Quote# 102335

Homosexuality is actually a demon spirit. It is such a putrid smelling demon that other demons don't even like to hang around it. A genuine prophet of God told me that the Lord allowed him to smell this demon spirit, and he got sick to his stomach. And yet as humans, many embrace this demon. Yes, you heard me right. Being gay is demonic.

Bert Farias, Right Wing Watch 41 Comments [7/28/2014 3:20:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 26

Quote# 102332

[The post is titled "Debunking the Patriarchy Myth"]

[A painting from 1631 of a father wiping a baby]

So there you have it: The Patriarchy in action — changing diapers. This is before feminism, before women’s suffrage and before Susan B. Anthony’s great grandparents were born.

The painting is pretty funny to me, because I can so easily relate to the poor guy in the picture who has to wipe the kid’s butt. You can see him recoiling from the stench, arm hung to the side in resignation.

Tell me, if men were so privileged back then, why would they ever have to wipe a kid’s butt?

W. F. Price, The Spearhead 33 Comments [7/28/2014 3:17:57 AM]
Fundie Index: 17

Quote# 102330

Homosexuality is a preference which causes far more harm and disunity in society than it NEEDS to. What's more, and this is the important reason of why I think it's logical to phase it out at birth if we can, it ADDS nothing. There is nothing that anyone, by the simple virtue of being homosexual, adds to society, themselves or to others. All it is is sexual preference, the world will NOT become a bland uniform 1984-type scenario by making this decision. That's just ludicrous.

Lord Woodlouse, spacebattles 27 Comments [7/28/2014 3:10:26 AM]
Fundie Index: 19

Quote# 102329

Are you a Marcionite? Find out in one easy question!

Does this offend you?



If you answered Yes:
You are a Marcionite.
...
If you answered No:
You are an orthodox Christian (at least on this point). Congratulations!

Timothy Dukeman, Deeper than Sound-Bites 38 Comments [7/28/2014 3:10:05 AM]
Fundie Index: 18

Quote# 102327

I’m convinced that lots, and lots of normal, law-abiding men have “look, but don’t touch” feelings about 11 and 12 year old girls. And it’s not pedophilic at all. Same way being attracted to Helen Mirren’s figure in a red dress is not gerontophilic.

Emma the Emo, Just another student, discovering the truth about feminism 43 Comments [7/28/2014 3:08:03 AM]
Fundie Index: 16

Quote# 102326

The non-Calvinist might also say that the unfairness of Calvinism is in God creating Booker for the purpose of sending him to hell. In other words, under Calvinism, God actually wants Booker in hell—which seems unloving—whereas under a non-Calvinist view God lovingly wants him in heaven but is limited by what Booker himself will do.

I’ll talk about why the idea that God cannot create a world in which Booker chooses salvation is absurd some other time. For now, let’s suppose that’s true. How does that help the non-Calvinist?

Is it loving or fair for God, under freewill theism, to create Booker, knowing he will suffer eternal conscious punishment? What does it even mean to say that God wants Booker to be saved? Given that the choice is between creating him for eternal death, or not creating him at all, isn’t the only loving option to not create him?

Now of course, the non-Calvinist is welcome to say that God has some overriding reason to create Booker. The world in which Booker goes to hell, perhaps, is overall a better world than one without him, or one where he is saved. But that mimics the Calvinist’s argument! Under Calvinism, it is better that God be glorified through Booker’s reprobation than for Booker to be saved or not exist at all. The end for which God creates Booker is not reprobation itself. He does not want Booker in hell for its own sake, but rather for the purpose of revealing his perfection. A non-Calvinist might disagree about God’s ultimate goal, but his position remains functionally identical to Calvinism, and therefore offers no justification whatsoever for thinking that double predestination is unfair or unloving.


Dominic Bnonn, Thinking matters 33 Comments [7/28/2014 3:06:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 13

Quote# 102323

So everything was great and blissful with my new discovery until, until I started to realize that the feminists would be opposed to my dream of me having a traditional family and that it would be hard for me to find a woman who didn’t want to work during her marriage with me. This is when my anti-feminism began in earnest. Very quickly my belief in patriarchy was no longer really about getting a woman at all and it was instead a kind of Holy Crusade to destroy feminism. Feminism was the great enemy lurking behind every bush and poisoning the minds of all the women around me and endlessly trying to threaten me and bully me to try to get me to become evil like them.

