1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 15 | bottom
Quote# 116211

Please don't ask me to explain the American Left's infatuation with radical Islam. It's insane.

Our entire ruling class needs to be replaced as soon as possible, before they finish destroying our country.

Lee Duigon, Barb Wire 22 Comments [1/22/2016 4:16:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 9

Quote# 116208

We are witnessing the breaking of America. A breakage achieved by paying the unemployed and the lazy more than the workers. By passing over the qualified in favor of the otherly racial or gendered unqualified and then swooning over the less productive diversity. By replacing workers who don't need to be replaced with foreigners and then mocking the now unemployed and homeless workers as lazy followed by gushing over the replacement workers as indispensable. By denigrating simple love of country as Right Wing Extremism. By insisting that protectors are a threat worse than what they protected from. By moaning about all the trouble America has caused the world.
It is obvious to white American workers that they are not wanted anymore. It is even obvious to small white boys that they are growing up in a world where their kind isn't wanted anymore. They can sense it without understanding it. They wonder if they could, somehow, become nonwhite or nonmale - something different than what they were born as.
Some whites are killing themselves out of dispair. The rest are arming themselves for the Ragnorok. The end of the current order when everyone fights to establish their version of a new order. But that may be avoided if Trump can govern as pro-worker and pro-American instead of pro-immigrant and pro-world and repair the existing order.

reyol, WND 21 Comments [1/22/2016 4:15:54 AM]
Fundie Index: 10

Quote# 116205

" Every time you say "starting point" you are no longer speaking about evolution, and I've got tireless energy to keep pointing out this little FACT to you as many times as you need to have it repeated."

Where oh where did it all come from then? I'm still waiting for documentation to show dating systems are even worth wiping one's... Or perhaps a how minor adaptation produced anything other than the same species. All I ever get from you is blind faith taking a grain of sand and attempting to construct a cement wall.

Oboehner, Christian News Network 19 Comments [1/22/2016 4:09:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 116204

I got a joke for ya:

If a gay baker refused to serve a muslim in his bakery, which side would a liberal take?

k-n1ght, deviantart 35 Comments [1/22/2016 4:09:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 10

Quote# 116203

I challenge all those who dress with no attention to modesty to explain how baring their bodies to men does anything to liberate themselves. [...] If we want society to treat us as liberated females why would we ever dress in ways that imply that our worth is based solely on how much sexual pleasure we can give to random men we pass on the street?

How is making our bodies for men's sexual fantasies liberating, especially when we have no control whatsoever what the men who see them are thinking about??? Once you show your body immodestly, you can never take that back. The image will remain in the memory of the men who see it, and they are free to do whatsoever with your image.

It used to be that men paid women to use them for sexual purposes. If that wasn't bad enough, today's society encourages women to let men use them for free.

Rebecca, Aish.com 17 Comments [1/22/2016 4:08:41 AM]
Fundie Index: 10

Quote# 116202

Provocation in the Workplace

I'm quite sure modest dress in the work environment would be a great relief to male coworkers. Indeed, I often think that there is justification for suing for sexual harassment with what some of their female colleagues come to the office wearing!

Dvirah, Aish.com 17 Comments [1/22/2016 4:08:38 AM]
Fundie Index: 10

Quote# 116199

(after inflicting a graphic abortion video on someone)

"I don't see what your screen shot will prove."

That pro-aborts are really delusional - and deniers par excellence! :-)

"And what about the '60 million babies killed' every time you wank into a kleenex or get oral sex."

Now Ann thinks that snot and sperm are human beings! Another screen shot demonstrating the scientific illiteracy of pro-aborts. Thank you, Ann - you are the gift that keeps on giving. I am going to see if DISQUS will keep a rolling tally of pro-aborts converted to pro-life when they read your comments.

"You claim to have some magical psychic ability that allows you to magically tell medical facts merely by looking at a picture."

It is called a biology textbook actually - no magic required. :-) You should read one sometime, before you call snot and sperm "babies."

Ann, nothing you say is going to erase that video from your mind - it is there for the duration. It's just a question of what you do with it: defend it and you continue to delude yourself and inflict more harm on your self. Embrace it and there is hope for change.

WorldGoneCrazy, Live Action News 13 Comments [1/21/2016 4:08:16 AM]
Fundie Index: 9

Quote# 116192

Western women vote for socialism and multiculturalism
Why should I care about #Cologne?

