Quote# 116642

A Muslim women's group has written to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn claiming women have been stopped from becoming councillors by Muslim men in the party.

Muslim Women's Network UK demanded an inquiry into "systematic misogyny displayed by significant numbers of Muslim male local councillors".

"They don't like women to be heard, to be empowered," it told BBC Newsnight.

Labour said it had the best record of any of the parties in selecting female and ethnic minority candidates.

As Mr Corbyn prepared to speak to the Association of Labour Councillors on Saturday, BBC Newsnight spoke to about a dozen Muslim women up and down the country.

They appeared to point to a pattern of obstruction from within Labour Muslim ranks and back up Muslim Women's Network UK's complaints of sabotage.

Optician Fozia Parveen claims her efforts to become a Labour councillor in Birmingham in 2008 were scuppered by men within the party.

She said: "At the time, I was aware of a smear campaign against me.

"They said that I was having an affair with one of the existing councillors.

"I was quite taken aback. People were turning up at my family home trying to intimidate my mum."

Ms Parveen said Muslim men told her mother to stop her from pursuing becoming a councillor.

She added: "It would be members of the local Labour Party. I didn't see them myself but my mum did say it was them."

Shazia Bashir was the first choice for Labour in a seat in Peterborough in 2007.

She claims that when her father said he would not support her, Muslim men from within the local Labour Party made her step aside. They deny the claim.

"Because I didn't have my father's consent and support, I had to step down. I was pressured into stepping down," said Ms Bashir, who was 31 and married with two children at the time.

Jean Khote, a sitting Labour councillor in Leicester, said good women candidates were barred by the membership in some areas with high Muslim populations - and that was kept from people higher up the party.

She said they would say there were not adequate candidates among the women, which she said was not true.

"There were brilliant women on the panel. I've met them and had discussions with them," she added.

Newsnight was told similar stories by other women who wished to remain anonymous.

One said: "They spread this slander about me... It's the way they get to you."

Another said she had been told by Labour members "Islam and feminism aren't compatible".

An advocate for gay rights was told: "This is un-Islamic. Leave that for white people." And many spoke of being criticised for being too Westernised.

Unnamed Labour Party Muslim male members, BBC 13 Comments [3/30/2016 6:26:35 PM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 116221

"America is in critical condition," according to evangelist Franklin Graham.

Graham delivered that warning in Florida hours before Tuesday night's State of the Union address.

At a prayer rally in Tallahassee in front of Florida's state capitol, Graham said, "America is being stripped of its biblical heritage and God-inspired foundations."

He warned that "we've got maybe one election left" to preserve America's liberties, or "the game will be over."

Franklin Graham, CBN News 15 Comments [3/30/2016 6:24:07 PM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 116142

I have been persecuted much for my Christian faith over the years, for which persecution the Lord promises us “GREAT REWARDS” ...

Luke 6:21-24, “Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh. Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets. But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.”

Did you get that? The Bible says to rejoice, even leaping up and down in joy, when people hate your guts because you preach and serve Jesus Christ. I love that! Jesus said to leap up and down for joy when people cast out your name as evil and speak evil against you, for His name's sake. I'm jumping up and down right now!!! Just kidding. My neck won't let me do that, but I'm leaping in my heart for joy! A lot of people say some really horrible things about me on the internet, which they would never say if it weren't for my online ministry for the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus tells me to rejoice and leap for joy! If you are a Christian, the whole world is waiting for you to fall. Job 16:9, “He teareth me in his wrath, who hateth me: he gnasheth upon me with his teeth; mine enemy sharpeneth his eyes upon me.” Psalms 37:12, “The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth.”

People tend to condemn the righteous, while giving a pass to the wicked. Kindly, the guitar player for Journey ran off on his wife in adultery, but you won't read about that on Wikipedia. The singer for Boston put a hidden camera in his girlfriend's sister's bedroom, which when caught commit suicide, but you won't read about that on Wikipedia. The guitarist for The Who got busted by Scotland Yard police with 7,000 images of child porn images on his personal computer, but you won't read about that on Wikipedia. But Pastor Jack Hyles, who spent his life serving Jesus Christ, is wrongly portrayed as an adulterer on Wikipedia, and a horrible human being, for having a curtain instead of a solid door between his office and his secretary's office. This wicked world is sicko, insane and hypocritical!!!

