Quote# 120492

TWO LIVING MAMMOTHS FILMED NEAR NAPAL INDIA IN 1996
BEFORE MARCH, 1996 MAMMOTHS WERE DOGMATICALLY PRONOUNCED "EXTINCT" BY THE MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY FAITHFULL. IN 1998 THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL AIRED "IN SEARCH OF LIVING MAMMOTHS" WHICH PROVED THAT THEIR EXTINCTION WAS GREATLY EXAGGERATED.



Henry Johnson and Joe Taylor, Omniology.com 45 Comments [7/13/2016 3:10:21 AM]
Fundie Index: 26
Submitted By: Arceus

Quote# 120491

THE TWO BIBLES
OF THE METAPHYSICAL SCIENCE OF ORIGINS

THESE TWO BOOKS ARE THE FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENTS OF THE ENTIRE METAPHYSICAL SCIENCE OF ORIGINS.

THEY BOTH CLAIM TO BE "AUTHORED" BY A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL.

"THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES" By CHARLES DARWIN
"THE HOLY BIBLE" By ALMIGHTY GOD

THE REASON THESE BOOKS ARE "METAPHYSICAL," AS RELATES TO ORIGINS, IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT NO ONE CAN EMPIRICALLY VERIFY THEIR CLAIMS OF HOW LIFE BEGAN. FROM A "SCIENTIFIC" POINT OF VIEW, THEY BOTH ARE BASED ON SPECULATIVE OR ABSTRACT REASONING AND THEY ARE BOTH HIGHLY THEORETICAL.

SINCE NEITHER CAN BE "EMPIRICALLY PROVEN AS A FACT,"
THEY CAN ONLY BE ACCEPTED AS THEORETICAL MODELS,
"BY FAITH IN THE AUTHOR'S CLAIMS ALONE."

"THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES" AND EVOLUTION, AS WELL AS "THE HOLY BIBLE" AND CREATION, BOTH QUALIFY AS RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES AND ARTICLES OF FAITH. THE TRUE BELIEVERS OF BOTH DOCTRINES VENERATE THEIR AUTHORS AND ZEALOUSLY ENGAGE IN THE PROSELYTIZATION OF THE PUBLIC TO THEIR OWN PARTICULAR VIEWS!

ONLY ONE OF THESE RELIGIOUS VIEWS, "EVOLUTION," HAS BEEN "SANCTIONED BY THE SUPREME COURT" TO BE TAUGHT IN OUR
PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

THIS IS CLEARLY A VIOLATION OF THE TRUE SPIRIT OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN SCIENCE!

THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF OMNIOLOGY BELIEVES THAT THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, 1976 RESOLUTION (BELOW) DEMANDS THAT "CREATION" BE TAUGHT IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS AS WELL.

IF YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH OUR POSITION, PLEASE SEND US AN
E-MAIL. YOUR OPINIONS AND COMMENTS ARE GREATLY APPRECIATED.

Henry Johnson and Joe Taylor, Omniology.com 22 Comments [7/13/2016 3:10:18 AM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: Arceus

Quote# 120490




(Ironically enough, the "printable copy" is part of the bottom image and thus cannot be printed out)

Henry Johnson and Joe Taylor, Omniology.com 23 Comments [7/13/2016 3:10:05 AM]
Fundie Index: 15
Submitted By: Arceus

Quote# 120489

The correct answer concerning the evidence for God is precisely the same as it is for practically everything else in the historical record, which is to say the copious documentary evidence available. We can no more reasonably doubt the existence of God than we can doubt the existence of Alexander the Great, Abraham Lincoln, or any other human being who existed before the invention of audio and video recording and for whom there are physical artifacts that support the documentary evidence.

Can skeptics produce plausible explanations for why so much false documentary evidence of God exists if He does not? Sure. Just as I can plausibly explain that the myth of George Washington was invented in order to provide Americans with founding Romulus-style figure of reverence in order to compensate for their lack of kings and common history. I mean, there were no cherry trees in Virginia. And isn't it ludicrous to take literally the myth of Washington's rjection of the proffered crown when the story is a patently a straightforward imitation of the Roman dictator Cincinnatus.

Vox Day, Vox Popoli 23 Comments [7/13/2016 3:09:36 AM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: David

Quote# 120488

In the aftermath of the Dallas police shooting, it is understandable that many Americans are shocked, scared, and upset. The post-Civil Rights Act America has not turned out to be the society they thought it was, indeed, it is becoming increasingly obvious that those terrible racist Southern segregationists were correct all along.

Vox Day, Vox Popoli 22 Comments [7/13/2016 3:09:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 21
Submitted By: David

Quote# 120487

Compassionate Fascism

Not long ago, a young man was assaulted* for carrying the banner of a white nationalist group and daring to retort when he was set upon and interrogated by members of a far-left militant organization known as BAMN (By Any Means Necessary). The video [03:53 is where it gets interesting/ 04:05 is where we get a front row seat to the limp wrist of the modern leftist] is silly and sad at the same time. It contains a number of lessons for the observant person. If you are of an unpopular ideology, never travel alone. If you are confronted by antithetical opposition, to argue is to waste breath and time. You cannot appeal to the State for protection, but you can beg them for rescue. Do not bring words to a fist fight.