It is funny, why was it that I never experienced the fantasy of “taking care of” a woman until my mid-20s? I had definitely fallen in love before that time multiple times and I do remember feeling strongly protective towards women I was attracted to occasionally and seeking to be “controlling” at times and I did give women gifts a few times but it wasn’t until the point of my conversion to patriarchy that I actually had a full blown fantasy of “taking care of” a woman financially 100% like how the traditional family model worked. Looking back I am sure this was because I somehow knew or felt that it was “forbidden” and “shameful” for me to actually fantasize about and idealize taking care of a woman. That the very thought of “taking care of a woman” was repulsive and disgusting according to the feminist cultural messages that had been drummed into me my whole life. I think by the time I had reached my mid-20s I just didn’t really care anymore about the stigma I would face in wanting to “take care of a woman” because I was already being rejected by women anyways so it wasn’t like my situation would get any worse by trying something new.

So, I felt the forbidden feeling of wanting to take care of a woman and I had the forbidden thought that taking care of a woman was actually a morally good thing to do; that being the end of my time as a feminist man.

What happened next was that women rejected me because I was now pro-patriarchy and therefore “sexist” and an “oppressor” and things like that but after my conversion to patriarchy I experienced this rejection in a totally different way. After my conversion to patriarchy I experienced women’s rejection of me as proof of my heroism and good moral character and that I was standing up for what was right and that the feminist women were wrong. The feminist women were wrong because they wanted me to return to the man I was before who was rejected and hated by women for my weakness and who was immoral and selfish because I wasn’t giving to women what women needed from me and deserved from me as a man. I responded to women rejecting me romantically by turning my mind towards politics and the great crusade against feminism thinking if I couldn’t serve women through a personal relationship with a woman I could serve women through the political means of making the culture overall more friendly and supportive of women’s needs by making the culture overall patriarchal instead of feminist.

Jesse Powell, Secular Patriarchy 29 Comments [7/28/2014 3:06:03 AM]
Fundie Index: 17

Quote# 102321

(On an article about Chinese Americans protesting the building of a homeless shelter)

The people that are protesting, maybe we should be protesting on them to go back to their countries where most of them were living in the woods with no running water and using banana leaves to wipe their behinds. People like this sicken me because anyone can fall on hard times. They don't know what these families been through. God is not sleeping.

joi b, DNAinfo 20 Comments [7/28/2014 3:04:34 AM]
Fundie Index: 0

Quote# 102320

[These are only excerpts from a much larger homophobic screed.]

During the past century, Judaism's main antagonists have been the materialism of communism, the determinism of academia, and the absolute belief in human autonomy. Currently, however, one of the greatest ideological challenges to believing Jews is contemporary society's acceptance of homosexuality as normal behavior.

[...]

[T]here can be no public recognition that might indicate that such behavior is in any way acceptable. The prohibition of chilul Hashem forbids even individuals, and a Jewish community all the more so, from condoning transgressions of Torah law. In practical terms, this would dictate, for example, that an Orthodox Shul should not permit someone who publicly and proudly flaunts his homosexuality to receive any recognition or honors in its services. To do so translates in the public's mind into a condoning of the lifestyle that he himself seeks to intertwine into his public persona.

[...]

But assuming, arguendo, that "gay" advocates are correct and that there exists a possibility of harm resulting from the attempt to change one's sexual orientation, a homosexual faithful to Halacha must still seek such therapy. If a Jew is obligated to even give up his life rather than commit a homosexual act, doesn't it stand to reason that he should be willing to undergo the risk of harm to avoid it?

[...]

It cannot be gainsaid that a homosexual for whom therapy is unsuccessful will suffer the deprivation of his ability to fulfill a basic human desire, and that is deeply painful. But the Creator of man has told us through His Torah that the homosexual act has so devastating an effect on the inner self and causes such deep spiritual harm, that the alternative, destroying one's inner life as both a Jew and a human, is worse.

HaRav Aharon Feldman, A Torah View on Homosexuality 12 Comments [7/28/2014 3:02:35 AM]
Fundie Index: 9

Quote# 102318

*part of a blog post entitled "The problem with voter ID laws is that they don't make it hard enough to vote"*

But that’s not to say that I support voter ID because I’m worried about voter fraud. I mean, I am worried about voter fraud, but that isn’t the primary reason I stand in favor. I’m in favor of voter ID because it takes a small, insignificant measure of effort to obtain an ID, and I believe that voting should probably involve a small, insignificant measure of effort.

