Quote# 118329

[ With that justification what limits would you place on interrogators? Suppose torture isn't getting what they need. That the captive will not break. Should you bring in the captive's compatriots who don't know what the interrogators need to know and torture them until the captive breaks? What if that doesn't work should you bring in the captive's spouse, children? Remember we're desperate for this information. What limits would you place upon the methods used in torturing someone for actionable intellegence? ]

yes, why not? The end justifies the means.If this is the only way how to save other people, it's not a big problem.

[ So, torture innocents to protect innocent lives? No irony there. ]

yes

ok, let's make it simple. I would torture terrorist's family in order to break him so he would reveal informations I need to save a city or my country. I still don't have any problem with it

[ So, innocent lives have value, but not enough value to stop them from being tortured, despite the fact they are innocent? ]

what are you talking about? I value the western civilisation more than f.e. somalian or arabic. Look, I'm not one of those people who believe all cultures are equal, heck they don't even share same beliefs or moral standards. In order to preserve the western civilisation(even though it's very flawed) I would sacrifice another. You can call me racist, I don't care.

[ my whole point is that I think torture is a waste of time in addition to being immoral. ]

if it would be a waste of time, people wouldn't use it in the first place

g.o.d, GateWorld 10 Comments [4/20/2016 3:17:53 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Menomaru

Quote# 118328

[ I disagree. This is not about semantics. It's about what lines you think it is okay to cross in the name of saving "innocent lives." If you are willing to allow innocents to be tortured to save other innocents I would find that rather ironic given that the justification for the torture of innocents is the protection of innocent lives. ]

How do you know the person being tortured is innocent? Why did you assume we knew the information beforehand? If we did, torture wouldn't be needed. We're talking about terrorists here. Not the use of torture on a victim that may or may not be guilty. That was never the point. Once more, considering the US government only recruits its very best and elite operatives for the few units that could come across those situations, I trust they'd know the right thing to do. Not the moral thing. The right thing.

Asking ME that question is not a good idea. I am pro atomic bomb, pro death penalty, and if you asked me, terrorists would have no right whatsoever, they'd have less rights than my cat. I am not officer material, nor am I the most moral person ever. So if needed, I'd go pretty darn far. Good thing I'll never be in that kind of situation or have that kind of authority.I certainly value the lives of my family and friends more than some random foreign family. And hell, I'm not even a patriot in any way. But ever since my best friend lost her uncle in the WTC tragedy and then watched her sink deeply into depression and worse, and after serving in the army, I have ZERO tolerance or pity for terrorists and what happens to them when they get caught. They attack our freedom and OUR rights. Why should we give them any rights whatsoever?

[ Well, as you, I live in this world, and I'm sitting in this very moment on my computer, as you do, and of course I know that torture exists in civilised nations, and that it is used under special circumstances. But, it is forbidden, and it should be forbidden, and that is a good thing. Only under this strict law a civilised nation is able to keep this interrogation method as rare as possible, also to protect their own people. Really, I feel better if I know that not every single policeman, or any soldier is allowed to use torture to act as one thinks best. Because this happens if torture is allowed by law. Really, would you prefer to live in a nation, where torture is not restricted? Those nations exists in this world, and I don't want to live there. ]

I don't know for you. But I served my country, I was in the army for two years. So while now yes, I am here, I actually went and saw how it was for myself and it changed my life and my way of seeing the world.

And of course I wouldn't live in a country where torture is freely used. Of course I am glad only a very small number of operatives within the government are allowed to do these things.My point all along has never been that torture is a beautifully effective method that should be used all the time. It is simply that it has its place sometimes, and its uses. It's not perfect, it's not right. A lot of good men did questionable things for the greater good. One would argue that Truman shouldn't have ordered the nuclear attack on Japan. A lot of people were killed, innocent people. A lot more would have died, Americans, had he not done what he did.

But I'll say this. Some terrorists don't care about their own lives, but if confronted with their family about to die or get hurt, they might be willing to talk. Doesn't make it right, but it's still an option I would consider. I could go ahead and quote about 20 highly respected people like Patton, Wilde, Von Clausewitz, Asimov and a number of fabled generals and leaders that have plainly said that morals can't get in the way of doing what's right and that sometimes innocent lives must be sacrificed so that a greater number can live.

Demerzel, GateWorld 14 Comments [4/20/2016 3:28:27 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: randy

Quote# 118325

on torture

Any psychological effects are unfortunate but every measure should be taken to reduce the chance of long term psychological trauma and to make sure that there is good reason to believe the person has the information in the first place.

Every country has examples of innocent people going to jail for crimes they didn't commit (A-Team lolol) and I'm sure those people had lasting psychological effects but we don't stop sending people to jail because we might be wrong.

Just to be clear I'm completely against rounding up people arbitrarily based on anything than convincing evidence that they are connected to an attack in some way, I would not tolerate torturing people because they are a certain race or because they happen to go to the same mosque as a known terrorist or whatever the case may be. Investigating, gathering evidence and implementing the interrogation techniques we classify as torture should be a science and approached impartially by competent individuals.