There are always many lessons to be had from the raw footage of the foot soldiers of opposed ideologies interacting with each other, but watching it can give you anxiety as well as putting blinders on your mind’s eye. Historical forces become bound up in an eternally looping gif. Perspective gets lost and Activism starts to make sense. Standing up and speaking out become more and more attractive. This is how the Action Left organize and motivate their conscripts. Think Global/Act Local is a code for using general ideation and tautological thinking to justify heinous, ignorant, and impulsive acts. In the clip, the camera man is following the WN person, asking bait questions and generally drawing attention. Soon a squad of antifa activists is in range. Before the very eyes of the Local Authority, the Activists physically engage the lone man. The most important part is when Citizen Felarca attempts to pummel the man with her fun-size fists. The determination on her face, the belief in her heart, and the weakness of her body are all potent symbols of the leadership of the Modern Left. Of course, she is surrounded by white males, and once their Leader has opened the door, they are more than happy to engage. To their credit, the police intervene quite quickly, but as a some of us here at Meanders have been to more than a few protests, we can state with absolute certainty that the cops were being very nice to the antifa lads. One can only imagine how vigorously the officers would Protect the Peace if Citizen Felarca found herself surrounded by angry fascists.
Herein lies the issue: behind the ballistic helmet and body armor stands a man with democratic values. He is not just an Enforcer, he is a Judge, a Juror, a Voter, and many other things beside. Each of those different people must choose to act and how. His personal life will undoubtedly bleed into his professional demeanor. Maybe his girlfriend is black. Maybe his colleagues are mixed. Whatever the case, few words inspire pure, unadulterated hatred like fascist. To be NRx is to be a fascist of some strain. You can hide it with terms like monarchist or conservative, but the fact remains that we believe, fundamentally, that societies are best governed by a small, ultra powerful elite that is bound to safety and order by strict, defining principles. The core principle must be the abhorrence and elimination of violence in any form. Violent action must be solely controlled and administered by the State. This State must do all it can to maintain peace and prosperity. For the most part, this means staying out of local civil affairs. But sometimes, force is required to maintain the status quo.
The history of fascism is littered with mistakes and dead ends. It is not easy for a lay person to come up with examples of productive fascism thanks to the re-education and indoctrination of the cohorts of the Cathedral. But they are there. The city state of Singapore is the best example i have found. The power structure there embodies everything that the NRx canon seeks to create. Let us examine that case. This is a tiny city-state surrounded by larger entities that could at any moment invade and conquer. They must also confront a horde of immigrants seeking asylum and prosperity. With strict adherence to regulations, brutal enforcement to the rule of law, and reality based tactics, this oasis of order continues to increase its economic and social standing. At the same time, they stolidly grow their force capabilities, walking a fine line between inaction and Taiwanese Fortress Mentality. They only accomplish this through the focus of power in a very small group of well educated, well informed decision makes, centered around an absolute ruler.
This is Compassionate Fascism. The strict adherence to the Rule of Law is not a subterfuge for consolidation of power, rather a concerted effort to maintain an ideal equilibrium. Lee Kuan Yew is an interesting case study in the value of dictatorship. A strong fascist government requires an number of ingredients, and one is a dispassionate, intelligent, and conscientious leader. Another is an inviolable canon coexisting with a capability of self review. The final piece (of the core) is the capability to exercise extreme violence towards any and all actors that pose an existential threat to peace and stability (the combination of these two being the prerequisite for prosperity). As we have stated before, and others as well, the enemy of society is primarily uncontrolled violence. Of all of the other ailments of society and civilization, the potential for unfettered violence stands head and shoulders above all other threats. Demotist ideology mitigates mass violence by perpetrating lies about common cause, universal brotherhood, and social justice. This strategy is falling apart. In the USA, we stand at the precipice of violent upheaval. One need look no further than the self proclaimed pacifists of the Left using violence and the threat thereof to intimidate the proponents of their opposition in the current election. On the one hand, they decry the Bush Regime for using violence to respond to threats to ideology, then with the other they strike down with violence of word or deed any dissent. They time and again repeat the accusation that Trump is a new Hitler. For their strategy to work, they must portray the opposition as the ultimate evil. This is the inherent weakness of confederated union when the constituents have very little in common. When they run out of universal enemies, they will descend into in fighting and fratricide. This is the inevitable conclusion of any Demotist endeavor.
If we wish to have a peaceful and prosperous future, we have no course but dictatorship and enforced order. The real question is do we wish to have a dictator that plays at populism whilst using cronyism to further the agenda of the leadership class for personal gain, or do we give power to a ruling elite bound by strictures established from the near perfection of computational analysis and a publicly accessible Board of Review?
*we here at Meanders hate using that term for low level physicality, but given the propensity of the left to use and abuse the legal system for their own ends, we have no choice but to address it as such. it is a sad state of affairs for any real man in this day and age to have to, with a straight face, say he was assaulted some bird-boned Marxist who couldn’t hold either hammer or sickle outstretched for more than a few seconds.

Meanders Toward The Right, tumblr 17 Comments [7/13/2016 3:09:10 AM]
Fundie Index: 16
Submitted By: Dr. Killjoy

Quote# 120486

The Bible no where talks about "rights", "liberty" and "equality" for humans beings. This is because such doctrines are earthly, worldly, and demonic. They are doctrines of demons! If you want to argue with me on this, you may as well argue with the Bible, the Word of God, because with godly discernment, one can see that humans do not deserve anything at all, except for God's Holy Perfect Wrath. Therefore, no one has "rights' at all. None of us have any "rights".

To Hell with your rights! If you want to cling onto your so-called "rights" which you do not have in any way in the first place, you will burn in Hell with your vile, abominable filthy "rights". It is precisely because you believe in your "rights" that you will burn in Hell.

Liberty is only found in Christ, true liberty which is liberty from the bondage of sin. Liberty is not found in earthly things, like opportunities to be 'equal' to others in terms of obtaining earthly, material things, earthly basic needs, being well-looked after by other fallible human beings, and respect, or even justice being done on one's behalf. You think you have your liberty because you think that you have no Moral Law of God to live by. Such is the vile, arrogance of humanity!

