping them alive, is their false and inflated sense of sanctimony.

Each one is a Judas, who has betrayed all he holds dear. The only reason why he does not hang himself from the nearest redbud tree is because he adopts the numbing hypocrisy of the Pharisee.

There is no greater high than to fly on the drug of smug moral superiority. You may look down your nose at all fashion of men greater than you in every other way, but if they are evil and you are righteous, the savory odor of your righteousness in your own nostrils is finer than myrrh. It is more than wine which mortals drink; it is nectar of the gods.

John C. Wright, John C. Wright's Journal 36 Comments [4/5/2014 3:59:26 PM]
Fundie Index: 35
Submitted By: David

Quote# 100378

In short, because Leftism is the theory that truth is impossible, and reason is a hate-crime, it requires self deception. Because self deception provokes guilt and humiliation, the self esteem of the Leftist is continually uncertain. Because it is uncertain, it must be uplifted. The only emotion loud and broad enough to smother the powerful emotions of guilt and humiliation is the uplift of sanctimonious pride, pride in one’s own perfect righteousness.

John C. Wright, John C. Wright's Journal 21 Comments [4/5/2014 3:59:10 PM]
Fundie Index: 25
Submitted By: David

Quote# 100377

Do not be deceived: Leftism is an enigma. We need a theorem that explains not one or two aspects of Leftism, but all their traits.

The theory must explain, first, the honest decency of the modern liberals combined with their astonishing indifference, nay, hostility to facts, common sense, and evidence; second, it must explain their high self-esteem (or, to be blunt, their pathological narcissism) combined not merely with an utter lack of accomplishment, but with their utter devotion to destructiveness, a yearning to ruin everything they touch; third, it must explain their sanctimoniousness combined with their applause, praise, support, and tireless efforts to spread all perversions (especially sexual), moral decay, vulgarity, and every form of desecration; fourth, their pretense of intellectual superiority combined with their notorious mental fecklessness; fifth, it must explain both their violence and their pacifism; sixth, the theory must explain why they hate the very things they should love most; seventh, the theory must explain why they are incapable of comprehending an honest disagreement or any honorable foe.

John C. Wright, John C. Wright's Journal 24 Comments [4/5/2014 3:59:01 PM]
Fundie Index: 18
Submitted By: David

Quote# 100376

MODERN PERSECUTION AGAINST TRUE CHRISTIANS: TIMES HAVE CHANGED: Up until the 13th century the doctrine of original sin had the belief that babies either went to eternal hell or heaven depending upon whether they were believers or not. Times have changed; Today the Lib’s believe in a forgiving and merciful God when it comes to their liberal beliefs of free sex and baby murdering, yet God says in His word that He will not forgive anyone who is unbelieving, including babies-it is the one unforgivable sin (1 John 5:16). On the other hand, the Lib’s have instituted a cruel taskmaster over the American people with the involuntary servitude (SLAVERY) of socialism, a God who is mean and cruel and who takes your property and redistributes that wealth to whom and when government wants, not to whom and when you decide so that you cannot decide to have lots of children…or else you will go broke..

David, Yahoo 37 Comments [4/5/2014 4:27:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 34
Submitted By: PhillipaFry

Quote# 100370

[on the proper punishment for homosexuality]

I think they should not be executed(per the Age of Grace as you said Florian), but they should not be able to display such behavior in public, whether it be kissing, gay pride parades or whatever. Neither do I think they should be able to speak to children about such matters or adopt children period. Also..they should not be allowed to organize as a political lobby group.

SwordofGeddo, Rapture Ready 40 Comments [4/4/2014 3:41:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 22

Quote# 100369

[A positive review on the metacritic page for the film 'God's not Dead']

It gets 10/10 solely due to the massive butt hurt it has caused atheists. Proving the premise of the movie true (that atheists are bitter, spiteful and angry people who attempt to use science to refute God), the atheists have taken to writing emotional charged reviews attacking the movie whilst generalizing Christians and using all the insults in the book against religion because the movie hit a nerve with them. 10/10


Atheistbutthurt, Metacritic 40 Comments [4/4/2014 3:41:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 27
Submitted By: Oliver Thiele

Quote# 100368

Rejecting "Double Bigotry" - Zoophobia Does Not Justify Homophobia | Cross Species Alliance



As institutionalized bigotry against the gay community becomes less and less acceptable within American culture, homophobes are finding it increasingly difficult to find support for their hate. Culturally, hating someone because of their sexual orientation no longer is considered an appropriate position to be taken in public - even if homophobia of the private sort continues to be distributed broadly throughout society.