[ And what if the average percentage of people who commit suicide is put to that '100' people. So we now have (iirc it is around 2.8 percent) so 3 people killing themselves cause of that 'torture'? Was that one life still worth it? ]

Again this is something that I feel is more about careful application of the various techniques used and the proper steps that should be taken afterwards.

Innocent or not I don't want to see people killing themselves after torture so I would want a careful investigation into what techniques used are causing it and adjust practices accordingly to bring that number as low as possible, also I would want some sort of "after care" to make sure a person subjected to torture is mentally stable and is not likely to commit suicide.

[ So how many innocent have to suffer torture or you to NOT think it is all right? 2? 8? 1000? ]

I wouldn't really use a flat number to decide nor would my decision be to decide that its not "all right".

If it was turning out that a very high number of people were being subjected to torture that had no involvement then I would be calling for stricter evidence that indicated a suspect could provide information.

If you are asking how many peoples temporary suffering I think a life is worth though, it would be very high, certainly well over 100.

[ "The U.S. Constitution Amendment VIII:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Yeah, those guys in the 18th century *shakes head* I wish they hadn't been so doggone sqiwmish. They could have thrown in an exception for "unless we really, really, really, need to torture someone" couldn't they? ]

I'm not American so not sure why your quoting the US constitution to me, I actually live in a true democracy.

As for suggesting that jail and torture have anything in common. I'd like to remind that people who go to jail get a trial. People who are tortured do not. People who go to jail can appeal the decision. People who are tortured can not. ]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that any measures that are currently taken or even ones I'd like to see in regards to torture would be as thorough as a trial I'm merely pointing out that we already subject people that could be innocent to long sentences that in my opinion are worse than torture and that the risk of incarcerating an individual who is innocent whether it be a jail sentence or torture is not reason enough to avoid the practice altogether

[ So, hypothetically of course, If I find out who you really are and call the Dept. of Homeland Security to let them know I think you may be aware of an impending terrorist use of nuclear weapons on U.S. soil you'd be cool with being picked up, waterboarded, beaten, sleep deprived, or worse (all without the benefit of counsel or trial) despite the fact they are operating on nothing but the hearsay warning? After all it's only temporary pain weighed against a possible nuclear explosion in a major U.S. city, right? ]

If the bolded part is the extent of your evidence then no I would not be happy just as I would if anyone was arrested/charged/convicted of a crime with the justification that "you think". As for the techniques you cited, yes I am fine with all of those if there is a real expectation that information gained can save lives.

False confessions can happen in any investigation and there are rules and procedures in place to identify them, I'm no expert in torture but I assume they work just as dillligently to weed out false confessions.

Sami_, GateWorld 5 Comments [4/20/2016 3:27:16 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 118320

[All formatting and hyperlinks from original]

Satanic possession means we are mental prisoners of the Masonic Jewish central bankers.

Cabalist (Masonic) Judaism is Satanism. (Satanism inverts good and evil; true and false; natural & unnatural.) The hit comedy Broad City is another example of how the mass media inducts society into Jewish dysfunction and perversity. This show is so offensive I can barely watch it.

Broad City chronicles the lives of two loudmouthed Jewish broads who have been cut loose from marriage and family by feminism. Socially and biologically redundant, they are going crazy but making it seem normal. They have no careers. No boyfriends. No charm. No beauty. The show is non-stop vulgarity, promiscuity, lesbianism and excretory references. Yet it is heralded as a brilliant "comedy" by virtually everyone. "Disgusting" is the new "funny."

Cabalist Judaism is about destroying the world in order to conquer it. The show normalizes mental illness, body odor, foul language and sexual obsession. It is pure evil and people are celebrating and embracing it. Western society doesn't know it is a Jewish solipsism. The Jewish experience is presented as a positive model. Gay Jewish behavior is presented as goy straight. (See also "TV's Luciferian message.") Satanic Jews and their Freemason allies indeed are God. They create a repugnant reality, homage to themselves and Satan.

Henry Makow, Henry Makow 14 Comments [4/20/2016 3:18:28 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: JeanP

Quote# 118319

It is absurd to try to prove that the Bible is God’s Word by appealing to any authority besides the Bible itself because it would exalt such an authority as superior to God - and that is impossible!

Eric Hovind, Eric Hovind's Facebook page 33 Comments [4/20/2016 3:18:18 AM]
Fundie Index: 18
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 118316

It's nothing wrong as long as long as relationship is consensual ,but it's only wrong if the relationship was by force. While in my opinion 13 years old are mentally mature enough to understand the act and consequences as well in making decision.So they can consent.

ghostrecon, debate.org 21 Comments [4/19/2016 2:50:04 PM]
Fundie Index: 19

Quote# 118313

Exactly i agree what you have said.Actually children can already consent to sexual activity when they are at 12 but the society force them to be immature as prolong as possible to 16 or 18.
stephannoi:
In which it seems like children cannot consent but it is not because of their ability but it is the fault of the society that want children to be in the way they favored to be by raise our children up immature which it is wrong.
stephannoi:
If it's prepubescent children i could understand that they cannot consent due to because their body is not physical mature but people generally already reach the puberty at 12 or 13 ,so at that age they are not prepubescent children.