In fact, if I had my way, you’d need to produce much more than a license to vote. You’d have to pass an elementary level civics test and then identify by name, at the very least, the Secretary of State, the Vice President, and the Speaker of the House. Next you’d be quizzed on a few current events. Finally, all votes would be cast in essay form. You’d be asked for your choice, and then 6 sentences explaining why you made that choice. There would be no wrong answer, as long as you have an answer. People who cannot even articulate the reasoning behind their vote don’t deserve to vote in the first place.

I imagine these easy tests would disqualify about half of the people who show up on election day, sending our voter turnout numbers plummeting into the basement. And that, my friends, would be a wonderful day in the Republic.


Matt Walsh, Matt Walsh Blog 32 Comments [7/27/2014 11:20:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 102316

So you are saying that anyone that feels gays are an abomination and against gays are gay? Are you saying Putin is gay?

Doesn't he have the right to run his country the way he wants -- which is not into the ground with moral breakdown and gays everywhere in the open?

So all of our presidents in the past who were against gay marriage are homophobes or latent homosexuals?

I am against gay marriage and I do not like being around them. I find their drama and flamboyant attitudes a bit much. Three gay people I knew have overdosed just this year. I don't like the drugs and I don't like the way they shove their opinions onto me. I also don't like that they want to steal my clothes.

FairSharFairShar, Realabortiondebate 29 Comments [7/27/2014 11:19:37 AM]
Fundie Index: 13

Quote# 102312

I have never in my life encountered a religion as oppressive, cold, and stiff as Progressivism. I’ve never known a faith more eager to burn heretics at the stake. Even a fundamentalist Iranian Muslim would flinch if he came face to face with a western liberal’s rigid dogmatism. I imagine that even a Saudi Arabian Islamic cleric would take one look at how American left wingers react when anyone deviates ever so slightly from their established orthodoxy, and say to himself, “man, these people REALLY need to chill.”

The Cult of Leftism has many tenets, and it demands full compliance with all of them, but nothing in its creed compares to the sanctity of their two great sacraments: child murder and sodomy. You must not question these, but tolerance alone will not be good enough. You must celebrate them, too. You must worship at their altar. You must sing hallelujah at the mention of their names. You must fight for a society where infanticide and gay sex are awarded a protected and privileged position. When a man decides to kill babies for a living, you must call him a ‘health care provider’ and a ‘healer.’ When a man decides to announce to the world that he enjoys sex with other men, you must call him a ‘hero’ and a ‘pioneer.’ You must quite literally give him awards for his courage.

Nothing less will be allowed.

I hope that all of my fellow Christians and conservatives soon catch on to this reality. It seems that many in our camp have been too afraid of confrontation and too addicted to approval and affirmation, so we sent up the white flag and surrendered the culture entirely. “Hey, you do you, it’s none of my business,” we said, and moved on to arguing over safer things, like the economy or foreign policy. We rejected political candidates who dared to venture onto the forbidden soil of ‘social issues’ and instead nominated milquetoast moderates who run around regurgitating platitudes about how we should ‘just talk about jobs.’ But the progressives have concentrated almost exclusively on winning the culture and reshaping our society in their image. While conservatives set up shop way off in the outskirts, liberals have burrowed right into the heart of America and gone to work subverting and perverting our civilization at its most foundational level.

It’s because they’ve claimed so many victories that they have earned the luxury to demand more than a cowering tolerance from their ideological opponents. Conservatives and Christians who tried to keep their hands clean by merely putting up with the slaughter of children and the destruction of the nuclear family are now faced with a dilemma. They can’t just tacitly endorse evil anymore — they are going to be required to give their enthusiastic and active approval. Silence will be viewed as dissent, and dissent is the highest crime.