Finding themselves on the losing end of history, the homphobes are engaged in a rear-guard action against the forces of diversity and mutual respect. Hatred - at least, the anti-gay kind of hatred - is quickly going out of style.

Out of this historical moment has come an uniquely prurient justification for anti-gay hatred and discrimination. Most recently, this "double bigotry" was expressed by homophobe Ben Carson, of Johns Hopkins, in an attempt to justify his stance against marriage equality. We quote:

Quote:
"My thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality. It doesn't matter what they are. They don't get to change the definition."


We're not sure what the precise meaning of the phrase "people who believe in bestiality" is intended to be. "Bestiality" - or, to use an accurate term, "zoophilia" - has been documented throughout human history in all recorded human cultures across the globe. Whether one "believes" in its existence or not does not actually impact the reality of its ubiquitous existence as a part of the expressed sexual diversity of the species Homo sapiens sapiens, any more than "believing" in gravity is a prerequisite for falling down a well.

That said, we'll infer that what Dr. Carson intended to convey in this phrase is something along the lines of "people who conclude based on extensive evidence that sexual relations between humans and members of other animal species is not only observationally commonplace, but also a healthy and essential component of human sexual diversity." If that's a fair rephrasing, then we at the Cross Species Alliance are indeed part of that group of people - a growing group of people which includes individuals from academic sexologists through animal welfare activists, noted psychologists, cultural theorists, and a wide range of popular culture figures.

We in this group reject bigotry, and we reject in particular bigotry aimed at unpopular sexual minorities who are targeted by society not due to any harm or other objectively-supported reason, but rather as a result of simple hatred of those who are different, unconventional, misunderstood, or - crucially - historically subjected to social persecution (the "we've always hatred them, who stop now?" argument). We of the Cross Species Alliance reject this bigotry.

The hatred of zoophiles - zoophobia - is no more appropriate within a healthy, diverse society than is the hatred of gay people - homophobia. Both are expressions of human bigotry, and both manifest as discrimination against and persecution of sexual minorities by majority populations. Justifying one - homophobia - by reference to the other - zoophobia - is tragically, ironically flawed both logically and morally. Two hatreds don't make a right, and bigotry doesn't justify more bigotry.

Sadly, the LGBT community has chosen to reject the "double bigotry" of equating same-sex attraction with zoophilia by denouncing zoophilia, and by pointing out that - in recent years, anyway - it's not ok culturally to hate gay people, but it is in fact still considered acceptable to hate (and persecute, and assault, and imprison, and otherwise victimize) zoophiles. This is a cowardly, hypocritical, shameful approach to take. It does no honor to the LGBT world to tacitly embrace zoophobia as part of their ongoing work towards a post-homophobic world.

The Cross Species Alliance rejects bigotry against all healthy, respectful, reciprocal sexual minorities - discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation is wrong, period. Full stop. Justifying one hatred - of gay people - by citing another hatred - of zoophiles - is disgraceful. Conversely, rejecting one hatred - homophobia - is best accompanied by a rejection of the other hatred: zoophobia.

That a form of bigotry - zoophobia - is widespread and largely culturally accepted does not make it right. Mere decades ago, homophobia was exactly that in the United States: widespread and culturally accepted. If our only metric for deciding what groups to hate was to reference what groups are currently hated, there would be no women's rights movement, no civil rights movement, and indeed no progress towards gay rights. Instead, we as a society must question deeply and honestly whether historical hatreds and historical bigotries have a legitimate role in our world today. Homophobia fails that test, and so does zoophobic bigotry.

Those who cling to their hatred of gay people must look elsewhere to rationalize it. Equating that hatred to another hatred actually demonstrates one thing quite clearly: that hatred can never serve as its own justification.