stephannoi, debate.org 19 Comments [4/19/2016 2:44:51 PM]
Fundie Index: 16

Quote# 118312

Not 13 but maybe 15 or 16. Some people say "they are just children" but really who's fault is that? For at least the first couple centuries A.D. And earlier, people were married and supported themselves usually between 11-14. They handled all adult responsibilities, including sex. If they could do it then, why not now? The only reason 13 year olds are to immature is because of how we raise them. Mothers don't want their "babies" to grow up, father's want their daughters to stay "daddy's little girl" forever, and so they baby and coddle their children, some still holding their kids' hands WELL into their mid-twenties. This does them no favors. Also this isn't about adults taking advantage of minors, there are already plenty of laws regarding real rape and real sexual assault, and if your argument is "protect the children that I refuse to let grow up" then make laws for REAL rape and REAL sexual adult much stricter when the victim is a minor, but it should not be illegal for them to have sex. As things stand now even minor on minor sex is illegal, would you want your kid to go to jail as a minor for having sex with a minor boyfriend or girlfriend who may even be the same age?? Why should we call them criminals for doing what they are biological programmed to do? I think that right now 13 is too young (at the fault of the parents) but 15 or 16 is not. Most of them already have jobs in addition to school, they drive cars, they handle plenty of adult responsibility and they definitely know what sex is, what the risks are and there outcomes. So why not? Hell most of them are tried as adults if they break the law, why are they adults if they break the law but children if they want to have sex? And besides, most 15+teens are having sex anyway, why should we call them criminals for doing what their bodies are biologically programmed to do? If we were meant to have sex older than that, wouldn't puberty occur at a later age?? I say for now lower it to 15 or 16 everywhere then gradually change how we raise our kids, increase sex ed and actually teach them right from younger ages and watch as they prove to us again, as they had for centuries in the past, that they can, in fact, handle adult responsibilities, then at that point you could consider lowering it to 13.


Xkaru, debate.org 13 Comments [4/19/2016 2:44:32 PM]
Fundie Index: 9

Quote# 118310

Daylight Savings Time, a useless construct that doesn’t actually save any energy, is something I always believed was pushed by islamist moles within government. The extra daylight allows them to minimize work schedule conflicts with having to be at home before sundown at certain times of the year.

fruser1, Free Republic 39 Comments [4/19/2016 1:45:44 PM]
Fundie Index: 21

Quote# 118309

All sitcoms/cartoons are embedded with psychological manipulations of emotions and attitude so they can erase Christian attitudes/virtues in your children (create artificial, unnatural emotions/desires) You have to completely control all the ideas now because the perverts took total control now with “homosexual” “marriage” (LOL) made “legal” (and “Good”).

Now, you CAN’T stop their hyper-sexualization into perversion if you allow them to absorb movies/TVs that mock God/Christianity.....although they were doing it with Will and Grace and Ellen shows for decade to normalize the completely irrational satanic, evil behaviors of pedophiles. Now they have the force of Law, though. BTW, schools have been normalizing sodomy in children and your boys for 20 years with “Pride” in sodomy (Satanism) days to warp their perceptions of males/females and normalize perversions/evil.

savagesusie, free republic 24 Comments [4/19/2016 1:45:32 PM]
Fundie Index: 9

Quote# 118308

Sodomites like Rubio are immoral and do vile, evil things to others as habits. Willful turning their backs on God’s Laws. He flaunts satanism inside his little coven.

Rubio is an easy “bot” for the vile satanists, who are all sodomites. They “think” of others in very sick, degrading, vile ways, so it shouldn’t surprise you that homosexuals always are the front of all fascist evil movements, like the Bolsheviks, the Brownshirts, and Man/Boy “Love” movements and Serial Killers. (Hari/Lively).

Vice breeds vice always and they will do the most demeaning vile things to others. There is no “morality” possible with such behaviors and “thinking”/desires. There is no possibility of a Christian worldview unless they are actively suppressing and condemning the behaviors. Rubio “loves” the vile concept of homosexual “marriage” and promotes sodomy to his children. He is sick.

savagesusie, free republic 21 Comments [4/19/2016 1:45:18 PM]
Fundie Index: 9

Quote# 118306

You know, when we started this war, I was so angry I couldn't see straight. I wanted to see them suffer for killing our countrymen. For coming onto our territory and starting something up. Saddam is an evil man and needed to be taken out..even if he doesn't have to do with 9/11. Think about it - he was gassing his own people! It's cruelty to just turn and look the other way, knowing that people are dying. It's like Germany and the holocaust (atleast then we didn't know exactly). We may not be the "world police," but I think someone has to look out for those who can't look out for themselves. I wish America had come into Germany long before it did; I'd have the majority of my family. But all I have is my grandma, her brother, and her sister. Everyone else died on my mother's side. (Until people realize that Saddam = bad, I'm going to keep repeating this story.)