Aaron Clarey, Twitter 25 Comments [1/21/2016 4:06:54 AM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 116188

It was recently brought to my attention that one of the blogs featured prominently on CP’s (Christian Post) website exists to promote heretical teachings that are clearly at variance with CP’s avowedly evangelical doctrinal position. I refer to the blog called “The Pursuit of God,” the author of which is Anna Diehl. Ms. Diehl denies the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity; her version of the doctrine explicitly contradicts CP’s statement of faith. In a recent article on Jesus and the Holy Spirit (Oct. 31, 2014) on her Christian Post blog, Diehl wrote:
When giving that famous Great Commission, Jesus told His disciples to baptize people in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus taught that there were three Gods—three Beings who met Yahweh’s definition of praiseworthy…. There are three Gods. Jesus and the Holy Spirit have no beginning. They were not created. They are Almighty Gods who are separate from Yahweh, yet equal to Him in every way.

Note that Diehl teaches that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not Yahweh, but two other eternal Gods in addition to Yahweh, thus making three Gods. Her own website has a page, “What We Teach,” that confirms that Diehl knows full well her doctrine differs from the “classical” doctrine of the Trinity:
How many Gods are there? Three: Yahweh (God the Father), Jesus (the Son), and the Holy Spirit. They are collectively referred to as the Trinity, however we do not use this term in the classical sense of referring to one Being with three “expressions”. We use the term Trinity to mean the Divine trio of three separate and distinct Gods.
Ms. Diehl’s reference to non-standard terminology of “expressions” notwithstanding, her doctrine clearly contradicts the classical doctrine affirmed in CP’s statement of faith that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “the one eternal God.” In technical theological language, her doctrine is known as tritheism, the doctrine that the world is governed by three separate Gods. Many evangelicals know that Mormonism teaches a form of this doctrine (see Dayton Hartman’s recent excellent study on Joseph Smith’s Tritheism); it is unsettling to find it promoted by a blogger on Christian Post.

This is not the only heretical error taught by Ms. Diehl. Surprisingly, she denies that Jesus Christ is truly human. CP’s statement of faith rightly affirms that Christ is “the eternal Son of God who became fully human while remaining fully divine.” Ms. Diehl flatly and vigorously contradicts this basic doctrine of the Christian faith. In her “What We Teach” article, she writes:
Is Jesus fully God and fully man? No. Jesus is fully God. His brief time on earth did not alter or reduce His Divinity in any way. To teach that Jesus is less than God or that for awhile He “set aside” His Divinity is heresy. God is quite capable of coming to us in a human form without permanently changing His identity.

Since orthodox Christians don’t think Jesus’ divinity was reduced by his becoming a man, or that he set aside his divinity, at first I held out hope that she simply misunderstood the orthodox position. That may be so, but her own position is absolutely heretical. The paragraph I just quoted concludes with a link to another article in which she explains her position more fully. It is entitled, “The Begotten Son: How Jesus Helped the Jews Accept the Idea of Multiple Gods.” In this article, she writes:
Of course the whole idea of viewing Jesus as a human is extremely bizarre because Jesus isn’t human in any sense of the word. He simply came to us in a human form, but His Divine Nature never changed. Oh sure, we like to talk about Him setting aside His Divinity and becoming some weird half-breed of God and man, but all of this is nonsense. Jesus is God, and God can appear to us in any form He likes. We find Yahweh showing up in human form several times in the Old Testament.

Ms. Diehl’s constant caricature of the orthodox doctrine should not distract us from what she herself teaches. In her view, Jesus never became a man. He appeared in human form, but he never actually became human. Her argument is that just as Yahweh could appear in human form in the Old Testament without actually being human, Jesus (a second God like Yahweh but separate from him) could do that in the New Testament. He simply did it for a much longer period of time, and in a more complex way, than Yahweh’s brief appearances in the Old Testament. It was more complex because he seemed to live an actual human life from birth to adulthood and death, but in fact, according to Diehl, he was never really a human being at all. Although her doctrine is unique to her, as best I can tell it is very similar to some forms of ancient Gnosticism.