- - -

The Cross Species Alliance (crossspeci.es | @CrossSpecies), formed in 2013, works towards a world free of anti-zoophile bigotry. In conjunction with other groups worldwide, and in partnership with academic and professional subject matter experts, it confronts zoophobia and gives voice to the hundreds of millions of zoophiles worldwide: 1% of the total human population, according to published data. Through media engagement, information dissemination, in-house publications, and zoophile community outreach, the Alliance disseminates practical and theoretical tools to anti-zoophobia activists around the world. Additionally, the Alliance coordinates with the DeepJustice Network (deepjustice.net | @DeepJustice) to fund aggressive legal counsel for persecuted zoophiles, confront zoophobic bigots, and seek civil damages against libelers of zoophiles in print, electronic, and broadcast media. The Cross Species Alliance does not speak for the zoophile community in all its diversity and complexity, but rather provides a platform through which zoophiles can express themselves as individuals and as a global community.

Media and community inquiries for the Cross Species Alliance may be directed to: [email protected]. Confidentiality of communications is assured, and zealously defended.

crossspeci.es, cultureghost.net Forums 51 Comments [4/4/2014 3:40:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 36

Quote# 100364

(Someone asks if masturbation is still a mortal sin if it is used as "treatment for prostate enlargement in lieu of surgery or medication, in mild cases of benign prostatic hyperplasia. While "benign", the symptoms can be quite annoying, including getting up 4 or 5 times a night to go to the bathroom.")

Then the appropriate response would be to suffer going to the bathroom a few times a night, rather than committing a grievously offensive act to spare one the trouble of walking two meters to the toilet. Aborting a feotus in instances of sparing the mother's health remains a deplorable and evil act, masturbating to alleviate a medical discomfort also remains a deplorable and evil act.

(do you have ANY idea what it is like to be unable to have a full night's sleep because of this, then have to wake up, drive 100 km to work, put in a full day's work that requires a high degree of mental concentration, and then drive 100 km home at 6 pm, often on icy and snowy roads that equally require your full attention?)

No I have never experienced your particular trial. But hardship and trial is universal to all men and there is a Catholic response to trial and hardship. It is suffering in union with Christ and His Mother.

(masturbation is not at the same level as abortion...it's not just an issue of suffering. Several times I nodded off behind the wheel coming home in the evening, from lack of a good night's sleep. It's a matter of safety of myself and those I share the road with, and simply being able to function.)

Yes there are degrees to the gravity of sin and I do not deny this. But that does not change the fact that masturbation remains a grievous offense which is one of the conditions for an act to be mortally sinful. Sodomy is of higher gravity than masturbation, masturbation is of higher gravity than fornication, all three will land you in a state of mortal sin if you have full knowledge and willfully consent. The grave nature of masturbation does not alter with our own subjective culpability. I fully acknowledge that there can be diminished capacity but diminished capacity is not an excuse to sin and penitents that may have diminished capacity due to force of habit, etc., should not be encouraged in contentment but should rather be directed towards escaping the thralldom of sin.

If your medical condition places your safety and the safety of others at risk the response is not to commit an offense of a grave nature to avoid this. It would be to not drive if you cannot do so safely. The answer would be to have the surgery done even if impotence would be an unintended side-effect. Yes your financial well-being could suffer, yes your capability to procreate may be taken from you. But to spare committing a grave and unnatural act? It would be the moral and right thing to do.

You are a Benedictine Oblate yes? You have made a solemn offering of yourself to God. If your job must go, offer it to God. If you cannot have children, offer it to God. An offering of ones self is the entire vocation of an Oblate. All of these options would be preferable, would give glory to God and lead to your own sanctification, rather than to indulge in a grave offense against God and the natural law.


O Sapientia, Catholic Answers Forum 41 Comments [4/4/2014 3:38:11 AM]
Fundie Index: 40
Submitted By: Cyclonus

Quote# 100362

[F2M transgender person gains permission to use the men's bathroom]
Terry, the problem is that a male pervert can claim to be a female and spend hours in the women's room. Many teen boys will now ask to shower in the high school girl's gym because they identify with the female gender that day? Would you want that to happen to your sister if you have one? How about a niece? Did you read this part of the article?

"Last month a Washington state college decided it would not prevent a 45-year-old man who presents himself as a transgender “female” from lounging naked in a women’s locker room, in an area frequented by girls as young as six. Teenage girls on a high school swim team were using the facilities in September when they saw ‘Colleen’ Francis exposing male genitalia through the glass window in a sauna."

Surely you have some concerns.

Same-Sex Marriage Is A Bad Idea, Facebook 33 Comments [4/4/2014 3:37:39 AM]
Fundie Index: 19

Quote# 100361

(Figures that he's a presuppositionalist, seeing how van Til, the one who founded the idea, was also a Calvinist.)