To Hell with your liberty! You will have no liberty in Hell, but your so-called "liberty" which you believe in which will take to Hell with you. It is precisely because you believe in your "liberty" that you will burn in Hell.

Anti Mammon and Usury Conquerors , Fighting the Four Evils 17 Comments [7/13/2016 3:08:59 AM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: Uncle Bullhorn

Quote# 120485

The Fear That 'Love And Understanding Will Never Win' is justified as long as we have people like Barack Hussein Obama and Melanie Hobsen running around the nation targeting white communities with the racist statement - -there is not enough diversity here. (NPR has pulled this comment down millions of times). People who grew up together have a right to sustain both tradition and civility without fear of gun shot wounds to the head and heart or bricks thrown their windows and looting. The President wouldn't know anything about having bricks thrown through living room windows onto a defenseless child -- I was that child -- straight As in school -- white -- and whomever did it had to drive miles to the outskirts of Detroit to find our home. Apparently black affirmative action in Detroit included finding the children who worked the hardest and excelled and trying to kill them. Fifty years later you've got a negro attorney at the Univerisity of Michigan arranging for black people (alumni) to do the same thing -- only she threatens white police officers with termination of their employment contracts if they don't do her bidding. She's younger than POTUS and has never done anything remotely world class; i know this because DOJ cut a deal with her office so they could avoid indictment. What we envisioned after the "67" riots was something like this Boblo Boat commericial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

But that's not good enough for you people. 45 years later -- 2010 --you run into our neighborhoods, trash our vehicles (the guy who ran a knife over my vehicle is Mulatto - just like the President -- like a bull invited into a china shop -- he couldn't help but destroy everything in sight. I had to call police to remove him. You invite people from India to live in our country -- let's see -- one of them pretends to be a physician and mutilated me. I repeat this here because I was informed by key executives around the nation they receive direct threats from the Secretary of Labor, and more to make sure I am not employed. Is this reverse discrimination; NO! You're covering up massive mental inadequacy through intellectual property theft worth more than the combined earnings of big pharma.
POTUS says "Change has been to slow." Does he mean he hasn't killed and robbed enough white people yet through (affordable health care -- no consent human subjects testing/torture) or data collection through web crawling and other economic espionage activities. POTUS made that statement from Poland. Poland used to be Lithuania. It used to be Austria. It used to be Germany. I don't want him in the country of my great, great ancestors. He dances on their graves. Take a look at the Boblo boat commericial. it was made three years after the 67 riots. Change is fine in social settings. But you do not have the right to break up our traditions -- of clean, quiet, environmentally beautiful forests and neighborhoods because your foreign invitees don't feel safe. All you've done is trash our nation. That black man who shot the white officers in Dallas lost his life because the white officers in Minnesota, New Orleans, and most certainly and indesputably the Ann Arbor Campus of the University of Michigan, the Washtenaw County Sherriff and former Chief of Police of Ann Arbor -- are taking they orders from a very black women -- to violate all know state and federal laws. Apparently it is "inappropriate conduct" to protest massive internal bleeding and cancer-causing implants eroding all major organs. That will get the very black attorney ordering the white DPS Chief to order a black rookie (Woods) to point a gun at your head and look up your skirt.
We understand each other just fine now. I, like many have had to suspend my belief in anything JFK or MLK intended -- because the reality is -- we've got a racist president. Forests grow like trees because that's where their seeds drop. If a tree falls in the forest -- every animal and insect hears it. And if you can't see the forest through the trees -- it does not give you the right to chop down our trees because there is not enough diversity here. God and nature got it right.

dntWn6, NPR 8 Comments [7/13/2016 3:08:39 AM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 120483

It is true that the prohibition of same sex marriage would be inequality, if we assume that homosexuals who say they would never be attracted to someone of the opposite sex, know themselves fully and are correct (some do experience a change whereby this can happen).
However, even if it is inequality, and I peronally think we shouldn't assume they can never love someone if the opposite sex, there are people who for legal reasons have to accept inequality of marriage. So the question is, why should we propose that homosexuals be prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex - is there good reason to deny this to them as we would do with an already married person, for example?
An already married person would be acting unjustly towards his or her spouse and children if they married another person, unless their spouse had been unfaithful.
I can only speak from personal experience. Others may have had a similar experience, and so may understand what my point is.
I once fell in love with someone who I found out was a lesbian. Basically, there was a sense of injustice that she would love a female rather than me. I felt that I had been wronged. The feeling was different from times when a girl I had been attracted to had loved another guy. In thise instances, the feeling was disappointment but not that I had been wronged.
If you asked me to articulate why I felt it was an injustice, I would have to work through the reason. But because of that experience, I believe that it is not right to allow people to marry someone of the same sex.
Maybe this is why God says that homosexual relationships should be avoided. He made marriage for opposite sex couples - I dont agree that there is any room for interpretation of the Bible otherwise

Spud, Religion and Ethics 17 Comments [7/12/2016 7:20:34 PM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: Nearly Sane

Quote# 120478

The Culture War has submerged America in untold aberrations:


• We see a Supreme Court that imposes same-sex “marriage” on all 50 states while cynically acknowledging the centrality of marriage to society, the nation, and throughout history.[4]

• We see a president that presides over the demise of America’s political, economic, and military leadership around the world while promising that “America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe.” We see him invoke God’s blessings on the nation while simultaneously shutting down all practical expression of faith in God in the American workplace and public life and severely penalizing those who do not comply.[5]

• We see numerous Catholic campuses that honor notoriously pro-abortion politicians, foster internships at Planned Parenthood, promote the homosexual agenda, and surrender to the transgender ideology, all the while claiming to be truly Catholic and faithful to God’s law, the vision of their founders, and the perennial moral teachings of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

• And it pains us to say it, but we see a pope who rails against the West’s free market economy, private property, and free enterprise; who speaks up loudly and often for “economic justice,” and the “right” of people to migrate to the U.S., while having nothing but praise for a dictator like Raul Castro who helped his brother Fidel enslave the Cuban people.