Most of America makes me sick. It has no memory. "Der, what's a flag?! What's Nationalism?! EL OH EL! I HATE AMERICA EVEN THOUGH I'M AMERICAN!" I wish I could just ship all of these people back to their "native" country so that America will have a little more elbow room and a little more common sense. If you hate America and are living in it, then GET THE FUCK OUT!!!! We don't want you here, bashing your own country, and bashing those in it. I don't like to be called an 'idiot' just because a big majority of America is stupid. Hell, a lot of America is the smartest, too (Bill Gates, anyone?), and we have some of the highest technology. But I see that that is overlooked.

If I could have my way, I would blow up just about the entire world. I'd bomb Canada for calling us stupid Americans, I'd bomb the UK because they have their head up their butts and think America is foolish and never ever has common sense what-so-ever, and I'd bomb Mt. Fuji in Japan because the damn Japos are racists!! XD (That really doesn't have to do with the state we're in, but I felt I had to include it. Come on, laugh! :3) Pretty much the only places I wouldn't bomb would be the poles and Australia. Rest of the world can kiss my patriotic ass, because I'm sick and tired of them always ganging up on me like I'm a bad guy. I never did anything - look at our side for once. Yes, we're evil because we go in and attack people, but we're also good too. We supply places with food, medicine, and rush out immediately to go help.

Here's an idea, and I wish I could give it to Mr. President ;
Let's become isolated for one week. There is proof that we could run on our own without any exports or imports. It wouldn't be as decent quality of life, but it would be doable. We should not go out and help anyone, trade with anyone, or do anything with any other country. Pull right out Iraq, Iran, Korea, all of those places, and especially Africa. No longer help anyone - just help ourselves. We'll see how well the world can survive without America.

(I personally think we should go into other countries and stop their fighting and tell them what to do. They're like children fighting; someone has to be the responsible adult and break up the fight. If they can't see that they are fighting like little children, then someone has to prove it to them and make it stop. We can't have the world falling to pieces because the "UK" is afraid of stopping it.)

[ on abortion ]

I am against abortion.

o sum this up, rape/abortion victims seem to have a more negative outcome than a woman who was raped and kept her child. Emotionally, she is weakened from the rape, and losing her own child will take it's toll. Physically, she may never have children again.
"Good can come from evil." Rape is evil, and a baby is good.

I'm kind of in the middle of this whole thing. I see both sides. I don't agree with either (but I do agree mostly on no to abortion)
I don't know about the mother health thing though. I mean, if she's going to die, at least she lived a good life (hopefully), and the baby would get to live. Mothers usually love their children, and would give up their life for their children. Most women feel this motherly bond. They would hope their baby got to live a good life, and make something out of themselves. It's a choice the mother should make, but on the downfall, the baby will never get to live if the mother gets the abortion.

[ on war ]

If I could have my way, I would blow up just about the entire world. I'd bomb Canada for calling us stupid Americans, I'd bomb the UK because they have their head up their butts and think America is foolish and never ever has common sense what-so-ever, and I'd bomb Mt. Fuji in Japan because the damn Japos are racists!! XD (That really doesn't have to do with the state we're in, but I felt I had to include it. Come on, laugh! :3) Pretty much the only places I wouldn't bomb would be the poles and Australia. Rest of the world can kiss my patriotic ass, because I'm sick and tired of them always ganging up on me like I'm a bad guy. I never did anything - look at our side for once. Yes, we're evil because we go in and attack people, but we're also good too. We supply places with food, medicine, and rush out immediately to go help.

Here's an idea, and I wish I could give it to Mr. President Bush;
Let's become isolated for one week. There is proof that we could run on our own without any exports or imports. It wouldn't be as decent quality of life, but it would be doable. We should not go out and help anyone, trade with anyone, or do anything with any other country. Pull right out Iraq, Iran, Korea, all of those places, and especially Africa. No longer help anyone - just help ourselves. We'll see how well the world can survive without America.

(I personally think we should go into other countries and stop their fighting and tell them what to do. They're like children fighting; someone has to be the responsible adult and break up the fight. If they can't see that they are fighting like little children, then someone has to prove it to them and make it stop. We can't have the world falling to pieces because the "UK" is afraid of stopping it.)
(^?^)?(^?^)

Darrel, Kasuto.net 29 Comments [4/19/2016 1:45:02 PM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: randy

Quote# 118305

(What concerns me about how some Catholics view marriage, it can come across that it's all about reproduction, rather than love.)

Marriage being about love is a rather new idea, and looking at the current state of marriage, not a good one.

ucfengr, Catholic Answers Forum 10 Comments [4/19/2016 1:42:24 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Cyclonus

Quote# 118303

It is a sin for any woman or girl to sway their hips in public. It is unladylike, immodest and sensual. Even if wearing a long dress, women and girls should NEVER sway their hips in public.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Savior 44 Comments [4/19/2016 3:52:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 19

Quote# 118302

if you can't provide factual data (why trump is a racist), but come up with drivel like this:


Banning Muslims from entering the US (even temporarily) is just misguided. As well, blaming illegal immigrants for America's problems is xenophobic, and perpetuates a scapegoat narrative that is harmful even to legal Mexicans in the US. These kinds of policies are definitely targeted to exploit people's fears about those who are different.

you will be deported along with your comment. We care about facts, freedom and liberty.