Some Christians attempt to defend the faith with scientific arguments, such as those based on physics, biology, and archaeology. Along with the unbelievers they assume the reliability of science and attempt to "do science" better than the unbelievers can. If what I am saying is correct – that is, if what Paul is saying is correct – then of course we are able to do science better than the unbelievers, since Christians possess presuppositions that correspond to reality, that tell us the truth about God and his creation.

That said, the scientific method itself precludes the knowledge of truth, so that even with the correct presuppositions, science is totally unable to discover or describe the nature of reality. As Ronald W. Clark writes, "Contemplation of first principles progressively occupied Einstein's attention," and in such a context, he quotes Einstein as saying, "We know nothing about it at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren....the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never." Of course, he could speak only for science and not revelation.

Karl Popper, who has produced a number of works on the philosophy of science, writes as follows:

Although in science we do our best to find the truth, we are conscious of the fact that we can never be sure whether we have got it....In science there is no "knowledge," in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth....Einstein declared that his theory was false – he said that it would be a better approximation to the truth than Newton's, but he gave reasons why he would not, even if all predictions came out right, regard it as a true theory.

Scientists conduct multiple experiments to test a hypothesis. If observation is reliable, then why do they need more than one experiment? If observation is less than reliable, then how many experiments are enough? Who decides? [...]

The probability of drawing the correct curve (about experiments determining the exact boiling point of water, taking into account minutely different observations) is one over infinity, which equals zero. Therefore, there is a zero probability that any scientific law can be true. This means that it is impossible for science to ever accurately describe anything about reality. Thus Popper writes, "It can even be shown that all theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero." [...]

Scientists, of course, attempt to get around [affirming the consequent] by having "controlled" experiments, but they are faced again with an infinite number of things that may affect each experiment. How do they know what variables must be controlled? By other experiments that affirm the consequent, or by observation, which we have shown to be unreliable?

Bertrand Russell was a celebrated mathematician, logician, philosopher, and wrote much against the Christian religion. So he was not attempting to endorse Christianity when he wrote:

All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.

Yet many who speak this way refuse to draw the logical conclusion that all science is irrational and without justification.

Most people feel compelled to respect science because of the practical success that it appears to achieve; however, we have noted that affirming the consequent may yield results but not truths. Remember what Popper said about Einstein: "He would not, even if all predictions came out right, regard it as a true theory." The typical college student would disagree, but the typical college student is not Einstein. Accordingly, although science sometimes achieve practical ends, it has no authority to make pronouncements concerning the nature of reality. If the scientist does not know his place, an informed believer should not hesitate to put him back in his place. Theology is the ruling intellectual discipline, not science.


Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations (.pdf) 37 Comments [4/4/2014 3:37:02 AM]
Fundie Index: 21
Submitted By: Skyknight

Quote# 100360

Now, God defines goodness, and thus what he is and does is ipso facto good. Whatever he is and whatever he does is good, which means that no standard of goodness external to God may be used to judged an act of God as good or evil. We derive the very definition of goodness from what God is and does.

As mentioned, we discover what is good or moral through the Scripture. And earlier it is said that the view saying that the definition of goodness is in a sense arbitrary cannot be dismissed. For example, it was good for Old Testament believers to be circumcised solely because God had commanded it. Therefore, it was good for an Old Testament believer to be circumcised, and evil for him not to be circumcised.

The definition of goodness is therefore "arbitrary," but only in the sense that God's will determines everything, including the standard of goodness. By arbitrary, therefore, we do not mean, "existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will," but rather something similar to, "not restrained or limited in the exercise of power: ruling by absolute authority" (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition).

The doctrine of the simplicity of God dictates that we regard his attributes as one, which means that there can be no separation between his will and nature. All things, in this sense, are arbitrary but necessary, since there is no explanation to anything more final than to say that God has willed it so, and there is nothing prior to God's will that dictates or influences what he wills. He is love and he wills to be love; he wills to be love and he is love. God's will is the final explanation; there is no prior cause.

Therefore, for one to kill another is not inherently immoral, but is only so due to God's commandment, "You shall not murder." By the same token, it would have been immoral for Abraham to restrain from preparing Isaac for sacrifice, once God has commanded it to be done – in another context, we would call it murder. If God had not stayed Abraham's hand, it would still have been good for him to have killed Isaac – simply because God had commanded it. The justification for capital punishment is likewise derived. God has complete sovereignty over all creation, and whatever he commands is good by definition.