Frankly, I don't think Wikipedia ought to allow any negative information about people to be posted in their database. I'm not condemning any of the men I mentioned, God forbid. I am a sinner just like anybody else (Romans 3:10-23). My point is simply that worldly entertainers are given a break by the ungodly world, but preachers are roasted. Why the unfairness? Why the double standard? Why criticize the preacher for unfounded allegations, while remaining silent about factual sins of musicians and singers? I certainly don't think we ought to criticize anybody for their personal sins, but all the more we ought not criticize the preacher based upon mere allegations that are nothing more than hearsay. And may I say, if you are a Christian and people aren't persecuting you, you need to get right with God and start living godly in Christ Jesus (2nd Timothy 3:12). Wicked people attack godly preachers in an attempt to ruin their name, destroy their testimony, and discredit their ministry—all in an attempt to undermine the preacher's message of truth that offends false prophets, unbelievers and unrepentant sinners! I thank God for faithful men of God, who uncompromisingly preach the Words of God without apology!!!

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Precious 9 Comments [3/30/2016 6:23:58 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 117786

If someone is a christian and they are having mental health issues they may be under satanic attack and actually be listening to lies and having thoughts that shouldn't be there in their mind. The best thing is to get them or invite them to focus on scripture to remind them of WHO they are in Christ.

Pray for them and show them how to rebuke these evil thoughts. When a christian knows how to submit to God and RESIST the devil then satan can no longer attack them.

If this person isn't a christian then stay away but I would pray for them anyway that they know the truth, as once they know the truth they can be set free...you didn't mention if they were and said they 'enjoyed' those thoughts, well, a christian wouldn't. A christian might have these thoughts but KNOW they are wrong and ungodly. An unbeliever in darkness may not. If that is the case shine the light so that they are drawn to Jesus instead.

Goodbook, Christian Forums 18 Comments [3/30/2016 10:59:20 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Armoured

Quote# 117785

Question: "What is the meaning of the strange fire in Leviticus 10:1?"

Answer: In order to understand the phrase “strange fire,” we must review the story in Leviticus in which it appears. The first tabernacle had been erected, and Aaron was doing a lot of sacrificing per God’s instructions (Leviticus 8—9). One day, two of Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, came along and offered incense with “strange fire.” The Hebrew word translated “strange” means “unauthorized, foreign, or profane.” God not only rejected their sacrifice; He found it so offensive that He consumed the two men with fire.

After Nadab and Abihu were killed, Moses explained to Aaron why God had done such a harsh thing: “This is what the LORD spoke of when he said: ‘Among those who approach me I will show myself holy; in the sight of all the people I will be honored’” (Leviticus 10:3). The exact nature of the profane fire isn’t known, but, since it was the fire that was unauthorized, it could be that Nadab and Abihu were burning the incense with fire of their own making rather than taking fire from the altar, as specified in Leviticus 19:12. Or it could have been that the two men came into the tabernacle drunk and therefore could not remember what was a violation and what was not (Leviticus 10:8–9). Whatever it was the men did to render the offering profane, it was a sign of their disregard for the utter holiness of God and the need to honor and obey Him in solemn and holy fear. Their carelessness and irreverence were their downfall.

In judging Nadab and Abihu for their strange fire, God was making a point to all the other priests who would serve in His tabernacle—and later, in His temple—and to us, as well. Since this was the first time sacrifices were being offered on the altar and Israel was getting to know the living God better, when Aaron’s sons were disobedient and profane, God displayed His displeasure in no uncertain terms. God was not going to allow the disobedience of Aaron’s sons to set a precedent for future disregard of His Law. A similar story occurs in Acts 5:1–11, during the time of the early church. A husband and wife lie to Peter about some land given to the church, and they are judged with physical death because of their lie. As Peter puts it, “You have not lied just to human beings but to God” (Acts 5:4).

God knows our hearts. He knows what we truly believe and our attitude toward Him. We cannot offer to Him proud “sacrifices” that are unworthy of Him. He seeks those who come to Him in humility, ready to sacrifice their pride and lay before Him humble and contrite hearts grieving for sin (Psalm 51:17). Certainly, there is grace and forgiveness and plenty of “second chances” for those who belong to Him. But God wants us to know that He is serious when it comes to His honor and glory. If there is willful disobedience in the life of a believer, then God disciplines us out of His great love for us (Hebrews 12:7–11). If such disobedience continues, God will take harsher measures until we understand how we are disappointing Him. If we continue in our disobedience even after that, then God has every right to remove us from this earth (see 1 Corinthians 11:29–30).


got question, got questions 11 Comments [3/30/2016 10:58:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: sweetride

Quote# 117780

Please recall that Christianity is the only worldview that ever denied, undermined, and outlawed magic. For the superstitious to call the rational ‘superstitious’ is beyond irony.