We don't, however, care about whatever spiel that TA from your [insert random topic] studies degree told you while trying to score a handjob at the poetry slam.


viking83, r/The Donald 22 Comments [4/19/2016 3:51:49 AM]
Fundie Index: 11

Quote# 118301

Texas parents are upset that a public school district has taken a Bible verse off its website after atheists complained, according to the Tyler Morning Telegraph.

Troup Independent School District had the biblical phrase, “As Goliath moved closer to attack, David quickly ran out to meet him,” from the Old Testament, on their website until the Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter complaining it violates the Constitution by promoting Christianity.

In response, Christian parents created T-shirts that say, “Our God is bigger.”

Parent Cindy Carnes is selling them for $7 each.

“I know that lots of hands are tied, but as parents and students our hands are not,” she wrote on Facebook. “We can take something that was meant to stand against God and use it for His glory by getting our kids involved in taking a stand for God and exercising our freedom to actively praise and worship Him.”

The FFRF says they are missing the point, according to the Telegraph.

“Under the federal constitution, a government entity like a school district can’t endorse one religious belief over others or religion generally over non religion,” Sam Grover, FFRF attorney told the paper.”

Cindy Carnes and other parents, Raw Story 35 Comments [4/19/2016 3:51:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 118300

A UC Berkeley student whose family fled Iraq in 2002 after his diplomat father was killed under Saddam Hussein’s regime, was booted from a Southwest Airlines flight and questioned by the FBI after another passenger heard him speaking Arabic, NBC Bay Area reports.

In a story originally reported in the Daily Californian, student Khairuldeen Makhzoomi, 26, states he was flying home from attending a dinner at the Los Angeles World Affairs Council with Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon when he stopped to make a call to an uncle.

Makhzoomi explained that conversation was conducted in Arabic and, as he said goodbye, he used the phrase “inshallah,” which translates as “if God is willing.”

The student said that after hung up, he noticed a female passenger looking at him who then got up and left her seat.

“She kept staring at me and I didn’t know what was wrong,” he explained. “Then I realized what was happening and I just was thinking ‘I hope she’s not reporting me.’”

Moments later an airport employee asked Makhzoomi to step off the plane and onto the passenger boarding bridge where he was greeted by three security officers.

Makhzoomi was told the woman thought he said “Shahid,” meaning martyr — a term linked to Islamic terrorists

After pointing out the incident was rooted in Islamophobia, the student was told he would not be allowed to get back on the plane as he heard one of the security officers speaking with the FBI.

“At that moment I couldn’t feel anything,” he said. “I was so afraid. I was so scared.”

Security officers searched his bag again and asked him if he had any other luggage he was keeping secret. Makhzoomi claimed that one officer publicly felt around his genital area and asked him if he was hiding a knife.

“That is when I couldn’t handle it and my eyes began to water,” he said. “The way they searched me and the dogs, the officers, people were watching me and the humiliation made me so afraid because it brought all of these memories back to me. I escaped Iraq because of the war, because of Saddam and what he did to my father. When I got home, I just slept for a few days.”

Makhzoomi said after the FBI arrived they questioned him about his family, and about his phone call and what he knew about martyrism.

After the interrogation was over, an FBI agent informed Makhzoomi that Southwest would not fly him home. He later booked a flight on another airline, arriving home nine hours later than expected.

According to a spokesperson for Southwest Airlines, the student was removed because crew members decided to “investigate potentially threatening comments made onboard our aircraft.”

Mahkzoomi said he now wants an apology.

“All I need is an apology to say, ‘We are sorry we singled you out because [of] one person who felt threatened,'” he said.

Unnamed passenger, Raw Story 21 Comments [4/19/2016 3:50:22 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 118296

And God says, "A man is someone who pisses against a wall." ... And you say, "Ah, you're being vile." I'm not being vile. God's the one who wrote the Bible...We got pastors that pee sitting down. We got the president of the United States who probably pees sitting down. ... The editors of the NIV pee sitting down. The editors of the New King James all pee sitting down. I'm gonna tell you something. I will never pee sitting down.

Rev. Steven Anderson, Youtube 33 Comments [4/19/2016 3:47:36 AM]
Fundie Index: 23
Submitted By: solomongrundy

Quote# 118295

GLOBAL WARMING HUSTLING IN DC

The Left's intolerance for questioning the groupthink around "Global Warming" and its disdain for those of us asking for scientific FACTS on climate is the biggest hustle of our time. It is being used by Big Government cheerleaders to have more control over us, our homes, our businesses, our families, and our lives. Head to the theater May 2nd to see "Climate Hustle." Here's a theater near you for this one night event: www.ClimateHustle.com

Here in DC I've participated in a special Capitol Hill screening of this great new film - "Climate Hustle" - that debunks all the alarmism and hyped-up Hollywood doomsaying about global warming. We had an enlightened, informative panel discussion about how America desperately deserves to hear real science and real facts currently ignored on this issue of changes in the weather.