Vincent Cheung, On Good and Evil (.pdf) 29 Comments [4/4/2014 3:36:47 AM]
Fundie Index: 29
Submitted By: Skyknight

Quote# 100359

Homosexuals, and Muslims and Religious Atheists, want what Jews already have. Inordinate control over the 'other'.

Notice that each special interest group is anti-American and are about 2% of the total population.

Tanks-a-lot, The Daily Caller 25 Comments [4/4/2014 3:35:32 AM]
Fundie Index: 20

Quote# 100355

When the DemonicRATs/liberassholes oppose Voter ID laws, they are spitting in the faces of the minorities and sneering, "You are too fucking stupid and incompetent to perform a simple task such as getting an ID, so we will lie our asses off to you and pretend that we give a fuck about anything other than your mindless, robotic voting for DemonicRATs."

Were I one of those minorities, I'd be deeply offended by their condescension. The fact that there is no such expression of offense tells me that the RATs' opinion of the minorities is founded in fact. Maybe they ARE too stupid and ignorant to see through the liberals' contempt for them.

DoctorDoom, LibertyDwells 24 Comments [4/4/2014 3:34:28 AM]
Fundie Index: 14
Submitted By: Elie

Quote# 100354

The Bible never refers to plants as living. They may "grow," or "flourish," but they do not "live." Neither do they "die." The Bible teaches that they may "wither," or "fade," but not "die," since they are not "alive," having neither "life" (nephesh), nor breath of life" (ruach), nor "blood" (i.e. "the life of the flesh is in the blood" [Leviticus 17:11]). This state may be analogous to lack of consciousness, so that, while biologically alive, plants are therefore not Biblically "living." A similar argument can be made for some of the "lower" animals (perhaps some types of worms, sponges, etc.), and certainly for protozoans and viruses. Their "death" would not constitute death of truly living organisms.

John D. Morris, Institute for Creation Research 34 Comments [4/4/2014 3:34:05 AM]
Fundie Index: 16

Quote# 100352

(In response to a poster speculating that a sufficiently advanced species would eliminate all religion from their culture)

As you are an atheist I guest you can't spend one damn day without trying to harass religions. Typical atheist guy that says "lol I am enlightened with knowledge because I am atheist lol lol lol lol lol my fail logic says that religion is against science I mean I dont even have arguments but rofl lol science above all lol lol etc"

Those aliens would most likely have their own religion; They might even be Christian.

lupadim, My Anime List 47 Comments [4/4/2014 3:33:40 AM]
Fundie Index: 24

Quote# 100351

[RE. a transwoman.]

Not mention, this dousch-bag is basically committing suicide. A natural, real female vagina produces good bacteria to kill the bad bacteria, kinda like a self cleaning oven if you will!! When a butcher called Doctor rearrainges pieces of the male anatomy to create something resembling a black hole, for use as a female sexual recepticle, presumabley fill with male protoplasm, possibley other liquids.(?) There is no good bacteria that grows inside the alchemy created cavern of a mentally defective man to combat the bad bacteria that just continues to multiply until he goes septic and dies a horribly painful death. Unless he dousches it 52 times a day, hence the nick-name "Dousche-Bag"!! Yes, he is not mentally ill. He's fucking insane!! Kill his offspring to prevent further contamination of the human gene pool!!
NOW!

JoeK, Moonbattery 24 Comments [4/4/2014 3:30:27 AM]
Fundie Index: 31

Quote# 100350

[Emphasis added.]

Gary Sconce and the Liberal War on Choice

The recent liberal obsession with promoting transsexuals is not about disfigured sexuality, and far less about “intolerance”; it is about attacking the mindset that makes us capable of exercising free will. For example, take a characteristically obsequious piece in the local media on a teacher in Oakhurst, California who is subjecting himself (and his students) to a sex change:

After spring break, 24-year Yosemite High School science and multimedia teacher Gary Sconce will return to teach as [his] true self, [he] says: Karen Adell Scot.

The 56-year-old husband, father and award-winning teacher came out to family in April that since early childhood, [he]'s felt like a female trapped in a male body. Since then, Sconce has been undergoing hormone replacement therapy and transitioning into Scot.