*Walsh continues ranting about liberalism, but the blog is way too long to post in it's entirety*

Matt Walsh, Matt Walsh Blog 27 Comments [7/27/2014 9:58:26 AM]
Fundie Index: 15

Quote# 102309

The Gynocentric Cycle can’t restart now, it’s way too soon! It’s half a century too early!
The Gynocentric Cycle in a nutshell is this: tough times lead to sexual morality. Sexual morality leads to prosperity. Prosperity and easy times lead to people gradually abandoning sexual morality. One aspect of this is the rise of feminism and the long string of defeats the Right has suffered in the culture wars since the mid-60's. The dismantlement of sexual morality gradually ends prosperity and leads to tough times again. And so the cycle begins again.

More concisely it can be put this way:
History repeats itself. Good times breed weak people. Weak people create tough times. Tough times breed strong people. Strong people create good times.

The Greatest Generation (strong people), who grew up in the Great Depression and WW2 (tough times), created the post-war prosperity (good times). The children of the Greatest Generation, the Baby Boomers (weak people; and Liberal pieces of shit) grew up in the prosperity their parents created without understanding what it took to create it and what it takes to sustain it. So Baby Boomers and Liberals which belong to their generation set about dismantling what their parents had built beginning in the mid-60's. The result of their efforts lead to the increasingly (and already tough enough) tough times we now are in. To cite one example, the mass entry of women into the workforce correlates with the beginning of the trend of the Middle Class wages’ multi-decade plummet and the beginning of the trend of the growth of income inequality in America. To cite another example, the date women got the vote correlates with the start of the trend of the monumental growth of the welfare state.

Now to why I think it’s bad news that the Gynocentric Cycle is rebooting right now, if that is indeed the case. Men and women have been at this “sex war” for all of their existence. This cyclical phenomenon has covered all of human history. I want it to end in a decisive and irrevocable victory for men. But the only way this will happen is if two events coincide in time: the end of a gynocentric cycle and the start of the permanent and irreversible obsolescence of women.
At the end of a gynocentric cycle, men are so disgusted and put off by women that they want nothing to do with them and they are seriously considering doing without them and going their own way. At such a point, men see themselves as a group and not just as generic individuals.

The second event consists of two components: the technological obsolescence of women on the sexual and reproductive fronts. On the sexual front, their obsolescence consists of two major inventions: virtual reality sex and robot sex partners. On the reproductive front, their obsolescence consists of the invention of the artificial uterus.

Side note: to be completely accurate, VR sex is right around the corner but the second half, the reproductive aspect, may not be necessary after all. Men would withdraw into their individual sexual heavens and let the rest of society (especially government and women) look on in horror as the birth rate plummets to near-zero levels and productivity drops and the taxes dry out. On the other hand, the artificial uterus (just as surrogacy before it) would allow men for the first time in history to be the ones who decide what traits will be passed on to the next generation and select for men for their love of sovereignty and dignity, civilization-building, civilization-friendly men, sovereign men, instead of women selecting men for their servility and utility to women. This one development alone would allow us to break free from the old cycle that has brought countless civilizations to their knees because they couldn’t escape Homo Sapiens’ animal past as enshrined in women’s sexual instinct and enforced by women’s herdthink. We would be the first species in the known universe ever to escape their animal past.

If these inventions arrive at a time when men are thoroughly and rightfully repulsed by women, then we will have victory, and we will be fairly vindicated for all the injustices they have brought upon us. We will have a clean and clear break from them. However, if those inventions arrive at a time when women are again pretending to be nice, then at best we will have peace, but we will never be completely rid of gynocentrism. It will stick with us for life… like herpes. We may never be rid of putting the male masses in hyper-production mode (as opposed to non-self-destructive high production mode). We may never be rid of consumerism and conspicuous consumption (both highly gynocentric phenomena).

George B., The Spearhead 29 Comments [7/27/2014 9:54:27 AM]
Fundie Index: 18
Submitted By: Ultimate Paragon

Quote# 102306

"The only thing that can deter terrorists, like those who kidnapped the children and killed them, is the knowledge that their sister or mother will be raped." This assertion was made by Middle East scholar Dr. Mordechai Kedar of Bar-Ilan University on an Israel Radio program. "It sounds very bad, but that's the Middle East," added Kedar, of Bar-Ilan's Department of Arabic.

[...]

"You have to understand the culture in which we live," said Kedar. "The only thing that deters [Hamas leaders] is a threat to the connection between their heads and their shoulders." When presenter Yossi Hadar asked if that "could filter down" the organizations' ranks, Kedar replied: "No, because lower down the considerations are different. Terrorists like those who kidnapped the children and killed them - the only thing that deters them is if they know that their sister or their mother will be raped in the event that they are caught. What can you do, that's the culture in which we live."