John C. Wright, John C. Wright's Journal 24 Comments [3/30/2016 10:40:42 AM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: David

Quote# 117775

[ In certain circumstances, the war analogy makes sense. When a woman is raped, she has been attacked by an enemy. Her right to defend herself from further violation via abortion is analagous to "collateral damage" deaths during war. If pro-lifers find "collateral damage" deaths during war acceptable, then they don't have much of a leg to stand on when the topic is abortion for rape/incest. A similar analogy could be made for women who are being attacked by disease. Just because these are rare cases doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm against abortion on demand but I would reserve a woman's right to abortion under these circumstances.

Pro-lifers will say the baby isn't the attacker, but neither are the innocent civilians, including children and babies, who are killed during war. Babies who are killed during war are just as much "murdered" as babies who are aborted. ]



Nope, doesn't hold up at all. In just war, the collateral damage is unintentional, and the military actively tries to avoid it as much as realistically possible. They're not saying, "we're gonna specifically target this civilian, but for a good reason." In abortion, the baby is directly and intentionally destroyed.

Plus, you still have the problem of proportionality to deal with. In just war, the civilian deaths will hopefully be outweighed by a greater number of lives saved in the long run. Whereas the baby's death isn't at all proportional to the 9 months of pregnancy we're trying to avoid, as bad as it can be.


[ So because collateral damage is unintentional that makes it okay? You don't have a problem with thousands of innocent women and children being bombed to death? Gosh maybe the military shouldn't have been so risky. Maybe they should have abstained from war.

Plus, you can't measure how much hell 9 months of pregnancy + giving baby up for adoption could be. An unwanted pregnancy (even a wanted pregnancy) is life changing, whether you keep the baby or not. And it could affect many women in really negative ways that aren't worth it. Not to mention women who have been raped. They have to live with their rapist's collateral damage for 9 months? I don't think so. ]

Nowhere did I say collateral damage is "okay." I said it's an unavoidable reality when war is necessary. And in the interest of understanding just where your objection is coming from, please lay your cards on the table: are you a full-on pacifist, or do you accept that war is sometimes necessary, like in WWII? If you accept the concept of just war, then you are also accepting the reality of collateral damage, and therefore there's nothing to debate here.

Lastly, there's simply no debating with heartlessness that can describe an innocent human life as a "rapist's collateral damage".......


Calvin Freiburger, Live Action News 7 Comments [3/30/2016 10:37:03 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 117774


In their never-ending quest to impugn the motives of pro-lifers, abortion defenders have accused us of hypocrisy because some support the death penalty and others oppose various government benefits.

Another variation of this attack has surfaced in our comment threads recently. Sharon Rose says the only way we can justify opposing abortion would be if we’re “equally and as vehemently against war, against the death penalty, against killing of any kind.” Astraspider asks if we respected human life “when we punished 100,000 Iraqis with their lives to avenge 3,000 of our own deaths they had nothing to do with[.]” The alleged hypocrisy of simultaneously being pro-life and “pro-war” is a very popular talking point.

But as with many other pro-abortion efforts, the logic of this attack doesn’t extend beyond the superficial. To start by getting the obvious out of the way, the pro-life movement isn’t of one mind on foreign policy, meaning pro-aborts will need to find some other reason to hate those of us who don’t fit their generalization.

The claim doesn’t fare much better against the rest of us, either, because nobody is simply “pro-war” in the sense that it’s something to celebrate, as if they value conquest and bloodshed for their own sake. Everybody supports American involvement in some wars (just about everyone except hardcore pacifists agrees on World War II, for instance) and opposes involvement in others, based on the unique circumstances of particular cases.

We could endlessly argue the merits of our nation’s interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, or any number of other conflicts throughout our history, as well as the various mistakes made in each one. Such a debate, however, would depend largely on hotly contested factual questions, in-depth historical analysis, and navigating the nuances of international politics, and therefore falls more within the scope of a foreign policy website than a pro-life one.