Rob Bowman, The Religious Researcher 36 Comments [1/21/2016 4:04:58 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: whatever

Quote# 116186

HERETIC David J. Stewart
Believes in Necromancy and Other Heresies

David J. Stewart Skull and Crossbones Award

The Ugly and Shocking Truth About David J. Stewart of jesus-is-savior.com

Mr. David J. Stewart is definitely a heretic. His heresies abound, even beyond the typical eternal security proponent to necromancy to distorting the image of a Christian to terribly slandering me (Dan Corner) and misrepresenting our holiness-endurance salvation message. He is also a poor researcher (or deliberate deceiver) trying to link me to a particular ministry, when I was only on their broadcast! Mr. David J. Stewart did a similar thing here. He wrote:

Here is a lengthy list of compromised, apostate, milquetoast, ecumenical,David J. Stewart prophets of Baal that I wouldn’t give you a dime for...Bob Bell, Doug Sager, J. Harold Smith, James Dobson, Chuck Swindoll, Charles Stanley, Alistair Begg, Dennis Rainey, Ron Stewart, Chip Ingram, Mart DeHann, Steve Brown, John MacArthur, David Jeremiah, Steve Arterburn, Sam Polson, Dan Corner, Adrian Rogers, Andrew Wommack, Chuck Bentley, Bil Gephardt, Fredrick Brabson Sr., RC Sproul, June Hunt, Hank Hanegraaff, Joni Eareckson Tada, Billy Graham, Franklin Graham, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Paul Washer, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and hundreds of others.

Click Here To Read The SHOCKING Secret Of David J. Stewart's Necromancy
I have actually exposed and refuted about half of those people in our book refuting eternal security entitled, The Believer's Conditional Security. Among other bogus attacks, Mr. David J. Stewart states that I am a dangerous false prophet and of the devil. David J. Stewart rants about eternal security and thinks such a damnable heresy is actually sound doctrine. He is a false teacher. Moreover, David J. Stewart is teaching antinomianism to the detriment of his listeners! David J. Stewart has so many strange, bizarre, weird, outlandish and HERETICAL beliefs compared to the message of the Bible it is shocking! He does all that while he slanders others, including me. For the people who promote heretic David Stewart, and thereby endorse his teachings and slanders, they are only indicting themselves too. David Stewart believes:

Evangelical Outreach, Evangelical Outreach 26 Comments [1/21/2016 4:04:17 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: whatever

Quote# 116185

[Evolution may not be confirmed to a point, but creationism is impossible, thinking that the earth is less than 6000 years old and the sun and all planets revolve around it.]

Creationism and evolution cane be reconciled to each other, to a point. Who knows, the 7 days may have been actually 7 billion years, lol

And the sun is shrinking at a rate of 5 meters a day, if its a billion years it would be a white dwarf by now

Korhal IVV, Nationstates 11 Comments [1/21/2016 4:03:29 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: zyr

Quote# 116184

Remember - Both Evolution and Creation are only hypothesises;neither are scientific laws. They both wield their own conflicting evidence, and from a purely scientific view, neither are purely scientific. A theory/hypothesis can only be accepted as a scientific law when all conflicting evidence have been refuted. And even a scientific law's position can be challenged when there is a new discovery. Believing in one of the two is an act of faith. Both have flaws, and both cannot explain one thing or another:

Flaws of evolution -
Cannot explain the origin of matter
Evidence shows that most mutations are harmful and yet they say that is where we all came from

Creation's flaw(s) -
Cannot explain where God came from.

The only way to be absolutely sure of which of the two is true is to make a time machine and go back to the past.

[spoiler=OP's opinion]Creationist. Period.[/spoiler]

Korhal IVV, Nationstates 21 Comments [1/21/2016 4:03:09 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: zyr

Submitted for the Irony

Approved for it as well

Quote# 116182

Freedom of religion guarantees that atheists are free to believe their fantasies, so long as they do not hurt others.

Job8, Christian Forums 33 Comments [1/20/2016 5:10:05 PM]
Fundie Index: 20

Quote# 116180

We need to completely de-sexualise same-sex hand-holding in the first place. It's ridiculous that I can't walk arm-in-arm with a female friend without fearing that everyone will think that we are gay. Also, unhand the rainbow - it is a natural phenomenon, not a "symbol of homosexuality". There is nothing sacred in hedonism and selfishness, either. There is nothing beautiful in public displays of same-sex affection, and the aversion to it stems from a natural aversion to all that goes against the natural order and plunges into the depths of over-indulgence and materialism. Have you ever met a gay person who isn't consumed by materialism and obsessed with physical pleasure? If so, were they an emotionally healthy and stable person? Keep it to yourselves, in privacy. It's really not about the right to expression, but about the right of everyone else not to have to see you put yourselves on display, in our faces. That does not mean that homophobia is appropriate, or that people attacking another should not be punished to the full extent of the law. That is where civil rights end, however. Assault is assault ... but same-sex PDA's are assault, like spitting in nature's face. Besides, I have as much right to not like it or agree with it as you have a right to want it to be part of the norm.