Climate alarmists say the "science is settled" and the "debate is over" on climate but anyone who sees this movie will know differently. It's especially important with the Obama Administration soon signing America on to the dangerous Paris Climate Agreement, which ultimately leads to more unnecessary government control over every aspect of our lives.

"Climate Hustle" is nationwide only on May 2nd. Visit www.ClimateHustle.com for info.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/59…/SidebarCHMoreimages_FINAL.png…

Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin's Facebook page 18 Comments [4/19/2016 3:47:04 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 118294

Christians need to become more astute at determining the source of things.

For instance: when you hear a song from a favorite gospel artist or group, are you sure their source comes from God? Are they plugged into Holy Ghost power or demonic power?

Just because they can sing good or make you feel goosebumps doesn't mean God is their source. God may be the source of their gift: but is He the source for how that gift is being used?

Now I know some will say: 'But Mack, these gospel artists are singing gospel music (or Christian hip hop). Aren't they giving God the glory and leading others to Christ through their music?"

That depends again on the source. Is their music inspiring people to turn away from their sins, repent and turn to Christ? Is it influencing people to be more holy? If not, you must question the source.

•When you hear your favorite gospel song being played, what does it make you feel like doing? Does it inspire you to want to worship God with all your heart and soul: or are you just moved to dance and gyrate your hips?

•When you see your favorite gospel artist on stage performing or 'ministering,' are they dressed in a way that speaks holiness and godliness? Or do they awaken and excite feelings of lust, sensuality and worldliness?

I remember back in my club scene days, I'd be posted up near the bar whispering game in some woman's ear: when all of a sudden a Kirk Franklin song would come on. This isn't meant to bash Kirk or his music in any way. But I'm just keeping it real because this genuinely baffled me. When his music would come on, instead of people leaving the dance floor, they would keep right on dancing without skipping a beat.

No one would pause, stare in bewilderment or anything. This was amazing to me even while I was in a backslidden state myself, because this was a gospel song being sung by a well known gospel artist in a NIGHT CLUB! And yet no one felt any sense of conviction or need to change their ways.

The problem with the gospel music artists today is that many if not most are no longer plugging into God as their source. Their desire for worldly acceptance and demonic validation has blinded their hearts, and corrupted their gifts.

Again: don't get the gifting confused with the anointing. God gives people their ability or talent. That's the gifting. But the person can choose to plug that talent into God's power for His glory or purposes, or choose instead to plug it into a demonic source for the devil's glory or purposes.

What does the music inspire you to do? If it doesn't inspire you to be more holy, to feel a stronger internal desire to dig deeper into His Word and spend more time with our Heavenly Father, or encourage yourself or your brethren in Christ to hold on and keep the faith: then that source does NOT come from God; no matter how talented the artist might be.

A Godly source will inspire you to become more holy and godly. But a demonic source will encourage you to become more like those who are unsaved and of the world.

This is why you must steer yourself away from gospel artists who are inspiring you after the flesh. You know the type: the ones who go around proclaiming themselves to be 'sexy' Christians. or the ones who are quick to call everyone else judgmental because they don't agree with mixing the holy with the profane.

The only place a self-proclaimed sexy Christian can lead you to is right into sexual sin. God doesn't need his people using their bodies to attract others to Him! What type of demonic mess is that?!

Christ has called us to be holy vessels of God, and to present our bodies as a living sacrifice, crucifying our flesh daily so we can walk in holiness and sexual purity. You won't be able to do that if you're running around promoting your sexiness to others.

In fact, you've already been compromised by the devil if you find yourself feeling defensive as you read this article.

I challenge anyone to find me the verse and scripture where God told anyone to use their bodies or ungodly means to draw others to Jesus. You won't be able to, because that idea came direct from Hell. It wasn't inspired by the Holy Spirit: it was inspired by the spirit of Lust.

[...]

One last story and then I'm done: I remember going to church as a kid, and whenever someone got up to sing a solo, the elder church folk would say things like 'Let the Lord use you honey.' They said this because in their wisdom they knew the person could easily let a demon use them instead of being used by God. So they encouraged the soloist to channel the power of God for a powerful heavenly impact on the listeners.

It's time to purge your hearts and ears saints. This message won't be for everyone, because not everyone who calls himself or herself a believer truly is.

Jesus said "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." - Matthew 7:21

This message is for those who truly desire to walk upright and live in such a manner that truly pleases our Heavenly Father.

If you have a strong addiction to listening to demonically inspired music...and remember our test from earlier...it's time to purge your musical playlist. This is an important step in walking upright before God.

We're about to enter a phase in our world where darkness and sin will sweep this earth like never before.

God is allowing sin and demonic influence to increase because the time is near for Him to return and bring an end to Satan's reign of terror.

He's separating His sheep from Satan's goats. And all those who are still tinkering and tampering with sin will find it more difficult than ever to pull away. The sin you hold onto is the one that destroys you. So don't be destroyed by sin: cast it out!