Suffice to say, proponents of a given military action believe their cause is warranted under just war theory: it is meant to end or prevent a greater loss of life than that of the war itself, non-violent alternatives have been exhausted, effort is made to spare civilians as much suffering as possible, etc. Such judgments may be correct or mistaken depending on the case, but they don’t constitute a devaluing of human life.

What our critics are really saying, then, is that we have to be pacifists in order to truly be pro-life. Which is an absurd standard, considering that no right other than thought is completely without limitation. Is it “anti-freedom” to support imprisoning felony convicts? Is it “anti-speech” to support libel laws? Is it “anti-life” to let police officers use lethal force? Clearly not. It’s entirely reasonable, principled, and consistent to value a right while recognizing limitations on it when it comes into unavoidable conflict with other rights.

Lastly, and most importantly, the potential wrongness of any given war and of those who support them has no bearing on the case against abortion. We could concede the wrongness of every single war this nation’s ever fought, and it still wouldn’t justify letting us slaughter the unborn. There is simply no comparison between killing an enemy soldier on the battlefield and the needless and killing a baby in the womb. The former (in just wars) involves someone who knew the risks going in and has defensive capabilities, and is meant to save lives in the long run. The latter involves an innocent, defenseless victim, and saves nobody.

Indeed, abortion’s death toll still dwarfs the American casualty count of every major war we’ve ever fought, and matches the combined total. Crying hypocrisy isn’t enough to clean the blood off abortion defenders’ hands.

CALVIN FREIBURGER, LiveActionNews 12 Comments [3/30/2016 10:36:54 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: randy

Quote# 117772

To be honest....gsy rights activists really shit the bed.

For decades, the argument I used was simple. Gay people should have the right to get married....no one was going to FORCE you to cater their wedding or marry them, moron. Theyd get married by either a justice of the peace or a consenting ordained minister. Youd be free not to, theyd be free not too. Everyone is freeer now

Then within months of the legalization, you hsve memories pizza, Baronelle Stutzmann and the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel.

People prosecuted either directly or indirectly (memories pizza was people saying "why would you have pizza at a wedding" for Christs sake.) for not catering gay weddings and people being forced to marry gay couples.

So frankly? Im out. The first thing people did with their new found freedom was make me 20 years a liar.

I dont think a lot of pro gay rights folks really realize how much anger those insanely unnecessary moves caused. Baronelle Stutzmann was sued for SEVEN DOLLARS.

Sorry but...I aint gonna fight against your rights....but Im through fighting for them. You dont get to gleefully screw over a little old lady selling FLOWERS over seven dollars and expect people to support you. black people in Selma didnt immediately start vengence lawsuits on former shopkeepers,what the hell makes this ok?

Quit with the trying to force people to love you. Im a freakin millennial and Im sick of being told that some shopkeeper is a hateking if he doesnt want to let some guy in a dress into the ladies room.

Have some common sense.

Sickenwired, Slacktivist 45 Comments [3/30/2016 10:36:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 117771

This is why homos and liberals are stupid!!! We should STILL be in Iraq and other Muslim countries. I would advise you to educate yourself on Islam. We will ALWAYS be at war with them. It will NEVER stop until the West or Islam is annihilated.
You are a typical brain dead liberal (and homo) who has NO concept of what is happening in the world! NONE!!!

afchief, The Economic Collapse  24 Comments [3/30/2016 10:35:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 11

Quote# 117769


Negative proofs fallacies do not exist in an afterlife conversation.
Nothing from ignorance at all because in truth there is NOTHING from an evidence point of few to base a negative proof fallacy on when it comes to the Afterlife.

And that is why you could not do anything or prove anything but come up with the usual load of twaddle which has absolutely '0' and I do mean ZERO meaning or stance in the discussion of an Afterlife.

Sassy, Religion and Ethics 9 Comments [3/30/2016 10:34:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Nearly Sane

Quote# 117767

[Women of the Wall won a court case granting them a separate area of the Kotel to pray.]

Why is the religious community objecting so vigorously to giving the Reform and such an area of the Kotel? There is the great fear that this will be a foot in the door to the government recognizing the "traditions" of the non-Orthodox.

What is so wrong with their ideas? To cite just a few of the more obvious problems; the Reform movement teaches that if a person does not have a Jewish mother but does have a Jewish father that person is a Jew. The Torah specifically teaches that the person must have a Jewish mother. What would happen if this became rampant in Israel? It would mean Israel "legalizing" mixed marriages! And the Conservative movement, what is their opinion on this? They have recently "removed their strong objection to inter-dating"!