Agnes Maria, The Independant 24 Comments [1/20/2016 5:08:49 PM]
Fundie Index: 9

Quote# 116178

Is it ok for a dude to hit HARD on a lesbian?

I dont condone fags hitting hard on hetero dudes
I think thats grounds for a hate crime
but

she is so beautiful.. hard little rock hard ass
34 C's bustin out. Smile make a man drool

confirmed bachelorette
or so I thought

I was sitting at the bar, other side drinking rum. She came in with a guy. It surprised me . I didnt think she was like that. I had known her girlfriends well enough to learn that she was full on dike.. Turns out the guy was someone she works with but I asked her about him anyway when I got the chance. Turns out he had no idea. Sucker on a string buying her drinks without a chance.

She said "Why" and before I had could lie I said.. "because when you come out of your cocoon I want to be there". We had a good laugh over that but she ended up asking if my number was the same. I didnt know she even had my number so I updated it for her real quick. I want to take her to the drive in to see IronMan and then toss her over the front seat and see what shakes loose.

I want to marry her because I have to get married to someone in the next few months but shes probably not the right one. I know that. All we have in common is our desire to be with women and Im not wearing a wig again for any girl I dont care how hot she is. Ok maybe I would wear wig but marriage is a long time, I might start sweating after six weeks or so.

My question is should I pursue this? Should I try to marry her? Its a dream come true if it happens. I would even let her beat my kids, but maybe its wrong to go after a lesbian. It seems to me she is interested in dudes a little bit anyway. Maybe shes bisexual. That would be cool then I could do her friends too.
every woman, however misguided, must know
they need me.. or another capable man.
Its in the DNA I cant help but see a female on female relationship and not think to myself SOMTHINGS MISSING did they have a bad experiance?


[you should leave her alone if she's not interested...
and it's kinda rude, too.

have to get married?]

I guess I dont understand what is rude about it. Do you mean that its rude for a guy to hit on a lesbo? This is all uncharted territory for me. I have never had a lesbian girlfriend before and she is so hot that I admit it could be clouding my judgement a bit. Truthfully, I would want to be with her even if she wasnt a lesbo. This whole situation is complicated in the extreme so thats why I asked for opinions.

Yes I want to get married. I want to have a son to pass on the family name to. I guess I dont really need to get married in order to do that, but it seems like the right thing. She doesnt know any of this, but I dont believe it would be a problem for her. All women are hardwired to have and raise kids.. even lesbians

Fred2670, WrongPlanet 40 Comments [1/20/2016 4:12:37 AM]
Fundie Index: 29
Submitted By: menomaru

Quote# 116175

"Oh, I get it now. The reason you are so hell-bent on referring to evolution as a "religion" is so you can try to convince the powers that be that it's faith- rather than fact-based to get it thrown out of schools. That's step one. Then you will try to get them to recognize fundie Christianity as "truth" to REPLACE it in schools. Good luck with that."

You yourself have demonstrated it's faith-based - "it takes a very long time" so nobody can actually observe it or repeat it or... it has to be taken on faith.

"No, I said "long time" to dumb it down for you because you're like a broken record with your "bazillion years" type comments."

Or you with your "it's science" type comments, millions, billions, bazillions, it's all the same poppycock.


Oboehner, Christian News Network 33 Comments [1/20/2016 3:29:36 AM]
Fundie Index: 14

Quote# 116174

I highly doubt any of us will be around for "bazillions of years", the trick is to have faith - just like any other religion.

"There is no "trick". You learn from science and its repeatable, testable theories and you accept them, just as you would any other fact."

I really want to see an example of a fish turning to a lizard, do you have video of that or any other similar event? I suppose I just have to take it on faith though.

"Evolution takes a very long time. Fortunately we have the fossil record and other methods of knowing it to be true. No faith involved."

So I just have to take it on faith then, got it.
Can you prove a fossil shows anything other than something died or do I have to take it on faith like "takes a very long time"?