Sconce calls the person he will pretend to be after he has finished getting medically transfigured into a horrific parody of a woman his “authentic self.” In the progressive funhouse, words mean their opposite.

A thought criminal made this astute observation in a letter to the editor of the Sierra Star:

“I see this as an assault on the minds and morals of our children. It blurs the lines of what is right and wrong.”

The word “assault” is well chosen. Sconce is obviously a very troubled guy; the worst you can accuse him of is a solipsistic disregard for how his bizarre behavior will affect children’s development. But the motives of the government/media establishment that goes out of its way to promote this pathology can only be malign.

This gets at the heart of the deeper sickness that liberals mislabel “tolerance”:

“Being transgender is not a choice,” [Sconce] wrote in a letter to Yosemite High employees earlier this week.

He literally believes that he has no choice but to medically disfigure the body God gave him, and to present himself to children dressed in women’s clothes. Likewise, we are encouraged — or rather required — to believe that people have no choice but to indulge in politically approved sexual perversions, no matter how deleterious they may be to public health.

If we have no choice about the way we behave, we are not humans. We are a lower order of being, fit only to be controlled from above, like farm animals. There is no virtue, no heroism, no internal triumph of right over wrong. If we have no choice, we are slaves.

Small wonder authoritarians hate Christianity so much. Christianity insists that you acknowledge that you do have a choice, and you are responsible for making it, not the government or media. In contrast, liberalism lets you take the herded animal’s path of least resistance — the low road leading downward, which we wind up on by default if we declare ourselves victims and don’t exert any effort.

Sconce’s attempt to prove that he has no choice proves only that his disease is the last thing a decent person would wish to encourage in others:

“Consider: I have lost my marriage of 35 years to a magnificent, brilliant woman, am going to lose my house, and am spending (money) on serious and painful physical changes — including both medical and psychological services.

“I have been shunned by those who used to be my friends, have been shunned by family, have had people try to cast demons out of me, have left my church of nearly 30 years, and have been scorned and laughed at by those who had for decades said they were my friends. Who would choose that?”

Likewise, you could ruin your life by drinking, by drugs, by gambling, by chasing after women. The resulting devastation would hardly prove that you had no choice.

Kudos to Fox News for not following the disgusting media practice of referring to men who pretend they are women with feminine pronouns. It is cruel to encourage the mentally ill in their delusions, rather than try to help them back to sanity.

But to the “mainstream” left-wing media, Sconce is just a pawn. Like the children whose innocence will be unnecessarily tainted by the grotesque spectacle he making of his illness, his fate is irrelevant in the grand struggle to destroy our conception of ourselves as capable of choice.

Dave Blount, Moonbattery 19 Comments [4/4/2014 3:30:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 27

Quote# 100348

You could put a healthy living frog in a blender and blend it up then take the compound and wait and wait and wait but no life will spontaneously arise from it even though it started as a living entity. Even though you began with all of the components of life you would not observe life spontaneously arising from this mixture. Why? Because life only comes from life.

Dig4gold, http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/ 19 Comments [4/4/2014 3:29:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 23

Quote# 100346

I think it’s time to bring back blasphemy laws.

And here is why… (See video)


“… the thing that’s really disturbing about Noah isn’t that it is silly, it’s that it’s immoral. It’s about a psychotic mass murderer who gets away with it, and his name is God… What kind of tyrant punishes everyone just to get back at the few he’s mad at? I mean, besides Chris Christie.” — Bill Maher

And then he added this little ditty:

“Hey, God, you know, you’re kind of a dick when you’re in a movie with Russell Crowe and you’re the one with anger issues.” — Bill Maher.

Bill Maher is known for being an offensive anti-Christian bigot. It’s his trademark. But this time he’s gone too far. He may have protection under the First Amendment to say whatever slanderous thing that comes out of his toilet bowl brain, but that does not mean Christians should turn the other cheek.

Psalms 14:1 says, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good.” And that gets to the nub of the issue.

The problem with people like Maher — and rabble like Richard Dawkins and the late burning-in-hell Christopher Hitchens — is their lack of moral character. They are what Psalm 14 says, corrupt. That is to say they are morally bankrupt men who refuse to be honest with the evidence all around them.

They start “philosophizing about life” from one fundamental place: hatred of God. The very idea of a Creator who controls all things by virtue of His power and authority makes them recoil. In fact, they hate him so much they would rather go to hell then admit he is God.