These are all expressions of what Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) called “the dictatorship of relativism,”[6] the abandonment of the principle of non-contradiction, which stipulates that, “a thing cannot be and not be at the same time.”
By embracing a false Conservatism, we become the caboose on the Liberal Train to moral anarchy
By embracing a false Conservatism, we become the caboose on the Liberal Train to moral anarchy.


Will Conservatives Also Abandon the Principle of Non-Contradiction?
To consider LGBT activists as “conservatives” is no less illogical. It is an oxymoron, sheer moral relativism, because a true conservative cannot be both liberal and conservative at the same time. One excludes the other.


For decades now, conservatives have rightly denounced the judicial activism of so many of our court decisions. Like the late Justice Antonin Scalia, we have opposed a “living Constitution” theory that changes the supreme law of the land according to the whims of liberal magistrates. But are we conservatives any better than these liberal judges when we throw away principle and embrace a “living” and evolving conservatism? When we embrace a false and morphing conservatism, we turn the movement into nothing but the caboose on the liberal train headed to the station of complete moral anarchy.

The American TFP, Tradition, Family and Property 13 Comments [7/12/2016 7:18:06 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: TimeToTurn

Quote# 120477

Muslims have the highest population on Eath and the highest fertility rate. They also have the haighest welfare recipient percentages and the highest unemployment rate percentages in UE, UK and USA. They don't assimilate into societies but impose their Sharia Law onto infidels. They occasionally turned terrorists and killed innocent people.
So, I don't blame Brits for wanting Brexit.
A petition to undo 4 million
A counter petition 4+ million
Just like the Brexit vote results, majority wins.
It's called democracy.

greenpeaceholy, NPR 10 Comments [7/12/2016 7:17:55 PM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 120476

[Mangum was arraigned earlier today on charges of recklessly infecting another person with HIV. He's in a world of trouble, to say the least. In Missouri, knowingly exposing someone to HIV without the other's consent can carry up to 15 years in prison, and infecting someone can send you to prison for life. I hope they throw the library at this guy. There's really no such thing as too heavy-handed a sentence for something this outrageous.]

Really?

Do you know much about the laws criminalizing nondisclosure of one's serostatus? They usually don't require that a victim be infected before criminal liability attaches. And with many of them, the fact that you have an undetectable viral load (and are therefore highly unlikely to infect anyone) and that you used a condom are no defense. So you can be on meds with a fully suppressed viral load and use a condom and not infect your "victim," and still go to jail. Not to mention that the laws single out HIV for special punishment.

Laws like these are one of the reasons many people who may have been exposed to HIV don't get tested. They're a public health disaster. No one should be cheering a prosecution under such draconian legislation.

And by the way, people who are HIV-negative bear a little responsibility in this too. No one should simply take a person's word that he's uninfected. A large percentage of people with HIV are unaware of their infection (in part because laws like this are a powerful disincentive to testing). This is particularly true among us gay men, and unless he's been living under a rock since the 1980s, every gay man has heard the message that you have to treat every sex partner as positive.

[...]

FFS, these are gay men we're talking about. Something like 20% of us are positive. If you decide to have unprotected sex with someone whose serostatus you have not verified through testing, then you are simply assuming the risk of infection. Clearly, Magnum's "victims" weren't all that concerned about it.

FogCityJohn, Daily Kos 7 Comments [7/12/2016 7:16:50 PM]
Fundie Index: 10

Quote# 120475

[My hope is that folks on the left will stop with blanket demonization of the law enforcement work force as terrorists and murderers. It will back fire. It will help get Trump elected. It will inflame the situation — just as it did when they were called pigs.

I also would like to point out that we are supposed to be the good folks — held to a higher standard.]

The police need to stop killing us. Who cares about their feelings when the create dead bodies & create more people to hate them?

I forgot, only blue lives matter.

[You know, every time a right winger goes off on a shooting spree, we place a lot of blame on those on the right who engage in hateful rhetoric, saying they have “blood on their hands.”

Which makes me wonder, does this killing cause you to reconsider your “Evil white people/evil cops/evil pigs/fu*ck the police” schtick around here?]

Nope. The former slave patrols, the current police keep creating dead black people. Many white people think that's ok. It's evil & a lot of white people are ok with killing us. Why do people think it was ok to kill Tamir Rice? He wasn't a human being to them. He was.

I don't have a national voice. I'm one little person crying out.

We’ve been mistreated & worse for 400 years. We ask nicely & nothing happens. If we cause too much trouble we get exterminated. Now it's one at a time lynchings done as state sponsored terrorism.

Everyone wants to go home at night, but the police who kill us don't care. They get paid vacations, keep their jobs, get kill a negro bonuses, don't get prosecuted or convicted. What do their victims get? Some blood money & trolled.

RWMSM continues the narrative of scary non-compliant blacks who deserve our deaths. They have an outsized voice & are winning the killing black people is a heroic thing, another 400 yo piece of propaganda. 21st century policing looks like slave patrols to me.

I am sad for families who's loved ones don't come home. Why does that sympathy for dead cops exclude my people?

You don't care. To you the police are right & their victims are undeserving of compassion & due process.

Im tapped out, tired. I have no more empathy & sympathy left.

The police & black people would do better if they would stop killing us. Why don't the police say they’re sorry for killing us? Nope, they commence on a program of slander & lies to justify their victims death. Not a way to make friends with their victims.