This, plus these movements allowing men to marry men, women to marry women, and rabbis to be homosexual...etc... all which the Torah condemns in the most vigorous language will never be acceptable to the Jews who follow the Torah.

The religious community does not want these and all of the other problems that would come to Israel by recognizing deviant "Jewish" movements. [...] [T]he government must be extremely careful not to recognize their religion and then to go on to allow them to have authority in such matters as determining what is Kosher and what is not.

Reb Gutman Locks, Mystical Paths 18 Comments [3/29/2016 3:41:35 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 117766

Miley Cyrus slams Donald Trump for his ‘sexist s--t’ in wife spat with Ted Cruz

Wild child Miley Cyrus swung her wrecking ball at The Donald Friday for his “sexist s--t.”

The newest “Voice” coach slammed Republican frontrunner Donald Trump for recently sharing a meme that juxtaposed an unflattering photo of Ted Cruz’s wife with a snap of smoldering model Melania Trump.

“Trump can’t stop won’t stop saying stupid a-- sexist s--t!!!! Comparing two women! Are you f--king kidding!” Cyrus wrote in a fiery Instagram post Friday, invoking her own "We Can't Stop" song lyrics. “We will not allow you to destroy everything we have overcome as women!”

The singer also struck a hopeful chord, waxing positive about female unity being “stronger than ever.”



“We have an understanding and respect for one another,” she said. “More than trump can say about anyone, his fellow candidates, other races and religions , other public figures , just HUMAN BEINGS in general, and of course animals! Check out his family hunting photos!!!!”

“It’s absolute insanity that this has gone on this long and far!” she finished. “Wake me up from this nightmare someone PLEASE!”

The idiotic spat raged on all week, with Trump vaguely threatening to “spill the beans” on Heidi Cruz and the Texas senator channeling Michael Douglas in “The American President” to trash Trump in a CNN interview.

The feud boiled over Friday when Cruz blamed the thin-skinned tycoon for orchestrating a sordid National Enquirer exclusive alleging he'd bedded five young mistresses.

Trump on Saturday defended himself against critics of his attitude toward women, blaming — of course — the media.

“Wow, this is a tough business,” he wrote. “Nobody has more respect for women than Donald Trump!”

Cyrus’ last Instagram tirade against the billionaire buffoon included a photo of herself weeping alongside a picture of Trump supporter Rebecca Lyn Francis posing cheerfully with a dead animal.

“We’re all just f--king jam between his rich a-- toes!” the pop star fumed. “Honestly f--k this s--t I am moving if this is my president!”

Donald Trump, Daily News 31 Comments [3/29/2016 3:41:17 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Arceus

Quote# 117765

This Guy Is Pretty Sure He Found Fossils From Noah’s Flood

A Texas man says he found fossils from “Noah’s flood,” and the director of an anti-science museum that claims evolution is “an old-fashioned theory” is supporting him.

Wayne Propst was helping his aunt out, laying dirt near her home in the town of Tyler when he found snail fossils, he told local news station KYTX. He and his aunt believe the fossils happened during the fabled worldwide flood described in the biblical book of Genesis.

“From Noah’s flood to my front yard, how much better can it get?” Propst said.

He sent photos to Joe Taylor, director and curator of the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum in Crosbyton, Texas, for analysis. Taylor holds the positions that evolution is not real, that a worldwide flood occurred a few thousand years ago, and that Noah — the man that the Bible describes as building an ark large enough to save two of every animal species from the floodwaters — brought dinosaurs on his ark with him.

Taylor told KYTX that Propst’s fossils are indeed from the time of that purported flood.

However, James Sagebiel, the collections manager at the Texas Vertebrate Paleontology Collections, told the Tyler Morning Telegraph that Propst’s fossils are actually millions of years old.

“The rocks there are about 35-40 million years old, and these little turret snails are commonly found in marine rocks of that age,” Sagebiel said. “ “It’s not unusual.”

Millions of years ago, the place where Tyler, Texas, now stands would have been coastline, he added.

Though some researchers believe that the inspiration of the Noah’s ark story was a large-scale flood event in the Middle East, there is no scientific evidence that a flood covering the entire Earth occurred in human history. Plus the logistics of getting two of each animal — especially dinosaurs, as Taylor believes were present — on one boat, cared for by only Noah’s family, would be downright impossible.