Dr. Mordechai Kedar, The Jewish Daily Forward 16 Comments [7/27/2014 9:50:40 AM]
Fundie Index: 14

Quote# 102305

Hitler’s favorite philosopher was atheist Friedrich Nietzsche. In fact, he gave copies of his books to Stalin and Mussolini. Following Nietzsche, Hitler had these words placed over one of the gas ovens in Auschwitz, “I want to raise a generation of young people devoid of conscience, imperious, relentless and cruel.”

Hitler often quoted materialist philosophers with glee. One of his favorite sayings was that the destruction of the weak is a good thing for the survival of the strong for “nature intended it that way.”

Moreover, in Hitler’s Table Talk, a collection of his private sayings preserved by his closest followers, the “fuhrer”, derides Christianity as a “scourge” and wishes Germany will be the first nation in centuries to be immune from its influence. Hitler went so far as to ban Christmas and demand the Hitler Youth praise him on December 25th rather than Jesus.

Hitler also mocked Christianity for its opposition to Darwinism. Indeed, many of his closest colleagues, Goebbles, Himmler, Heydrich and Bormann, were outspoken atheists and materialists also some were intrigued by the occult.

That Hitler was a Christian is one of the most pernicious lies perpetrated by modern secularists. The second, one promoted by revisionist historians, is that Hitler and the Nazis were “right wingers.” In fact, Hitler and his party were left-wing socialists. The Nazis were “National Aryan Socialists.” The only difference between them and communists were that the former was nationalistic while the latter was global in scope. In fact, the body count racked up by the secular left during the twentieth century alone is staggering and unparalleled in history. What also goes unreported is that many progressives of the time, like George Bernard Shaw, were enamored with the Nazi party.

The myth that Hitler was a “right-wing Christian” began in the 1950s when leftist academics who had previously supported the Nazi regime began revising history to cover their butts. They successfully linked the attempts by fundamentalist groups to ban certain books from public libraries (like Henry Miller’s pornographic The Tropic of Cancer) to the burning of books by the Hitler Youth. But this is really the ONLY thing Nazis had in common with far right-wingers (and historians failed to mention that the Soviets and Chinese had also banned these books). For example, the Nazis were pro-abortion and pro-euthenasia, a position they took from Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, who Hitler greatly admired. They also supported gun control and national health insurance.


Pastor Matt, Pastor Matt's blog 21 Comments [7/27/2014 9:50:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 19

Quote# 102302

The judge who sent three al-Jazeera English journalists to jail in Egypt has accused them of being in league with the devil in a 57-page explanation of his verdict.

Judge Mohamed Nagy Shehata sentenced Mohamed Fahmy, Peter Greste and Baher Mohamed last month to between seven and 10 years in jail on charges of aiding terrorists and falsifying news. At the time, diplomats and rights observers described the charges as baseless, the process as flawed and the trio's jailing as an attack on free speech.

In his first statements since the trial, Shehata said "the devil encouraged them to use journalism and direct it towards actions against this nation".

Mohamed Nagy Shehata, The Guardian 7 Comments [7/27/2014 9:49:16 AM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: Yossarian Lives

Quote# 102301

Should Evolutionists Stay Away From Doctors and Medicine? By Their Logic: YES!

I think I shall never forget a YouTube video I watched about ten years ago in which a young man in his twenties discussed a painful ear infection he was battling. To my amazement he went on to lament the decision he made to take antibiotics; a decision made for him by the pain no doubt.

"I believe in evolution and by taking the medicine I am hindering the evolutionary process," he said to the camera.

Upon further investigation I discovered his channel was dedicated to promoting modern atheism and deep time fish-to-men evolution. "Finally," I thought, "an honest atheist."

Any internal infection can kill you. A dental abscess has toxins that can poison your system. Ear infections are a particularly nasty infliction. Yet the evolutionist will ignore the demands of their theory and implement the aggressive use of force against the attempts of nature to kill us at nearly every turn.