Why is police murder legal? It's a trick question, becuase they have permission & their victims have NO due process. How can the state prosecute itself? It does a terrible job becuase the state is on the police’s side.

I can manage to not call the police evil for a couple of days, but their culture is the big problem.

I don't know any black radio person who does the same inflammatory crap that the evil RW does. The majority will shut them down. People don't like our advocates, but we’re not the majority & being nice respectable citizens still doesn't help keep us alive or safe. Someone has to be on OUR side.

Who's on our side? BLM is effective becuase the RW hate them. The problem is that someone does not want us to stand up for ourselves & our rights.

I want the police to stop killing us.

a2nite, Daily Kos 15 Comments [7/12/2016 7:15:21 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 120474

Slutiness is a way women take revenge on average looking men

You see, back in the day women were forced to marry men they weren't attracted to in order to survive. Nowadays women are taking revenge on men they're not attracted to by being sluts. When women go outside showing every inch of skin except the vulva, they're saying "look, I have all of this and you can't touch it" . It's a form of torture. Then when a man loses it and rapes them they start condemning all men and furthering their power.

What do you think about this theory?

Anonymous Coward, Godlike Productions 35 Comments [7/12/2016 7:14:50 PM]
Fundie Index: 18

Quote# 120469

I guarantee you ladies that if you go to ANY "professional" doctor (i.e., a psychiatrist) for your inability to clean your house... you'll never be diagnosed with LAZINESS. Modern doctors are trained to put you on some type of drug, bill you and then give you another appointment... next! We'll I'm telling you that many of you are just plain lazy and need to start helping your husband. I realize that some women have legitimate physical/mental conditions that hinder their ability to function properly, but I believe that far too often the medical profession makes excuses for a person's lack of character. No doctor will ever tell you that you lack character. You'll instead be diagnosed with depression, hormone imbalance, regressive anger, post-traumatic stress, anything but the truth. You need to do some soul-searching if you're husband is often getting upset with you. Are you doing your job in the marriage? What is the root of your problem? Is it really him? Many of the women ending up in psychiatrist's offices are there because they refuse to accept their role in life as a "help meet" (Genesis 2:18). A "help meet" lives to please her husband, and thus pleases God.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Savior 33 Comments [7/12/2016 3:35:51 AM]
Fundie Index: 18

Quote# 120467

The Left race baits for votes in league with the liberal media that is happy to gin up conflict for ratings and to help their party.

Then we get articles from the media on how the blood is not on their hands, nor on the hands of their party, despite their active work motivating events like this.

If someone on the Right MENTIONS something, they rail on how it is a "dog whistle" for violence - but they never apply that standard to themselves.

oakspar77777, NPR 13 Comments [7/12/2016 3:34:42 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 120466

The SCOTUS recently gave their nod of approval for Affirmative action

which discriminates based on skin color with the absurd notion that white people need to pay for historical grievances


the media's anti white rhetoric also did this

of which the staff of NPR is guilty of to the highest order

they can look at themselves as the source of this tragedy


this shooting in Dallas should not have surprised anyone

seasonya, NPR 10 Comments [7/12/2016 3:34:08 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 120465

Liberals have met their Waterloo.

''It has proved impossible to do something and its opposite simultaneously''.

Richard Fernandez, The BELMONT CLUB. Jul.08,2016. ''Denial Dies In Dallas''.

Yet this is what liberals attempt.

Withdraw police [ Ferguson and Baltimore ].

Protect the community [ Dallas and Chicago ].

Demand transgender bathrooms

Guarantee without an iota of evidence that sexual harassment and even worse will not occur as a result of states embracing this policy.

Wide open borders and sanctuary cities [ chiseled in stone by Democrats in Wednesdays vote in the Senate ].

Guarantee that said borders and America are safe from terrorist incursion.

''Affordable'' healthcare.

Healthcare more expensive than anyone in the working and middle class can afford....

ISIS in Libya.

Regime ''change'' in Libya. [ courtesy of the current Democratic candidate for president ].

All Lives Matter.

Black Lives Matter.

Cops are racist killers.

We need police to protect us while we work to disarm this nation.

Christians are a threat.

Islam is our friend.

Global warming is the worlds number one problem.

SUBARUs are still run by internal combustion engines...

''When you come to a fork in the road, take it''........

Yogi Berra.

Orson Holmes, NPR 15 Comments [7/12/2016 3:33:02 AM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 120463

The 60's were a time of change with Pope John XXIII calling the Second Vatican Council in order to modernize the Church. This had a devastating effect on Catholic Quebec. The leftist uprising of May 68 in France and the rise of the New Left in America also contributed to the destruction of the traditionalist way of life of French Canadians. Quebec went through its own Quiet Revolution, a revolution that changed our very nature. Today what is remembered is that most of our institutions (schools, hospitals, social services) were transferred from the Church to the government. If this secularization has had enormous effects on our society, the deepest change brought about by the Quiet Revolution was a redefining of our identity. The term French Canadian, an exclusive ethnic term, was transformed to Quebecois, an inclusive term encompassing anyone living in the territory of Quebec. While pre-60's nationalism was ethnic, religious and linguistic, with the promotion of strong links with outside of Quebec French Canadians, the neo-nationalism of the Quiet Revolution had become linguistic, civic and provincialist.