Joe Taylor and Wayne Propst, Huffington Post 22 Comments [3/29/2016 3:40:58 AM]
Fundie Index: 14
Submitted By: Arceus

Quote# 117764

Proverbs 12:22
“Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.”

My heart trembles for humanity when I think of their trivialization of the sin of lying. They cross their fingers behind their back and lie through their sinful teeth. They call them fibs and white lies, and yet with each lie they are storing up the fierce wrath of Almighty God.

It's been well-said that taking the easy path is what makes men and rivers crocked. But what a poisonous river it becomes! Lying lips destroy friendships and marriages, and those lips through which the lies pass are an abomination to the Lord.

May we never forget what is offensive to God, and may we always be mindful of the terrible end of those whose sinful lips are given to lies.

Ray Comfort, Ray Comfort's Facebook page 40 Comments [3/29/2016 3:30:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 117761

The doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible means that the Bible in the original documents is God-breathed and that it is a divine product. And because it is divine, the original documents are inerrant. The copies of those documents are not inspired. We have copies of inspired documents.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." Paul who wrote this epistle was obviously referring to the entirety of the Old Testament as being inspired. The word, "inspired," is literally "God-breathed." This is an interesting phrase since it implies that the Scriptures are from the mouth of God. Likewise, Peter says in 2 Pet. 1:21, "for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." Notice that Peter is stating that prophecy is not the product of human will. Instead, prophecy occurs by those moved by the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, we can easily see that the Old Testament Scriptures are full of statements and phrases claiming to be the Word of God.

"Thus says the Lord" occurs 418 times in the NASB, 413 in the KJV
Exodus 4:22, "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, Thus says the Lord, 'Israel is My son, My first-born.'"
1 Kings 11:31, "And he said to Jeroboam, 'Take for yourself ten pieces; for thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I will tear the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon and give you ten tribes.'"
Isaiah 7:7, "thus says the Lord God, 'It shall not stand nor shall it come to pass.'"
"God said" occurs 46 times in both the NASB and the KJV
Genesis 1:3, "Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light."
Exodus 3:14, "And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM'; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you."
Exodus 6:2-3, "God spoke further to Moses and said to him, 'I am the Lord; and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them.'"
God spoke through prophets
1 Kings 14:18, "And all Israel buried him and mourned for him, according to the word of the Lord which He spoke through His servant Ahijah the prophet."
2 Sam. 24:11-12, "When David arose in the morning, the word of the Lord came to the prophet Gad, David's seer, saying, 12 'Go and speak to David, Thus the Lord says, "I am offering you three things; choose for yourself one of them, which I may do to you.'"
Zech. 7:7, "Are not these the words which the Lord proclaimed by the former prophets, when Jerusalem was inhabited and prosperous with its cities around it, and the Negev and the foothills were inhabited?"
The Spirit of the Lord spoke through people
2 Sam. 23:2, "The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue."
1 Kings 22:24, "Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near and struck Micaiah on the cheek and said, 'How did the Spirit of the Lord pass from me to speak to you?'"
2 Chron. 20:14-15, "Then in the midst of the assembly the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jahaziel the son of Zechariah, the son of Benaiah, the son of Jeiel, the son of Mattaniah, the Levite of the sons of Asaph; 15 and he said, 'Listen, all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and King Jehoshaphat: thus says the Lord to you, Do not fear or be dismayed because of this great multitude, for the battle is not yours but God's.'"
As you can see, the Old Testament Scriptures are clearly full of statements showing the inspiration of God through the writers. The Old Testament assumes and speaks from the perspective of divine inspiration. Should we do any less?

What about the New Testament?
We see that the Old Testament is repeatedly spoken of as being inspired via the numerous references cited above but what about the New Testament? Are the New Testament books inspired as well?

The Christian church has always considered the New Testament documents to be inspired. Though in the early church there were some debates on which New Testament books to include in the Bible, God worked through the Christian church to recognize those inspired works. Therefore, we now have 27 inspired books for the New Testament.

In 1 Cor. 14:37 Paul said, "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment." In 2 Pet. 3:16 Peter said, "as also in all [Paul's] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." Also, Jesus said in John 14:26, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." This means that the Lord has commissioned the apostles to accurately record what Jesus had said because the Holy Spirit would be working in them.

