Quote# 131306

I have been studying our Sun for some years, focusing on the influence of erratic solar behaviour (erratic from a modern human perspective) on the course of human development and civilisation. One of my major conclusions is that the last ice age ended abruptly circa 9700 bce due to a major solar outburst (or series of outbursts). Solar activity is intimately tied to climate changes on Earth, which in turn have major effects on life on our planet, including humanity.

(...)

For the past several years my wife, Catherine (Katie) Ulissey, has been following observations of the Sun on a regular – usually daily – basis. Solar flares and accompanying coronal mass ejections (CMEs) can erupt from sunspots, so sunspots and their activity are a potential short-term indicator of an impending major solar outburst that, if Earth-directed, could cause massive devastation to our modern technological society, as might have happened if the July 2012 solar eruption had hit us.

Katie often comments to me that otherwise very active sunspots strangely lessen the severity of their activity, producing smaller solar flares and so forth, or even appear to become temporarily dormant and shut down their activity, when they are Earth-facing. Then, as they move around to the side and back of the Sun (as viewed from Earth; the Sun rotates on its axis and of course Earth revolves around the Sun), these same sunspots begin firing again, increasing their activity dramatically. It is as if the Sun is aware of Earth’s presence and is attempting to avoid spewing a major solar outburst (whether a solar flare, CME, or some other type of solar eruption) directly at us.

Katie is not the only observer to comment anecdotally on this apparent pattern, others have independently suggested, perhaps in jest, that our Sun is consciously attempting to protect us from being hit by a major solar outburst. In analogy, imagine a person who is about to sneeze, but is able to hold it long enough to turn away and avoid sneezing on someone else.

This may seem like a very weak basis for suggesting our Sun has the property of consciousness, but there is additional evidence. The Sun is a fairly typical star, and it has been found stars exhibit anomalous behaviours that are not easily explained by the theories of standard physics.

As physicist Gregory Matloff (New York City College of Technology) has discussed,10 stars do not appear to move in the ways that standard theories, such as formulations based on Newton’s theory of gravity, predict. Stars typically move around the centre of the galaxy in which they are located. Standard theory predicts that stars closest to the galactic centre should revolve more rapidly than those farther from the centre (just as Mercury travels more rapidly around the Sun than does Saturn, which is much farther from the Sun). However, this proves not to be the case. On the whole, stars farther from the galactic centre move more rapidly than stars closer to the galactic centre; it is as if all of the stars are mounted on a huge rotating wheel.

Another problem with standard theory is that the masses of clusters of galaxies (as best as can be calculated based on our observations) are not great enough to hold the clusters together gravitationally. To address these issues, the concept of “Dark Matter” has been hypothesised. In simple terms, Dark Matter, which according to its advocates is said to compose the majority of matter in the universe, is essentially undetectable except for its gravitational effects on visible matter and radiation. Supposedly, Dark Matter can explain the anomalous movements of stars and the clustering of galaxies.

There is another explanation that could also account for the anomalous behaviour of stars, an explanation that does not need to invoke undetected Dark Matter: stars are conscious and move according to their own will or volition. In one of his articles, Gregory Matloff defines “a conscious entity as one capable of volition – it has enough self-awareness that it can decide to take (or not take) a selected action.” Thus “a conscious star can decide to alter its motion to participate in the great stellar dance as stars orbit the centres of their galaxies. Such a star need not have a human-level or god-like consciousness. A simple herding instinct is enough.

The existence of such consciousness in stars, which are following a herding instinct (similar to a school of fish swimming together or a flock of birds flying together), would adequately explain their otherwise anomalous motions. Is this a simpler explanation than invoking Dark Matter?

Matloff has also discussed several potential mechanisms by which stars might be able to express their will and consciously change their trajectories. The best established mechanism is the use of jets of material emitted from the star. Young stars emit intense jets of material, often bipolar but not necessarily symmetrical. Asymmetric jets exuded by young stars could be used to preferentially change and adjust their trajectories. Mature stars, such as our Sun, emit a “solar wind” consisting of electrically-charged particles. Variations in the intensity, in various directions, of the solar wind could change the path of the star. One must remember that, as Matloff points out, changes in the trajectory of a star that may be “significant” to the star over its long lifetime of millions or billions of years (our Sun is estimated to be nearly five billion years old) may appear trivial or imperceptible to us.