And yet I find it equally disturbing whenever we encounter the evolutionist argument against biblical creationism in the form of their favorite red herring: "If you don't believe in evolution then don't take antibiotics or vaccines because, after all, bacteria and viruses evolve (adapt to our attempts to kill them) and medical science must always stay ahead of those evolutionary mutations in order to produce effective vaccines and antibiotics."

Aha!

Therein lies the single greatest piece of evidence the deep time community has that fish became men, that is, that viruses become viruses and bacteria become bacteria. Therefore we Christians mustn't ever use antibiotics or vaccines because we refuse to believe that fish became men based solely on the fact that bacteria become bacteria and viruses become viruses.

[...]

The Bible offers the greatest reason for the need to use antibiotics and vaccines, etc. Because of the fall of humanity the earth is against us.

Genesis 3:17 ¶And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return
Humanity was thrust into the position of requiring the aggressive use of force to keep sickness away because of this event which happened as the result of man's decision to disobey God. That is the creationist view of the world which lines up perfectly with the evidence and need for such aggressive items as antibiotics (which were accidentally discovered) and vaccines (developed by scientists with God-given intellect).

I am not sure what happened to the atheist in the video I mentioned at first. I hope he recovered from his painful infection and I hope he rejected the Darwinian demand that the bacteria kill him and take over the earth. Above all I hope the evolutionists embrace the knowledge of the truth that just because bacteria change into bacteria and viruses change into viruses that does not mean the evolutionist was once a fish.

Mike Shoesmith, PP Simmons News and Ministries 29 Comments [7/27/2014 9:48:36 AM]
Fundie Index: 21

Quote# 102300

All Christians need to carefully read and understand the importance and significance of Jesus' words: "it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Remember that those are Jesus' words upholding God's Laws that have quoted for you. Now you've got to ask yourself, either I'm trying to deceive you into believing that God's Law is still in force, or I'm telling you the truth, and God's Law is still the measure of right and wrong. It's really quite simple actually, you will either acknowledge or obey God's Laws that establish and define what sin is, or you will trust man and his laws and policies to make this determination for you. But let me give such Christians that speak against sin, but have no idea how to define sin a little hint: 1 John 3:4, "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

You may say, OK, but you still haven't explained how Jesus is against race-mixing. Well, simply stated, Jesus is against race-mixing because it is a SIN, a violation of His Divine Law, even His creative law which establishes a 'kind after kind' process in Genesis 1:21-26. You will notice that within these verses we are told, "every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind ... let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind", and so forth. Question, if the fowl have their different kinds and types, and the cattle their different kinds and types, and the fish their kind and types etc., then it should be equally obvious and true that then are also different kinds and types of man. In other words, in nature as God created them, there is a natural inbred knowledge and instinct of separation within all species of animals. There are different types and variety of eagles such as the Bald eagle, the Golden eagle, White-tailed eagle, Short-toed eagle, and Imperial eagle. All of these eagles are of the same genetic family, but they are not the same progeny or breed.

The same holds true for the different variety of bipeds. God Almighty did not make a mistake in creating the different races of people. In fact, the principle "what God hath puttogether, let no man put asunder" is very much applicable to the 'kind after kind' principle. Kind after kind is the creation rule and carnal minded man grossly violated this principle of Divine creation.

Again, look over these verses in Genesis 1. The Word of God repetitiously puts forth this directive that every winged fowl was to mate "after his kind," and every "living creature after his kind," and this principle does not exclude people. The Golden eagle is not of the Bald eagle kind, therefore the two breeds do not mix their seed. They stay separate and the same principle holds true for people. Within humans, there are a variety of breeds or kinds, such as Indian, Asiatic, Negro, Aboriginal, and White/Anglo people, and according to God's Creation Laws, these different kinds, or breeds of mankind are not to interbreed or engage in race-mixing.

All variety of animals, fish, birds, insects, etc. are unique and distinct, and they have remained so since their creation, except where man has interfered and perverted their natural breeding habits. Again, there are a number of varieties within the bird family, but the varieties of breeds do not mix their seed with other breeds. Canadian Geese mate only with Canadian Geese, Red-breasted Geese only mate with Red-breasted Geese, the Grey goose only mates with other Grey geese and so forth. In the animal world, the Elk only mates with Elk. You won't see them mating with mule deer or a Moose. Orangutans only mate with Orangutans. They don't mate with Gorillas or other species of monkeys.