Go through your musical tastes and playlist. And do this prayerfully with all the honesty you can muster. As you honestly assess each artist you enjoy listening to and their music, ask yourself some simple questions:

What does this music inspire me to do? Am I influenced by this artist and their music to read my bible more, pray more, go to church more, abstain from sexual sin and my own fleshly desire for worldly and sensual validation?

Be totally honest and transparent. Pray and ask God by His spirit to help you remove any and all influence from your life that does not match what His ideal for you is! He'll help you if you sincerely want His help.

Mack Major, Eden Decoded 19 Comments [4/19/2016 3:46:18 AM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 118293

(On a hypothetical Texas secessionist vote)

Obama would be very foolish not to let Texas go, since the US would lose a lot of conservatives. Of course, much of the South, Midwest, and West might follow. Liberals would still be happier. They could have socialized medicine with free abortions, no private gun ownership, every sexual perversion and vice known to man, confiscatory taxes, no religion but atheism and islam, no salt, no private cars (except for the elite), break off relations with Israel, no sugar, zone out on any drug you want, and they could keep re-electing Obama until he is older than Robert Mugabe. In fact, the blue states should secede! A friend of mine was expressing his disdain for Texas and wishing they would secede. He was not too impressed when I told him that if Texas seceded I would move there.

Brian V. Sitterley, WND 26 Comments [4/19/2016 3:37:52 AM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 118292

(Someone mentioned that there is no proof that the Bible is the word of God.)

The same could be said about this doctrine written by atheist which has no consistency at all. Do we come from monkeys, a Big Bang or monkeys mating with fish which is it? If we evolve from apes how is it that some apes missed out on this opportunity. Did they opted out on this and decided to stay in the jungle? And why are we not evolving now. By now we should have wings or something or did Evolution have a cut off. Maybe my faith in God must have blinded me. I will visit the zoo today and gain wisdom from the apes there have to be an answer in the poop they fling at each other.

tillman7, City Data 33 Comments [4/18/2016 4:43:30 PM]
Fundie Index: 15
Submitted By: ScrappyB

Quote# 118291

[Anon-e-moose
"One of the common claims is that Mary was probably only a little girl of 12-14 years old. The reason given for this is that it was "common custom" in those days to marry girls off that young. It is also suggested by some that Joseph must have been much older than she was because he appears to have died early. There is no mention of him after Jesus was 12 years old. This is an assumption and not necessarily based on the custom of the time.]

I don't think we can determine Joseph's age, but I think it is not likely that Mary was as young as some people represent her.

First of all, while I realize that Joseph and Mary were already espoused - but not officially married - I find it interesting that her parents don't even get an honorable mention here. We're not introduced to her as "Mary the daughter of _________". Added to that, Mary gets a lot more "press" than even Joseph does, especially in this passage. If Mary was just a little 12 to 14 year old girl betrothed to marry an older man, that seems a little bit odd. In such a case her parents would have still held a large place in her life because Joseph hadn't taken her yet, Matthew 1:18-20.

Some people might like to use this to show that a girl/woman belongs to her husband-to-be immediately upon betrothal/espousal, but that doesn't exactly make sense. When a young lady is promised in marriage, but not yet taken, and is still in her father's home, she must be in a situation of being answerable to both men for a time of transition. Assuming Mary was only 12-13 years old, she would surely have been living with parents or guardians still. One would expect that either Joseph or Mary's father would have been the main character being dealt with by God, and yet neither one is. That is a very interesting point and makes it hard for me to believe that she was that young. The fact that God deals directly with her and there is no mention of her father makes it seem likely that she was a good bit older than that, especially since in v. 39 she apparently travels by herself to see her cousin, Elisabeth.

Another reason I don't believe Mary was such a young girl is because in Mark chapter 5 we meet Jairus who came to Jesus pleading with Him to heal his daughter. In Mark 5:23 we read, And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live. Jesus went to the house and raised the girl from the dead, and in vs. 41-42 the scripture says, And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise. And straightway the damsel arose, and walked; for she was of the age of twelve years. And they were astonished with a great astonishment. First, it is just my observation that a man who expected to marry his daughter off in a year or less just might not be calling her his "little daughter" at age 12. I realize that emotions could be blamed for his use of this expression, but somehow it just doesn't ring true. But, more than that, the word "Talitha" is thought to be a diminutive word meaning "little girl", as opposed to a young woman. We might infer from that that Jesus also did not consider her a young woman of marriageable age.

Which leads to another point which I think is even more important. Just because something is the "common custom" of a given era, it does not follow that all those who love God and follow His word will be doing that thing. Imagine if this earth went on another 2000 years and much of our present history was lost along the way. Some "scholar" who was supposedly "in the know" might portray us all as having tattoos because "it was the common custom" of that day. And, yet, would that be true? No! Certainly not. Some of us don't have tattoos for Biblical reasons, in fact. Mary and Joseph both were obviously people who loved the Lord and followed His commandments. It is more likely that Mary was raised by parents who loved God than otherwise. They would not follow the customs of the day just because that is what everyone else was doing - even if the "good, godly" folks at the synagogue thought it was fine. There were a lot of things the "good, godly" people of their day were doing that Jesus later rebuked!