That’s what they have in common with the Devil. He hates God too. He’s so blinded by this hatred he’s convinced himself — and a legion of other fools — that there is no God and, if there is one, He is evil because everything he does is twisted and egotistical. That is basically what Maher was saying when he accused God of being immoral by punishing the people of the world with the flood.

I realize that many evangelicals will vilify me for publicly denouncing a guy like Maher. They’ll accuse me of haughtiness, arrogance, and having an “unloving spirit.” But I’m none of these things.

I don’t know Maher. And I have no reason to hate him. But I do know God. And Maher’s public vilification of God is the most offensive and slanderous thing I have ever heard. Frankly, if a Christian doesn’t have a gut wrenching reaction about this, I’ve really got to question him.

Which brings me to the main point: Christians should unanimously condemn Maher. There was a time when a generation of believers actually believed in defending the honor of God and would have done just that — condemn Maher.

Back then Maher would have faced stiff penalties for his slanderous crimes against God and country. And the reasons were clear: slander the ultimate authority of a nation — God — and you ridicule the very foundation of its laws, values, public institutions and leadership.

Slander one and you slander all.

This is one reason why it is unacceptable to threaten the life of the President of the United States, or even to slander the President.

Which raises a question: If it is acceptable to slander and profane the name of God then why not publicly vilify and slander President Barack Obama? I, for one, don’t believe in his presidency, like Maher doesn’t believe in God. And, I also think Obama is immoral, perhaps even a lunatic???

Here is an example of how America once dealt with the likes of Bill Maher.

“Be it declared and enacted by the Lieutenant Governor, Council and Representatives, convened in General Assembly, and it is enacted by the Authority of the same, that if any person shall presume willfully to blaspheme the holy Name of God, Father, Son, or Holy Ghost; either by denying, cursing or reproaching the true God; his Creation or Government of the World: or by denying, cursing, or reproaching the holy Word of God… everyone so offending shall be punished by imprisonment, not exceeding six months, and until they find sureties for good behaviours; by sitting in pillory; by whipping; boaring thorow the tongue, with a red hot iron; or sitting upon the gallows with a rope about their neck; at the discretion of the court…” — Massachusetts General Laws.

Lamentably, in 1952 the US Supreme Court decided, “It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches or motion pictures.” And ever since then atheist have freely and very publicly ridiculed God, challenged every public demonstration of Christian religion, belittled Christians and attacked every institution bequeathed to us by our Christian forebears.

But I gotta say, Maher’s comments are the most shocking and heinous public utterances of blasphemy on U.S. airwaves. And worse still, Christians — and especially Christian leaders — have said very little.

America is hanging on by a thin thread of longsuffering divine justice. The pugnacious degenerate Bill Maher may think blasphemy is a laughing matter. The nation of America may think it can hide behind the First Amendment. And Christians may falsely think they are demonstrating Christlike love by remaining quiet in the face of profligate profanity.

But mark my word, a day of reckoning is coming. God is very clear. Exodus 20:7 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.”

If we are unwilling to hold blasphemers accountable, the almighty judge of the world will.

I’m Tristan Emmanuel and I make no apologies.

Tristan Emmanuel, BarbWire 72 Comments [4/3/2014 3:33:49 AM]
Fundie Index: 54
Submitted By: Persephone 66

Quote# 100343

[On Alan Keyes]

This great man should be President of these United States I SAID IT THEN, AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN!! America you have missed your visitation! The state of our Government is a reflection of the state of our nation! The Word of God tells us that there is going to a falling away (1Tim .4:1,2 ) If this was not happening we would not prove how true the Master's Word's is... I GOT GOOD NEWS HOWEVER! We just need to PRAY FOR ALL CHRISTIAN LEADERS THAT GOD WILL GIVE THEM STRONG BACK BONE TO LEAD WITHOUT COMPROMISE! Men like Allen Keys, Franklin Graham, Bishop T.D Jakes, Pastor John Hagie, Bishop Harry Jackson an all the others who are standing up, in support of the constituted Authority of the Kingdom of God, unashamedly! It not too late God can heal the land once again... 2 chron.7:14 The church that Jesus is building got the Power of prayer ( Luke 10:17-20) We just need to use it! I don't know if you're taking notice that all the crooked Politicians are been move out of office. there is still hope we just need to seek HIS FACE!..