Oboehner, Christian News Network 26 Comments [1/20/2016 3:29:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 11

Quote# 116173

[Thankfully most sane countries do not consider what the Bible says to be important when making the law.

and by doing so embraces moral degeneration and leftist secular agenda

Lordareon, Nationstates 22 Comments [1/19/2016 3:26:46 PM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: zyr

Quote# 116172


10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and not compatible with Christianity.

1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex “marriage” propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the “family,” same-sex “marriage” serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone’s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex “marriage” would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex “marriage” opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual “marriage” does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

10. It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Gen. 1:28-29)

The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7).

Genesis also teaches how God punished Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of homosexuality: “The Lord rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah. He overthrew those cities and the whole Plain, together with the inhabitants of the cities and the produce of the soil.” (Gen. 19:24-25)

Lordareon, Nationstates 36 Comments [1/19/2016 3:26:42 PM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: zyr

Quote# 116170

Ann Coulter: God Raised Up Trump To Save Us From 1,000 Years Of Darkness

Yesterday on “The Eric Metaxas Show,” Ann Coulter repeated her claim that God is using Donald Trump to save the U.S. — and all of civilization — from destruction.

Coulter started off the interview by defending herself from charges that she’s “divisive,” noting that Jesus Christ was divisive as well. “Yeah, I’m ‘divisive’ because I say things I believe, generally, so does Jesus, and liberals yell at me, that makes me ‘divisive.’ It’s the hecklers’ veto,” she said.

She went on to liken the media’s treatment of her to how it covers Donald Trump, whom she believes will save the U.S. and, therefore, the whole world.

“We are talking about the future of not only of America but of the last genuinely Christian country on earth and thus the world,” she said. “If we lose America, it is lights out for the entire world for a thousand years.”

Coulter explained that God has a role in lifting up Trump’s candidacy: “It is like the fall of Rome but, thank God, and I am not using the Lord’s name in vain, I mean that absolutely literally, thank God for raising up Donald Trump and giving us a chance to save the country.”

“Unless Donald Trump is elected, we’re never going to have another Republican president,” Coulter added, warning that having another Democrat in the White House would mean that “it’s over” and “the country is finished” because there will be a “Supreme Court of nine Ruth Bader Ginsburgs.”

If Trump loses, Coulter said, she will probably “stop wasting my time on politics” since “a Republican can never be elected president” if the country fails to enact severe restrictions on immigration.

“What is the point of talking about abortion or anything else unless you get Donald Trump in to build the wall, deport illegals, end this ‘anchor baby’ nonsense, stop importing 100,000 Muslims a year, in addition to two million Third Worlders per year,” she said. “It’s madness what this country has been doing.”

Coulter went on to say that President Trump should “deport [Sen. Marco] Rubio” and members of the advocacy group National Council of La Raza.

Ann Coulter, Right Wing Watch 34 Comments [1/19/2016 3:26:13 PM]
Fundie Index: 24
Submitted By: Night Jaguar

Quote# 116168

People like David J. Stewart and Anita Sarkeesian, though on completely different ends of the political spectrum, they both have the same end goal: To end male masturbation. I have gone into the secret HQ of Feminist Frequency and seen patents for torturous chastity devices, for ages 10-adult, that trap the penis, chop it off if it gets erect, electrocute it, burn it, circumcise it, and crush it like a bone. All just because boys might be attracted to women. The future of the feminist movement can be seen on Imagefap as Modern Mothers Movement. We must stop feminism before such a thing happens!

TheEndOfFappingIsNear, fstdt comment 69 Comments [1/19/2016 3:25:41 PM]
Fundie Index: 25
Submitted By: undie not fundie

Quote# 116167

Because gays are scary dude... O.O

Haha. Thats prolly the truth. But seriously, I have gotten into fights with gays who think its cool to hit on me. Why? Because I have to prove I'm manly and not gay. I know I'm not into homosexual stuff but the ladies don't. And yes, its necessary.

I wish it wasn't like that but thats just how it is

[And... is it difficult living in Hickville and are your "manly man man" friends as insecure as well?Seriously, there's no other explanation but horrid, massive insecurity for that kind of behavior.]