Furthermore, we know that the early Christians in the Roman Empire did not typically practice early marriage for their young girls. In his book, The Book that Made Your World, Vishal Mangalwadi writes (p. 284), "Christians also expressed their respect for women by raising the age of marriage. Roman law established twelve as the minimum age at which girls could marry. But the law was nothing more than a recommendation...and was routinely ignored. The best available studies show that in the Roman Empire the pagans' daughters were three time more likely than Christians to marry before they were thirteen. By age eleven, 10 percent were wed. Nearly half (44 percent) of the pagan girls were married off by the time they were fourteen, compared to 20 percent of the Christians. In contrast, nearly half (48 percent) of the Christian females did not marry before they were eighteen."

My point is that the people Mary was associated with - Zacharias, Elisabeth and Joseph - were all godly people who loved the Lord. Mary herself was obviously a godly woman. It is possible that Joseph and Mary had been betrothed at an early age, but he had not taken her yet, and based on some of the other things I've already mentioned, it seems more than likely that she was older than the legendary 12-13 years at the time this account opens.

My last reason for not believing that Mary was a little 12-13 year old girl is that it is not physically safe for a girl that young to have children. If no one else was watching out for Mary's safety you can count on the fact that God was! My loving, kind heavenly Father would not impregnate a girl that young and physically immature. He just wouldn't do it. He is not that kind of God. That kind of behavior is found in gods in other religions, but not in God Almighty, the Faithful and True. Of Him it is said, He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young. Isaiah 40:11 If there is no other reason to know that Mary was not that young it is this. The God we know and trust simply wouldn't do that to one of His daughters. (Yes, men might do this; men who professed to fear God might do this; but remember that in this case God was the one calling the shots, fulfilling the prophecy, and ordering every event. He was fully in charge in a way we don't always see when He's dealing with sinful men.)....
http://www.homemakerscorner.com/bible-study-Luke-section2.html

Please stop calling mary a little girl. She was not a little girl. STOP ACCUSING GOD!

#1933741, FSTDT Comments 46 Comments [4/18/2016 4:43:21 PM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 118286

It's a story that would be roughly the same if the BF was Indian too. I think it's funny how Eastern traditionalism is not always susceptible to appeals based on Western progressivism. That's because traditionalism was often based on "whatever worked"; perhaps they couldn't explain the psychological impacts that having casual sex with 80 partners before marriage had on the woman or the quality of her marriage (although they do now). But they saw its effects and believed in it. Outside of the mother-daughter context, in an advanced educated society, Eastern traditionalists will need to do better job at explaining the 'why' of their beliefs- and they should; there's a lot of merit to their perspectives which are underplayed in the modern West. When you dig beneath, a great deal of science validates traditionalist ideas about human nature, about relationships, about gender differentiation, about how 'restriction' and deferring gratification leads to happiness more so than indulging your whims. There is a lot I hope Asia can do to civilize the West before it plunges totally into degeneracy.

Now coming back to the story (sorry), too little to the story, but I doubt the mother is trying to force her Western daughter into celibacy before marriage; she is more likely using that ideal as a counter-balance to the Western model of the complete opposite.

I find it interesting that how in the US, when an Asian woman has a problem with her father, the answer is to find another race of guy to date. Lot of people have problems with their parents, including their opposite-gender parent. AF Daddy Issues -> pigchasing? Chris Rock told fathers they had one goal with their daughter "keep them off the stripper pole". That daughters would 'punish' their fathers for mistreating them by doing what would harm them most (that their own daughter would be stripping naked in some sleazy strip club). AFs probably on some subconscious level know that flushing their genetics down the toilet by dating some unsuccessful, doughy mediocrity would be more of a "take that!" to their Dad than anything else.

Arcterex, Reddit - r/aznidentity 5 Comments [4/18/2016 4:39:34 PM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 118283

Televangelist Jim Bakker invited Dr. Dennis Lindsay on to his program on Wednesday to discuss Lindsay’s latest discovery in the realm of Creation Science: the truth behind Stonehenge.

Hold on to your hats: Stonehenge, it turns out, was built by giants who were created by Satan.

Lindsay told Bakker that these giants were tools of the devil, who seeks to destroy Israel because “he’s out to destroy God’s creation and his whole plan of redemption and contaminate the human race.”

But Satan wants to “have his own seed and make his own family,” Lindsay explained, and so he created a race of giants who would attack Israel.

“He build his little squatter’s hut up there on the Temple Mount, you know that temple, because he knows what the Bible says about that place,” he said. “I weaved through why and what is the evidence for giant beings on this earth. We all know about Stonehenge, right? That’s just one of hundreds and hundreds of gigantic places around the world that testify that some sort of supernatural power or giants were involved in its construction.”

Dennis Lindsay, Right Wing Watch 30 Comments [4/18/2016 4:38:12 PM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: skybison