Rev. John Goffe, WND 32 Comments [4/3/2014 3:32:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 16

Quote# 100342

You know what? It's time for concerned tax paying American Citizens to review life in America after World War 2. Take a look at all the nonsense that has been rammed down your tax paying throat since that time. The kidnapping of America's Posterity away from the child's parents only to be brainwashed by corrupt and mentally ill tax paid employees who are bound and determined to turn other peoples children into non life producing homosexuals...courtesy of the federal department of education! Your tax dollar at work. Folks! That issue alone is an attack on America's Posterity by people who have no self respect other than to enrich themselves at your expense!

Just today I heard on the news Biden say that if you came across U.S. borders illegally then you are already an American citizen! So much for thousands of years of immigration policy all around the world! Encouraging criminals and making those criminals new citizens who provide undue job search competition towards America's true unemployed Americans! And you pay taxes for this crap!

World War 2 and then the 1960's! The communist came to town and took over the education system so as to gain access to America's Posterity. They then (California of course then all across the U.S.) introduced No Fault Divorce that worked to increase the numbers of troubled single parents (mostly moms) now finding themselves in search of a job there by creating the "latchkey kid" who in turn is free of parental influence. Look at the push for homosexual relationships in this country...a push that comes from tax paid government peoples like that sick freak Holder. In defiance to the Laws of Mother Nature your tax dollar is being spent on turning America's Posterity into homosexuals under the guise of human rights! No self-respecting nation turns its "Village Children" into homosexuals! Now you know with that guy from Russia rides his horse with no shirt on. He's showing the world what a real parent looks like,,,brave and strong, while America shows the world a man who is claimed to be throwing baseballs like a little girl for her first time who happens to be a favor of turning other peoples children into homosexuals!

America has become the disgrace of the world and the world laughs at America!

NUTN2SAY, WND 33 Comments [4/3/2014 3:32:03 AM]
Fundie Index: 24

Quote# 100338

The Homosexual Agenda is Jewish

The following is an extensive, exhaustive list of Jews, which clearly demonstrates that the radical and aggressive homosexual movement in the United States is a Jewish movement. Jews created the movement and operate it from top to bottom, from within many facets of our society and institutions. Jews have been advocating homosexuality since they arrived in the United States from Weimar Germany in the 1930's.

The Jewish Homosexual Agenda is one of perversion and degeneracy that has spread like a wildfire through every facet of American culture. A close read of the names, occupations, and professions reveals Jews infiltrate every aspect of American life, as they did in Weimar Germany, in order to subvert once proud and clean institutions, culture, and social norms. Jews and homosexuals use deceptive organizational names, such as "The Human Rights Campaign", and others. Just as Jews did in Weimar Germany, they have done in the United States, they first made perversion into a "persecuted class", and now "mainstream" by twisted and distorted use of the media, the subversion of our political and legal systems, and then extreme political and legal pressure on medical sciences and educations systems via Marxist political correctness enforced by state-sponsored coercion. In Germany, it required a strong nationalist response to save and restore German culture, we should expect nothing different in the United States.

Stop Chasing Ghosts, Stop Chasing Ghosts 21 Comments [4/3/2014 3:30:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 21
Submitted By: Wykked Wytch

Quote# 100337

Friends, I just arrived home after seeing the Hollywood (Paramount) movie NOAH tonight. It is MUCH much worse than I thought it would be. Much worse.

The Director of the movie, Darren Aronofsky has been quoted in the media as saying NOAH is 'the least biblical biblical film ever made', I agree wholeheartedly with him.

I am disgusted. I am going to come right out and say it--it is disgusting and evil--paganism! Do you really want your family to see a pagan movie that has Noah as some psychopath who says if his daughter-in-law's baby is a girl, he will kill it as soon as it's born. And then when two girls are born, bloodstained Noah (the man the Bible calls righteous Noah--Genesis 7:1), brings a knife down to one of the baby's heads to kill it and at the last minute doesn't do it--and then a bit later says he failed because he didn't kill the babies. How can we recommend this movie and then speak against abortion! Psychopathic Noah sees humans as a blight on the planet and wants to rid the world of people.

I feel dirty--as if I have to somehow wash the evil off me.

Ken Ham, Facebook 54 Comments [4/3/2014 3:29:59 AM]
Fundie Index: 23
Submitted By: Night Jaguar