So, we can see that Jesus promised direction from the Holy Spirit, Paul considered what he wrote to be the commands of God and that Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture. In addition, since the Christian Church recognizes the 27 books of the New Testament are inspired and since we see internal claims of inspiration in the New Testament, we conclude that inspiration applies to the New Testament documents as well.

Objections
Inspiration violates free will.
Inspiration does not violate free will. What if the person through whom God is working has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and desires to have the Lord speak through him? Would this negate the ability of God to inerrantly speak through such a person? Would it also mean that the person has no free will if he has voluntarily subjected his will to the will of God?
Certainly, God has the ability to work through individuals to bring them to a place where they can record inerrant statements. Cannot God manifest Himself to someone, deliver to him a verbal message, and have that person record it? Would that statement not be inspired of God?
Prov. 21:1,"The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever He wishes." This verse clearly states that God is able to work through an individual's "free will" to bring about what God desires.
What about the numerous contradictions in the Bible?
It is true that there are difficulties with in the Word of God. But these are due to copying errors through the centuries. As more and more historical, archaeological, and manuscript evidence is uncovered, the fewer Bible difficulties there are. Nevertheless, for an examination of answers to the alleged Bible contradictions, please see Bible Difficulties.
The manuscript evidence doesn't support inerrancy of the originals.
This is a subjective conclusion. The more I have studied about the ancient manuscripts, the more I have concluded that the original documents were indeed inspired and inerrant.
The logical implication of the statements within the Bible is that they are inerrant since they claim to be offered from God. They either are or are not inspired of God. If they are not, then their claims of speaking for God are lies.
Inspiration applies to Scripture--not people.
God works sovereignly through people to inspire His documents: it is the people whom God indwells with His spirit and the people who are inspired by God to write His Word. If inspiration only refers to Scripture and somehow means that people are not themselves inspired, the Scriptures are still God-breathed and necessarily inerrant.


matt slick, carm.org 16 Comments [3/29/2016 3:24:26 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: sweetride

Quote# 117760

The religion of Islam has as its focus of worship a deity by the name of "Allah." The Muslims claim that Allah in pre-Islamic times was the biblical God of the Patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. The issue is thus one of continuity. Was "Allah" the biblical God or a pagan god in Arabia during pre-Islamic times? The Muslim's claim of continuity is essential to their attempt to convert Jews and Christians for if "Allah" is part of the flow of divine revelation in Scripture, then it is the next step in biblical religion. Thus we should all become Muslims. But, on the other hand, if Allah was a pre-Islamic pagan deity, then its core claim is refuted. Religious claims often fall before the results of hard sciences such as archeology. We can endlessly speculate about the past or go and dig it up and see what the evidence reveals. This is the only way to find out the truth concerning the origins of Allah. As we shall see, the hard evidence demonstrates that the god Allah was a pagan deity. In fact, he was the Moon-god who was married to the sun goddess and the stars were his daughters.


unknown, Bible Believers 26 Comments [3/29/2016 3:11:43 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: undie not fundie

Quote# 117759

Mr. Trump, They would be boiling fingers in oil if they needed information; if not they would behead their victim. If this suspect had information on nuclear facilities or dirty bombs they're not inclined to violate his so-called rights? Once a terrorist: You have no rights. You cease to exist as member of the human race therefore any treatment is acceptable! Go Trump

Buddy Rider, Donald Trump Facebook 21 Comments [3/29/2016 3:11:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 9

Quote# 117758

If you are not for torture, you're a terrorist sympathizer. Their safe haven is surrounding themselves by innocent people yet they are far from innocent. It's their choice to jeopardize their lives while it's our choice to do some saturation bombing. Teddy Bear Cruz will recite the constitution because he's memorized it verbatim and feels he can win an election based on that. The constitution changes when terrorism is involved, sympathizers feel we should wait to be attacked and catch them in the act, that's really sad.

Jeff Virgonia, Donald Trump Facebook 28 Comments [3/29/2016 3:11:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 15

Quote# 117756

This is what happens when gay marriage is forcibly legalized over the will of the people. There will be backlashes. People don't like being told that they don't have a right to vote on whether to maintain or change the millenia-old definition of marriage.

I sympathize with all of the ordinary gay people who just want to live their lives quietly and peacefully. They are the real victims of the whiny activists who demanded the gay marriage issue be imposed by the courts rather than decided by the people.