Rev. Dave Barley, Bible Rays 26 Comments [7/27/2014 9:48:22 AM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: Yossarian Lives

Quote# 102296

I have to formally and officially exclude absolutely all people who believe in any God from my life, inner circle of fans, and anything. I know atheism is the right viewpoint and Christianity is in the wrong, and I know this is the Golden Age of atheism. That is the reason why this forum is even around now. I don't see anything wrong with having an atheists only club for a character like the Wogglebug.

And, I admit it makes me feel happy to see a Christian hurt because of my attitude towards their beliefs and stating they must be disrespected by me and all I stand for which is good in the world. Even if it possibly IS wrong of me, I feel too great about it to be willing to change it about me. Considering the obvious fact that if I just stated to Alyssa what I now try somehow to state to all Christians, "Regardless of any interest or liking you have for me and my favoriite character, since you are a Christian I can never trust or respect you. And it is thus for the best eject you from any access of my life or fan club whether you wish me to or not!" I then could have spared myself SO much pain and suffering. From now I make sure the Christians suffer from me.

WogglebugLover, The Thinking Atheist 63 Comments [7/26/2014 3:46:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 42

Quote# 102293

I always find it curious that secularists and evolutionists attribute fairness and scientific superiority to anyone who argues their side. They have determined their worldview and interpret everything they find in light of it, twisting everything to fit. I is sort of like the media – what doesn’t fit is not reported, and what is reported is so slanted as to be meaningless. I have followed creation thinking for over fifty years, and I find creationists to be far more willing to admit if they were scientically wrong than evolutionists. Tat. To be expected, because those who believe in a creator know they are accountable to the creator. Those who are agnostic or atheistic have no oral compass, so lying is justifiable to achieve their end, which to make everyone cel berate their idea du just. The rank hypocrisy is galling – we see it in politics, in the pathetic old-earth evangelical blogs, and in e pseudo-scientific community that clas every debate they are losing is somehow ove

John, Jason Lisle's blog 39 Comments [7/26/2014 3:44:35 AM]
Fundie Index: 24

Quote# 102285

After the Malaysian Airline was shot down over Ukraine, Britain’sleftwing Guardian put out a list of airliners shot down by dastardly villains of the world. In keeping with its anti-European, pro-Colored Revolutionary past, the Guardian did not include the shooting down of deliberately targeted Western airlines such as in the 1978 and 1979 Viscount shootdowns in Rhodesia.

Nor did it include a number of other incidents involving non-Western and Communist attacks in recent history. Instead it focused on various European military accidental shootings. Hoping to mold the world’s media, The Guardian is apparently hell bent on restarting the Cold War with a European nationalist Russia by focusing on the imminent threat and horror of white guys with missiles.

The same holds true for other media outlets such as CNN. These articles ignored the purposeful and premeditated murders of civilians in the Viscount Air Rhodesian massacre. To the staff at propaganda organs such as the aforementioned, some lives especially, if they are white, and most especially if they were victims of those who were not, just don’t seem to count.

With the Viscount Shootings when black guys with missiles deliberately targeted white civilians, the world was silent. In fact so silent the Dean of the Cathedral of St. Mary and All Saints of then white Salisbury, Rhodesia made one of the most important speeches against western appeasement in history

In his sermon the good Dean castigated Western leaders’ appeasement and silence and warned their complicity would merely expand such acts. Sadly, our leaders are as complicit in their appeasement and silence as ever, except when it comes to white guys with missiles. And remember dear readers, what happened to Rhodesia and South Africa is being done here to the United States as we speak.

VDARE reader, VDARE 19 Comments [7/26/2014 3:36:37 AM]
Fundie Index: 10

Quote# 102283

(Poster discussing explanations of magic tricks videos they posted)


OK.....I know such things can be scary for hardened atheists and materialists .....and many would like to laugh loudly in the dark.

But fact is...no one has managed to explain these 'tricks'....except through rather mundane methods like a hole in the wall, strings, trapdoors, all the people are actors, camera tricks ....etc. Not a single so called 'explanation' available in youtube is meaningful.

Magic is still 'Magic'. You guys must admit you are stumped!