This neo-nationalism has become the norm nowadays, although ethnic nationalism is still very present, although only implicitly. While the media has adopted political correctness as its credo, some mainstream columnists like Mathieu Bock-Côté and Gilles Proulx openly advocate the defense of our ethnic identity and interests, something that is yet to be seen in the rest of Canada. In Quebec, multiculturalism is universally despised and is seen as a Canadian way to crush our people. The opposition to multiculturalism is so great that the Liberal government and pseudo-intellectuals Charles Taylor and Gérard Bouchard decided to invent our own form of diversity à la québécoise; interculturalism. Needless to say that interculturalism is an even worse model of society than multiculturalism, as it does not even allow our culture to exist as it is, but forces it to change and adapt to new immigrants.

Today a majority of Quebecers openly reject Islam. The announcement of the Liberal government about increased levels of immigration recently caused a public outcry. Pierre-Karl Péladeau, a charismatic leader who is closer to traditional nationalism than neo-nationalism, could awaken Quebec's underlying ethnic nationalism, but it is yet to be seen. Like in the rest of North America and Western Europe, political correctness is still very powerful and makes many adopt positions that clash with their own self-interests.

Remy Tremblay, Eurocanadian 9 Comments [7/12/2016 3:32:37 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 120462

The historians of these volumes want to have it both ways: an image of a European Canada that "decimated" the Natives through diseases, and an image of "First Nations" as co-partners in the creation of Canada's parliamentary institutions, legal system, schools and universities, churches, and modern economy. They want students to believe that the Natives were the "first peoples," followed by the French and English, as the next two "major groups," followed by the arrival of "non-British and non-French immigrants," as a fourth major group. This fourth group is portrayed as a multiracial lot, even though the statistics contradict any such picture.

The facts about the ethnic composition of immigrants, which this text cannot hide altogether, show that, at the time of Confederation, the English constituted about 60 percent of the population, the French 32 percent, and the remaining "non-British and non-French immigrants" about 8 percent. The non-British and non-French were all whites from Europe and the United States.

Ricardo Duchesne, Eurocanadian 7 Comments [7/12/2016 3:32:31 AM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 120461

In complete subservience to the mandated idea that Canada must be identified as an immigrant nation of "diverse peoples", Bumsted interprets immigration between 1815 and 1867 as an experience that reinforced the diversification of Canada. He argues that the immigrants who came from the British Isles did not come from a "homogeneous anglophone group of people". Britain was a nation of diverse dialects, religions, and historic minorities, and this was manifested in the people who emigrated from the Isles to Canada.

Through this period of immigration, he observes, there was a strong Irish presence, ranging from 30 to 70 per cent of the total number of arrivals, many speaking "the Irish tongue", and, after the mid-1840s, "huge numbers of Catholics" were included among these Irish immigrants. There were also Scottish immigrants, amounting to 10-15 percent of the total throughout this period, almost all of them speaking Gaelic as a first language. Immigrants also originated from other "dialects and linguistic variants" and "distinctive regions" within England proper and "distinctive peoples in Wales" (p. 134).

Bumsted wants to imprint upon students the idea that this internal-English diversity was in line with the diversity Canada is currently experiencing, when peoples of very different races, totally different religions, and cultures are arriving in the millions. But one has to wonder if he believes, then, that all European nations, not just Canada, were uniquely diverse from the beginning insofar as they were not "homogeneous" but were populated by people with different dialects, regional customs and folkways, which was surely the case before the standardization of national languages and the full integration of regions through modern communications?

Take France, for example, late into the 1800s, regional dialects such as Breton, Gascon, Basque, Catalan, Flemish, Alsatian, and Corsican, prevailed across the nation, notwithstanding France's reputation as a nation centralized since the absolutist days of Louis XIV or the French Revolution. Different folkways, heroes, provincial loyalties superseded any notion of a homogeneous nation before 1900. Are we to conclude that France was also uniquely multicultural (and immigrant) from its origins?

Bumsted does not ponder over these questions. All academics are for diversity, and diversity academics avoid any question that threatens their mirages. The goal is to push the claim that Canada's was "uniquely diverse" from "its origins" in order to trick white students into accepting their eventual dispossession.

Yet the rationale underlying Bumsted's argument about England's inherent diversity is now standard fare among the promoters of immigration in both the settlers nations of America and Australia and the nations of Europe at large. Deceptive academics and politicians are exploiting the presence of different dialects, ethnic minorities, and different Christian denominations in the past to push onto unsuspecting students the notion that these nations have always been diversely shaped by migratory waves of peoples from all over the world. The sudden arrival of millions of Muslims and Africans to England, France, Italy, Sweden...is nothing to be alarmed about, so they tell naive white girls; it is consistent with the ethnic histories of these nations.

Ricardo Duchesne, Eurocanadian 7 Comments [7/12/2016 3:12:25 AM]
Fundie Index: 0

Quote# 120459

"Scientism” is the belief that all we need to solve the world’s problems is – you guessed it – science. People sometimes use the phrase “rational thinking”, but it amounts to the same thing. If only people would drop religion and all their other prejudices, we could use logic to fix everything.

Last week, US astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson offered up the perfect example of scientism when he proposed the country of Rationalia, in which “all policy shall be based on the weight of evidence”.

Tyson is a very smart man, but this is not a smart idea. It is even, we might say, unreasonable and without sufficient evidence. Of course, imagining a society in which everyone behaves logically sounds appealing. But employing logic to consider the concept reveals that there could be no such thing.

There has always been a hope, especially as elites became less religious, that science would do more than simply provide a means for learning about the world around us. Science should also teach us how to live, pointing us towards the salvation that religion once promised. You can see this in any of the secular utopianisms of the 20th century, whether it’s the Third Reich, scientific Marxism, or the “modernisation thesis” of Western capitalism.

...

First, experts usually don’t know nearly as much as they think they do. They often get it wrong, thanks to their inherently irrational brains that – through overconfidence, bubbles of like-minded thinkers, or just wanting to believe their vision of the world can be true – mislead us and misinterpret information.