Wow, that was really stupid sounding. No offensive, I'm sure you're a real nice guy but you didn't even read my comment. I said the only reason I fight gays (with the occasional exception, like when a gay's annoying as fuck) is because some women might get the idea that you're gay. So I'm not proving it to my friends, genius. Ladies are my reason. And here in hickville we would actually be over-joyed if all the homosexuals left. Then we'd go and ride our pick-up trucks and shoot some shotguns. Unfortunately I don't live in this legendary "hickville". And fighting is not always a sign of weakness. People like you are usually the ones I end up fighting.


[You know, I'm just one female out of many, but if I was around to see you get in a fight with a gay guy just because he was hitting on you, I wouldn't find it manly at all. I think it would be kind of dumb. And I wouldn't even be inclined to believe your display of "Look ladies, I'm not gay". Call me crazy, but you simply telling the guy "I'm not gay, so don't hit on me" would be much more convincing to me than a fist fight. Or is it just unreasonable to give people the benefit of the doubt anymore?]


Women like confident men (and those who don't usually turn lesbian or hook up with some wimp). Unfortunately, where I live, women are not like the mystical women on escapist. They're actually real. They are the ones I'm hanging out with so their opinion actually matters. Women like power, so when a homosexual male tries flirting (in a rather sexual way) with me they watch. If I mumble something about not being gay, they walk away. If I tell him (in a loud voice) I'm not a frickin fag (pardon the vulgar phrasing), the women see me as more of a man. Maybe that only happens in college, I really don't know.

But calling me gay is a really lame attack strategy. Just thought I'd say that before more people use the same "he hates gays, must be gay" line.

Oh and by the way, if you really wanna be more "tolerant", tolerate my homophobia. Chow kids!


[Social conservatism is a plague on society. Gotta love the people who say "tolerate my intolerance." There's absolutely no reason to tolerate a person's bigotry. Let's look at it like this:

Intolerance of gays: suppression of rights
Tolerance of gays: furthering of rights to the point of equalityMaybe we should start tolerating intolerance towards blacks or jews or maybe white males. They don't deserve equality either. Fuck it man. Let's go for it. Do you care? I don't care. And about women liking you because you just called a guy a "fricken fag" tells me that you're either in high school where petty shit like that is still funny or you hang out with Sarah Palin..]


A homosexual can't be compared to a Jew or a black guy. Homosexuality isn't a race. Yeah. And shut up with the leftist shit. You don't know much about it so just stop.



jawakiller, The Escapist 29 Comments [1/19/2016 3:24:33 PM]
Fundie Index: 13

Quote# 116163

Bill Nye Borrows from a Christian Worldview

Bill Nye “the Science Guy” of TV fame has produced another Big Think video on evolution. This time he tries to explain the origin of ethics—a major problem to solve in a secular worldview—by appealing to naturalistic evolution. But, really, all this video did was highlight how utterly blind Nye is. You see, while Nye gave lip service to evolution for the origin of ethics, all he really did was borrow from a Christian worldview!


What’s the “Best Way to Live?”

Nye states that we need to appreciate ethics, which he basically defines as “the best way to live . . . in the human tribe.” Of course, this is an arbitrary statement. You see, what or who defines what “the best way” is? That’s the foundational problem with ethics apart from God and His Word. Who or what decides what is “best” and what is not? There is no ultimate authority for making this decision! So, really, how can anyone say that something is right or wrong? Something might be wrong for them, but they can’t say it’s wrong for someone else. They have no authority on which to ground such a statement!

Do Jerks Survive?

Then Bill Nye goes on to say, “what we feel is a result of evolution. Our ancestors who were anti-social jerks got pushed aside by the ones that were perhaps more social and less jerky.” Frankly, this is a completely nonsensical statement for an evolutionist to make—the opposite of what Nye is saying is actually true in an evolutionary worldview. Evolution is supposed to be all about survival of the fittest, with only the toughest survive. Stalin didn't get pushed aside—he is estimated to have ordered the murder 50 million people to stay in power in the Soviet Union. In the animal world, the biggest gorilla dominates his tribe until a bigger, stronger, younger one comes along and pushes him aside. It’s not usually the “anti-social jerks” who are pushed aside—it’s the weak and small ones who are. Killing 50 million people isn’t very social and the lead gorilla doesn’t gain control by being friendly and social. Actually, in both cases, power was asserted and leadership was gained by being an anti-social jerk. By arguing that our supposed social and “less jerky” ancestors made it, Nye is really stating the exact opposite of what evolutionists predict and depend upon.