Sriram, Religion and Ethics 41 Comments [7/26/2014 3:36:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 38
Submitted By: NearlySane

Quote# 102278

Does our nation gain God’s favor if officials advocate for children crossing the Rio Grande but fail to guarantee safe passage through the birth canal? Such carnage in the womb occurs within our U.S. borders daily. Additionally, in 2003 Justice Scalia predicted that with the repeal of sodomy laws, sodomy would become institutionalized. Today our little children learn a new euphemism in school, “same-sex marriage.” At the university level, academics are paving the way for pedophilia to be viewed as one more sexual orientation. Closer to home, we have tolerated emergent church leaders who undercut God’s justice by eroding hell. With this modeling, is it any wonder that policy makers undercut just laws and erode U.S. borders?

If the alien invasion is a sign of divine judgment, shouldn’t we still act to minimize the effects? If we experienced a judgment of drought we would still dig wells; if famine, we would still forage for food. While our first task is to humbly call people to repentance through Christ, we should unashamedly cry out that U.S. borders be secured. Exclusion has appropriate precedents.

[...]

So is this God’s judgment? Perhaps we will know in time. For now, we need evangelicals confident in a biblical basis for limiting the border deluge. No false guilt trip need dissuade us. Our nation needs protection from lawlessness. Let’s love our alien neighbors with the prudence of a savvy lifeguard who won’t allow herself to be pulled under in the rescue. Let’s enforce and obey the present Constitutional laws of immigration and welcome as new citizens those who respect our laws. Put the “protest” back into Protestant and insist that we secure our borders!

Rick Joyner, Right Wing Watch 36 Comments [7/25/2014 3:30:47 AM]
Fundie Index: 24
Submitted By: Night Jaguar

Quote# 102277

“Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Notice the first four words of the verse: “Do not be deceived.” Think about why God would put those words there. It’s because this isn’t verses about the wonderful truth that God cares about sparrows and people, or that He promises to supply all of our needs. This is about who will make it to Heaven and those who will end up in Hell. Nothing is more important, so make sure that you aren’t deceived about this issue…because there are many out there who are trying to deceive you.

Usually when a homosexual says that he was “born this way,” he’s saying that he can’t help being gay. But that’s like a fornicator saying that he was born that way because he keeps wanting to have sex with women. Or like an adulterer saying that he grew into his teenage years looking at married women and longing to have sex with them. In one sense the homosexual is right. He was born with a sinful nature that loves to sin.

The Bible speaks of some men “having eyes full of adultery.” We are like moths to a flame when it comes to sexual sin—especially lust, which God considers him to be committing adultery (see Matthew 5:27-28). Even though we love the darkness and we “drink iniquity like water” God holds us morally responsible and warns that fornicators, adulterers and homosexuals will not enter Heaven. Tragically they will go to Hell. So we were all born with a propensity to follow after sin, and that’s why we all need to be born again (see John 3:1-7).

Ray Comfort, Facebook 35 Comments [7/25/2014 3:30:20 AM]
Fundie Index: 18
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 102275

[This was part of an email exchange between Rebecca M. Ross, a Jewish blogger, and another Jew identified only as "MC."]
[The references to lo sasuru refer to ("You shall not stray (V'lo sasuru) after your heart and after your eyes" (Bamidbar 15:39))]

There is no group that has perfect shlaimus and G-d consciousness. Lets say a person keeps shabbos to the letter of the law but after shabbos watches films that cause him to transgress commandments of the Torah such as lo sasuru. Let's say a persons wife wears two head coverings and very thick stockings but if you do business with this person you notice that he is dishonest. Lets say a Jew gives thousands of dollars per year to Chai Lifeline or another fine organization but also marches in the NYC toivah marraige [gay marriage] parade wearing womens clothing.
So you can seevwe all need serious help!

["This is what you consider 'having problems?' Yes, you're right. Anyone who would have a problem with this has problems. ... Your concern for someone's sexuality is a big problem. I support marriage equality."]

I threw in the example of the parade just to find out where you were holding. I now know where you are holding and now that I see you aree on the side of the immoral gay rights crowd there's nothing left to talk about. You are not even at The level of moral clarity of regular decent non-Jews.
I hope that in the future you will convert back to judaism and then we could have a discussion about some of the issues you brought up. I wish you well. I wish you clarity to accept the Moral values of your grandparents great grandparents all the way back to Mount Sinai.

MC, Stop Kiruv Now 16 Comments [7/25/2014 3:27:36 AM]
Fundie Index: 14