Rationality is subjective. All humans experience such biases; the real problem is when we forget that scientists and experts are human too, and approach evidence and reasoned deliberation with the same prior commitments and unspoken assumptions as anyone else. Scientists: they’re just like us.

And second, science has no business telling people how to live. It’s striking how easily we forget the evil that following “science” can do. So many times throughout history, humans have thought they were behaving in logical and rational ways, only to realise that such acts have yielded morally heinous policies that were only enacted because reasonable people were swayed by “evidence”.

Phrenology – the determination of someone’s character through the shape and size of their cranium – was cutting-edge science. (Unsurprisingly, the upper class had great head ratios.) Eugenics was science, as was social Darwinism and the worst justifications of the Soviet and Nazi regimes.

Scientific racism was data-driven too, and incredibly well-respected. Scientists in the 19th century felt quite justified in claiming that “the weight of evidence” supported African slavery, white supremacy and the concerted effort to limit the reproduction of the “lesser” races.

It wasn’t so long ago that psychiatrists considered homosexuality unhealthy and abhorrent. There is at least one prominent, eminently rational psychiatrist who hasn’t come around on transgenders. And many scientists decided that women were biologically incapable of the same kind of rationality you find in men, a scientific sexism reborn in contemporary evolutionary psychology.

...

In fact, creationism has a lot more in common with scientism than people such as Tyson or Richard Dawkins would ever admit. Like Tyson, creationists begin with certain prior commitments (“evolution cannot be true”, for example, substitutes for “science cannot be wrong”) and build an impressively consistent argument upon them. Just about everyone is guilty of some form of “motivated reasoning”: we begin with certain priors, and then find a way to get the evidence to do what we want.

The past mistakes of science should make us sceptical that it could be used to build a utopia. But, the scientists might say, science is most important for its ability to self-correct. Psychiatry has come around on homosexuality, for example. This may be true, yet it presents the precise reason why attempting to act only accounting for the “weight of evidence” is so flawed.

Jeffrey Guhin, New Scientist 34 Comments [7/11/2016 4:23:21 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Gabriel LaVedier

Quote# 120458

Does Your Bible Have Doubting Footnotes?

Issue Date: July/August 2016
Most people don’t pay much attention to the notes in their Bible. But they were put there to be helpful, so, what do you think when you read this in your Bible:

(New International Version 1984)

[The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.]

Or this:

(New King James Greek-English Interlinear)

[(16:9-20) NU brackets vv. 9-20 as not original.]

Or this:

(New King James Version)

[16:20 Vv. 9-20 are bracketed in NU as not original. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other mss. of Mark contain them.]

So what are we supposed to think? The first one is pretty simple: Mark 16:9-20 is not reliable. The second and third ones are less direct; filled with unintelligible gibberish that only the highly initiated can decipher.

If we common folk get curious, what could we learn? First, I want to know —who says? Who is raising this doubt about this important passage that tells me about Christ being raised from the dead and His ascension? This even chips away at the Great Commission!

You say: “The Scholars!” Well, it was “scholars” who gave us the “theory” of evolution. And are they really being helpful here? This is my BIBLE! My eternal destiny depends on this book. And the scholars don’t know if these verses belong in it!? So, what else do they want me to doubt?

It gets worse. Author David W. Daniels says that when you research deeper into these scholars’ thinking, they claim that Mark was the first gospel written (about 80 AD, years after Mark was dead!) and these verses were probably added later by the “church.” Furthermore, the other three gospels were written even later, by who-knows-who, and based on Mark, so maybe they did not originally have anything about the resurrection and ascension, either. Luke 24:51 contains the only reference to the ascension of Christ in the Gospels, and it’s missing from Sinaiticus, as well!

See where this goes? All behind an “innocent” little footnote. But it gets even worse. The third example mentions the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. Sinaiticus is ¾ of a Bible written in Greek that was “discovered” in the mid-1800s. Vaticanus was held by the Vatican, seen by almost no one, until after Sinaticus was published. Again, the “scholars” decided, on dubious evidence, that they were really old, like around 300 AD.

Well, modern technology has given us a whole new look. Please notice that the third example states that “nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain this.” Would you believe all 618 other Greek manuscripts? Why would TWO out-vote 618? The clue is in the first example: “the two most reliable early manuscripts.” The “scholars” again decided that these two are more reliable, simply because they are “early.” The assumption is that the closer you get to the “original autographs” that the apostles wrote, the more accurate. (Please remember that they believe the gospels were not written by the apostles, but someone later after 80 AD.)

Would you believe that almost no one was able to see the whole Sinaiticus until about 7 years ago? Pieces available were scattered from England to Russia. But now someone combined it all on the internet. And what Daniels has discovered looks very suspicions —but complicated. He has laid out a series of YouTube videos that raises serious evidence against the assumed age of both manuscripts. But, if they are not “oldest,” can they still be the “best?” No, because their being “reliable” depends on the fact they are so close to the “originals.”

But when Daniels looks at “best,” he learns that there are thousands of other discrepancies like the one in Mark 16. One-fourth of the books are missing from the Sinaiticus and both include the fairy tales called the Apocrypha, used by the Vatican to support some of its pagan doctrines.

This short article cannot cover the details of this monstrous plot against your Bible like Daniels has done in his Vlogs. As he has peeled back the layers, he has shared his research journey on YouTube. His earlier books, Look What’s Missing and Why They Changed the Bible were the result of his early findings. Visit David's Vlog page to see the videos.

Chick Publications, Chick.com 22 Comments [7/11/2016 4:22:57 PM]
Fundie Index: 15

Quote# 120456

Are You an Extremist?