A realist, FSTDT 20 Comments [3/29/2016 3:10:20 AM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 117755

Our primary motivation for wanting to mature in life should not be to please others, but rather to please God. God’s opinion is the only One that matters. God is the One we’re supposed to be living for. So we want to learn to think more like He thinks out of a desire to build identity with Him so that our own communion with Him will become richer and deeper. If this sounds selfish, it’s because it is. God created us to be selfish beings, and He wants us to remain selfish about some things. It’s selfish to want to obtain God’s approval, yet this is also a very correct priority for a Christian to have. The altruistic mindset of wanting to help others just to help others is totally off the mark. God didn’t create us for the purpose of going around trying to figure out how we could help other created beings enjoy their lives more. He created us to revolve around Him, and improving our own relationship with Him should be our primary reason for submitting to His maturation program.

Anna Diehl , The Pursuit of God  12 Comments [3/29/2016 3:09:28 AM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 117754

i think it's a funny idea; however, i think taking pride in sexuality is inherently stupid and shouldn't have ever been a thing in the first place. not dissin' on anyone, but taking pride in how one partakes in a sex act is asinine. whenever i hear about gay pride, i go "NECROPHILIAC PRIDE!!!!" it usually does the job heh

JosiahTiger, Christian Furs 21 Comments [3/29/2016 3:09:18 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 117753

ATTENTION: All Mystics, Spiritualists, Astrologers, Horoscope readers, Psychics, Tarot card readers, Astral travelers, Spell casters, Summoners/conjurers, Invokers/evokers, Enchanters/Kabbalists, Sex magick practitioners, Black magic practitioners, “White” magic practitioners, Diviners, Sorcerers and magic practitioners of any other type....

“There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord.” “And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you.”

–-Deuteronomy 18:9-13 (ESV)---

Abomination! This is the strongest language of condemnation used in the Bible/Torah.

Why? Because all magic practice is selfish and ego driven. You tell God his plan isn't good enough for your life and turn to the entities in the Kingdom of Darkness (who have been given power over certain things) to help you cast spells or gain abilities by manipulating the laws of the universe to further your own selfish desires!

(And New Agers. You aren't unique or special. All “new age” teachings about abilities are just plagiarized old age magic techniques of sorcerers and satanists rebranded with an extreme egotistical twist that it all comes from within, silently failing to give credit to the principalities from the kingdom of darkness.)

All forms of magic of ANY TYPE are an abomination in the sight of the God!

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! Now you can be held accountable!

Repent! And go and sin no more!!!!

Anonymous Coward, Godlike Productions 25 Comments [3/29/2016 3:06:36 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 117749

have no doubt at all about evolution having a direction. The fact that humans have arisen is testimony to that fact. No amount of random gene variation or 'natural selection' of your variety, can explain that.

The Triune system of the OP is a clear indicator of how structures jump from one stage to another to accommodate higher mental functions. A clear case of biology being created to match spiritual development. No doubt at all. :D

Most people also tend to confuse 'science' with materialism. They think these two always go together. This may be a revelation to many here......but it is not necessary.

I don't know how educated most people here are (from the lack of knowledge and crass attitude exhibited here, not much, I gather)...... but they obviously don't seem to realize that materialistic understanding of a process is only at one level. Life has many levels.

More and more into detail with no clue of the Big Picture or how things fit together!!! That's the problem.

But then...that's too much for many people here to understand I realize. :D

Sriram, Religion and Ethics 14 Comments [3/29/2016 3:04:18 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: NearlySane

Quote# 117748

(This person started a poll thread on torture asking if you would torture terrorist's family members to stop a bombing. When another member objected to torture under any circumstances, this was their response.)

We are way past justification, I don't care about your ideology, your morals or lack of them. Your putting terrorists rights over the rights of the many. Although I would not derive pleasure from it I say torture the 5yo child of terrorists, bomb their villages. When you know who did a suicide bomb and they are from a village or city that supports terror then bomb it. Your way is a limp dick way of doing nothing. Your in a mud fight if you like to admit it or not and you want to fight by not getting mud on yourself. Its not very bright way of fighting and will end up killing more people. By doing nothing blood will be on your hands like it or not.

vicarjoe, City Data 36 Comments [3/28/2016 3:34:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 21
Submitted By: ScrappyB