He also says, “You don’t want to be meek. You want to have the right level of aggression and the right level of accommodation to your fellow creatures. And when it comes to ethics, when you look at whatever scheme you feel is most reasonable to pass your genes on to the future, that usually leads to what we all consider ethical behavior.” Here, Nye’s being a bit more consistent with his evolutionary beliefs. Being meek won’t get you very far in a dog-eat-dog evolutionary world, but it’s how followers of Christ are told to act—in fact, in God’s kingdom it’s the meek, not the strongest and fittest, who inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5). And who’s to say what the “right level of aggression and . . . accommodation” is? Again, this is an arbitrary statement.

And if ethics is just about “whatever scheme you feel is most reasonable to pass your genes on to the future,” then what’s to stop someone from doing whatever they can to further themselves and their family? According to this ethic, maybe committing adultery is best for passing along genes to another generation. Or maybe stealing and killing to build an empire to leave to a future generation is “reasonable.” Again, this kind of an ethic just leads to everyone doing what’s right in their own eyes (Judges 21:25) because there’s no foundation on which to ground ethical principles.

And, furthermore, if we’re supposed to do what’s “reasonable” to pass our genes along for the future, why does Bill Nye support abortion? It certainly doesn’t seem reasonable to kill the child who is carrying your genes! By affirming abortion and saying that ethical behavior involves passing along genes, Bill Nye is again being inconsistent with his own beliefs.

The Golden Rule

Now, here’s where Nye really borrows from a biblical worldview, “So this old thing, expressed as the Golden Rule, ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you,’ if you can do that . . . I think you will get through life as well or better than anyone.” But if we're just evolved animals, why should we “do unto others”? Shouldn’t I just do what’s best for me? Most animals don’t look out for others. A leopard doesn’t ignore an injured gazelle because that’s what it would want some other creature to do for it. It kills and eats the gazelle with no thought for the gazelle because that’s what enhances the leopard’s survival. This is how evolution is supposed to operate! What part of survival-of-the-fittest calls for looking out for others? This is completely nonsensical in an evolutionary worldview.

By saying that the Golden Rule is a solid ethic, Bill Nye is borrowing from a Christian worldview. It’s in a biblical worldview that caring for others makes sense. We’re all descendants of Adam and Eve, made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), and loved by Him. So it only makes sense to look out for others. And not only that, but we are expressly commanded by God to do just that: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12). Bill Nye is stealing from a biblical worldview in a clumsy attempt to give an evolutionary explanation for ethics.

Nye can’t explain ethics using evolution because, if he did, the only ethic he would be able to support is “kill or be killed,” “might makes right,” or “survival of the fittest.” But he knows that these ideas aren’t a good ethic for humans because, whether he admits it or not, he has some knowledge of God and His law in his heart (Romans 2:15). So he tries to support the ethic he believes to be true, but he has to use biblical principles and a biblical worldview in order to do so!

All One Race

I had to smile when, at the end of the video, Nye stated, “Everybody who’s a human is somehow related. If you go far enough back, everyone is related.” Yes, Bill, you are right—everyone is related. But you don’t have to go very far back, just about 6,000 years to Adam and Eve. And this isn’t an evolutionary idea; actually it defies evolutionary predictions. In reality, it’s a biblical truth: “And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26).

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis 35 Comments [1/19/2016 3:22:41 PM]
Fundie Index: 14
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 116156

(This incident happened back in 07', a few years after we finally stopped celebrating Easter, due to its pagan and unscriptural history, and the pleadings of the Holy Spirit to stop.)

I was suffering from a horrible bladder infection.

All the special pain medicines that usually relieved such a curse were not working. They actually made the burning worse.

The doctors had been called in on the case, and various antibiotics had been prescribed, course after course, to no avail. They could not understand why the pain remained. Some suspected allergies, while others blamed it on my not being able to tolerate the big guns of antibiotics. One even claimed that it was probably psychosomatic or “all in my head”. (Oi! As if I would decide in my own mind to have such a horrid affliction!)

Finally I went to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and pleaded with Him during prayer, to please help me. (Foolish of me to have waited till all other hope was gone, before turning to Him, eh?)

As I prayed, the burning and pain was so bad, that I could not sit still. I just kept crying and crying. I’m glad the Lord could still understand my prayers, for my voice must have been barely coherent.

He waited patiently until all my tears were spent, and then He brought to my mind some candy that I had been eating recently.

This left me bewildered, as I could not understand what that had to do with my bladder infection.