Issue Date: July/August 2016
“The decades old trend, that Christianity is irrelevant, is increasingly giving way to the notion that Christianity is bad for society,” declares the Christian pollster Barna Group.

As suicide bombers target airports and subways, “religious extremism” is increasingly blamed. Governments struggle to maintain a balance of freedom for all beliefs, but it is obvious to the public that religious belief is the motivation behind the jihadists. After the Brussels bombing the pope asked for prayer for the terrorists who were “taken in by cruel fundamentalism.” Islam is okay, it’s just those “extreme fundamentalists.”

Unfortunately, as the general public becomes more non-religious, Bible believers get painted with the same brush. There is rising concern about strange people who go to church instead of brunch on Sunday, who read an old book of legends about a mythical being who rose from the dead, and who question evolution. The last straw is when these weirdos engage in “proselyting,” and try to convert your children. These “extremists” need to be watched.

Satan has always tried to push the gospel into the margins. As usual, the change in the meanings of words is a tip-off to where it is going. Over the past 50 years, “fundamentalist” has gone from someone who is admired for holding fast to the fundamental doctrines of scripture, to synonymous with Muslim “extremists” who act out the “fundamental” doctrines of the Qur’an.

Adding to the confusion is the pope’s statement that Christians and Muslims both worship the same God. This lie is also held by many western government leaders. Even former President George W. Bush stated this right after 9/11.

But when the heart is unredeemed, liberty becomes freedom to sin. Then, Satan’s false religions become tools for death and destruction —his ultimate goal. Then Satan can sell the idea that all religions are bad, including biblical Christianity.

Increasingly, we who were known as strange “fundamentalists,” are lumped together with more suspicious “extremists” on the way to becoming feared “radicals.” What was once mainstream biblical views on hell, sodomy, and marriage are now considered antiquated Neanderthal concepts.

So, what’s a soul winner to do? The Great Commission doesn’t give us room to run and hide. More and more we are ambassadors from a foreign Kingdom, on assignment to this alien world that is under Satan’s heel. We must keep up our witness of the joys and benefits of our Kingdom —His love and sacrifice for lost sinners.

When we see ourselves as the sower in the parable, we know that not all gospel seed will sprout. We must spread generously, however, for there to be a maximum harvest. In the hustle and bustle of living, there is rarely time for discussion about the Kingdom. But it only takes a few seconds to hand someone a tract containing the seed of the gospel. When we do, then the Spirit has something to water, and God gives the increase.

Satan’s “extremists” bring death and destruction. We must be winsome “extremists” graciously inviting the bewildered to consider our Kingdom and our King whose name is true Love.

But we are under the same instruction as Ezekiel in chapter 3:18. We will be held accountable if we neglect to warn the sinner.

Chick Publications, Chick.com 14 Comments [7/11/2016 4:22:27 PM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 120455

Why Mutilate the Body? It's About the Soul!

The current dust-up over forcing ladies to accept men in their restrooms and showers is causing a lot of rethinking. This, in addition to recent stories of young children receiving hormone treatments to change their gender.

Trevin Wax asks a number of questions in an article on The Gospel Coalition website entitled "7 Troubling Questions About Transgender Theories." One question illustrates Satan’s central strategy to lock in the people caught in this bondage.

Wax’s question number 3: "When a person feels a disjunction between one's sex at birth and one's gender identity, why is the only course of action to bring the body into closer conformity with the person's psychological state, rather than vice versa?" In other words, why is it necessary to alter the features of the body (by hormones or surgical mutilation), instead of the beliefs of the soul?

Wax is referring to the practice of hormone therapy and surgical sex change rather than dealing with what is clinically known a “gender dysphoria.” In fact, several states have been pressured to outlaw any attempt by professional therapists to help troubled children recover from this dysphoria (confusion).

Satan knows where his weakness is in this debate and is attempting to close the door to lock these slaves into this destructive life style. By convincing governments to pass laws against professional counseling, this is only one step away from outlawing witnessing to homosexuals. This will likely come about when it becomes a hate crime to approach someone about God's biblical view of this sin.

God does not leave any room for debate on any sexual identity outside of male and female based on birth. A definite division even on clothing is clear in Deut. 22:5 so that there is no confusion introduced into society.

The whole "sexual revolution" has occurred because the culture has come to approve all kinds of unbiblical sexual activity. Mankind’s natural curiosity and fallen nature wants to explore whatever the culture provides or approves. Therefore, if sin becomes legal, and the culture approves it, even young children have no defense, especially when the parents are willing to fund the hormone treatment.

Satan does not let up until all doors are shut against the gospel. That is the end game of the homosexual steam roller. Toleration is not the goal; only full approval. All objection must be silenced backed by the power of the state.

Yet, the gospel will never be completely silenced. As soul winners, our mandate is basically one-on-one. The Kingdom that we serve, is bigger than any earthly province. We must stress that “gender dysphoria” is curable by the blood of Christ. No need to change the features of the body. When the heart is renewed, the body will be fine.

We cannot, however, overlook the role of Satan’s henchmen. As emphasized in the Chick tract, Home Alone, demon involvement must be addressed by the power of the Holy Spirit. As Wax points out, this is not about the shape of the body, it is about the condition of the soul. Yet, modern psychology, without spiritual rebirth, has proven ineffective, to the point that homosexual behavior has been declassified as a mental disease.

Soul winners should welcome any help from the government in curbing this sin and protecting our freedom to witness. But the final solution is a new creature in Christ, one lost soul at a time. In our darkening culture, we must soberly pray for greater compassion for those in this bondage, and more opportunity to share how God’s genuine love can satisfy where Satan’s counterfeit cannot.

Chick Publications, Chick.com 10 Comments [7/11/2016 4:14:19 PM]
Fundie Index: 7