“No, Lord! Please! What about my bladder infection?”
(Which was my way of saying ‘Come on now Lord, stay on topic!’)

But again, he brought to mind that candy.

They were whipped strawberry cream eggs, whipped raspberry cream eggs, and coconut eggs, all coated in rich dark chocolate.

They were my very favorite candy, and they were only available once a year. This particular year, I purchased all I could afford before Easter, and then went back and bought even more the day after Easter, when they were deeply discounted. I had stored them in the freezer, and was eating one or two a day, after my meals as a special treat. This had been going on for many, many weeks, and I had several months of these candy eggs left. I felt as If I had stored up a treasure right in my own freezer, and was thankful for my ability to do this.

These chocolate eggs were what the Lord was bringing repeatedly back to my mind? But why? What could they possibly have to do with my bladder infection?

The Lord did not answer my question right away. Instead He simply said: “Stop eating them.”

This was hard for me to think of doing. They were my favorite treat, and I had even managed to stock up my freezer with them!

“Stop eating them.”

Oh, the thought of giving these things up for good was just too much for me to contemplate! I hemmed and hawed, hoping for some kind of reason to disobey my Lord, but found none.

So I made the decision to stop eating them, to at least see what would happen.

But in my mind I still wondered. Why this candy? I had other chocolate bars in the house as well, but he was not bringing them up to mind at all. So what made these so different?

Then the Lord answered me.

“In My eyes, they are as food sacrificed unto idols.”

Shock roiled through me, as His words filtered through my brain. I had never thought that such Easter (or any other man made holiday,) candy, was actually a sacrifice to other gods. But as I thought of it more, I began to see why the Lord would say this. These sweet items were not made for the glory of Jesus. They were made in remembrance of other gods. Their shape alone signified this, as well as the fact that they were only available at that certain time of the year. So in essence, by eating these items, I was still partaking of the pagan celebration for which they were made.

Tentatively I then asked Him, “Could I still have chocolate covered whipped strawberry cream candy if it was in a basic shape and was available at all times during the year?”

His answer was quick and sure. “Yes.”

Well, within three days of stopping the candy, my bladder infection was gone. Hallelujah!

I waited another week just to be sure, and then I ate another chocolate covered whipped strawberry egg, just to see what would happen.

The severe burning returned before I had the chance to even eat it all. Three bites into it, I stopped, and then fully repented. I threw out the rest of the egg I was eating, and all those cases of candy from my freezer into the garbage, and then begged forgiveness from my God.

Dreams of Dunamis, Dreams of Dunamis 27 Comments [1/19/2016 3:21:47 PM]
Fundie Index: 13

Quote# 116155

Homosexuals have not been persecuted any more than any other group throughout history and less that some. Christians and Jews have faced and still do face more persecution than homosexuals ever will. 50,000 homosexuals were put into concentration camps in WWII. 6,000,000 Jews were killed in concentration camps. Today there are more Christians killed in one day than homosexuals killed in a year. Homosexuals in America already have all the same rights as every other American. The problem we have is when you try and force us to accept homosexuality as normal, when it clearly is a sinful, disgusting, and degrading act.

Discrimination based off of religion, race, or birth defect is intolerable. It is not discrimination if it is based off of a choice you make. No matter what your arguments are, you choose to be homosexual just as murderers, rapists, and anyone else who does evil chooses to do so. The persecution you face is not because of who you are, it is because what you do. The day you realize this is the day you might wake up and realize that you are not an asset to society because you are destroying it. Just think of it this way. If everyone was homosexual (not bisexual) how many generations would humanity last?


[When you imply a person's religion isn't a choice, that's definitely when I draw the line. You aren't born with a religion. It's a choice. In fact, there's MORE evidence that religion is a choice than homosexuality. There's no doubt religious beliefs are a choice. That literally can't be proven otherwise. Homosexuality on the other hand is still debatable. You can't logically claim that being Christian or Muslim is a choice. Beliefs ARE a choice. By your logic, discrimination against religion is fine . I disagree with discrimination of all forms, but if you wish to look stupid and act like a hypocrite, I'll treat you as such]

You can try and pick apart my argument all day. It does not change the fact that homosexuality is a perversion and is an abomination to God.

ginai doma, SodaHead 33 Comments [1/19/2016 3:21:37 PM]
Fundie Index: 14
Submitted By: menomaru
1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 15 | top