The use by our Sun of jets and variations in the solar wind to express will and volition could be related to the idea that our Sun may consciously attempt to avoid throwing solar eruptions toward Earth – and if this is the case, it is then also the case that the Sun could consciously decide at some point to hit Earth with a major solar outburst. Is this what happened at the end of the last ice age, circa 9700 bce? Or was the solar outburst at that time an “accident”?

Matloff tentatively suggests two other mechanisms by which our Sun, or any conscious star, might theoretically change its trajectory: 1) Variations in the pressure of electromagnetic radiation, including visible light, given off by the star; and 2) by psychokinesis. Electromagnetic radiation pressure seems like a plausible possibility, although little work has been done to model how great the variation would have to be to change a star’s trajectory. Possibly changes in electromagnetic radiation could be used volitionally by stars for other purposes, such as communication among themselves.

Psychokinesis (also known as telekinesis or mind-over-matter) has, to my satisfaction, been demonstrated to exist among biological organisms such as humans. Whether psychokinesis could (or does) exist among other conscious entities, such as possibly stars, is currently unknown – although I am not aware of any theoretical reason why it should not.

But how can the Sun and stars be conscious when they are not even biological organisms, at least not in the sense of carbon-based cellular creatures like ourselves? A common notion, which is not to say it is correct (all too often common notions and “common sense” are wrong), is that consciousness and volition (at least in nature) can only occur in carbon-based forms of biological organisms, and many people would limit the notion of consciousness to “advanced” biological organisms like vertebrates, mammals, or, according to some, only human beings. However, various researchers have argued that consciousness may arise at a quantum level and may not be limited to familiar biological organisms such as ourselves.

For instance, the British physicist Sir Roger Penrose (University of Oxford) and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff (The University of Arizona Medical Center) have developed the theory of orchestrated objective reduction as an explanation for how consciousness arises. Essentially, an orchestrated coherent series of quantum reductions (wave function collapses) result in moments and sequences of consciousness and choice or decision-making. As it turns out, according to such analyses, the conditions conducive to the manifestation of consciousness may occur on and in stars. Indeed, at a more fundamental level, consciousness may be inherent to the manifestation of matter and exist throughout the universe – with most conscious beings taking forms other than “biological organisms,” yet we as carbon-based life forms may have a difficult time recognising consciousness in other forms of matter. The physicist Max Tegmark (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA) has suggested consciousness may be a “state of matter” (“perceptronium”)– perhaps this is a state of matter that our Sun, and stars more generally, possess.

Robert Schoch, New Dawn Magazine 18 Comments [9/6/2017 9:44:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 131305

You can either ask a trusted spirit entity for help, or give a name to the active thought energy of of the group. You could call it "the agency" for instance.

The group should now quietly concentrate on linking with a spirit or "agency" and ask it to help them move this question to the center toward the question. Or you could sharpen your psychic vision. Have you sometimes noticed an odd shadow out of the corner of your eye, seen a colored mist or rainbow (prism) to the right or left? These are examples of psychic sight-the ability to see energies that are normally invisible to the naked eye.

This is an extremely usepeaceful skill; it not only adds an extra dimension to your daily awareness of the world about you, it also enables you to focus on someones aura, and enhances clairvoyance. Many exercises online for you to practice with. Have you heard of the Third Eye vision?

Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs often depict the image of the 'third eye', an invisible center of psychic perception located behind the pineal gland in the head. Not everyone is aware of this natural element. Third eye vision is a magical art used by priests, priestesses, and seers, and takes years, even lifetimes, to mature. It is an immensely powerful tool-giving a complete overview of life, as if you were looking down at events on the ground from an aircraft.

Remember to use it wisely & Loving!

bouncingbear, Godlike Productions 5 Comments [9/6/2017 9:44:26 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 131304

Men in Florida! Look for a Woman Named IRMA, (storms take human form before they strike)

I know this sounds crazy but they do.

I personally met Katrina and I believe she saved me and the people of Ft.Lauderdale.

It's a good story, but if you're not interested, we'll let it go.

However, if you meet a young lady named Irma, You might want to buy her a drink or at least pay for a lap dance.

I believe that I saved Ft.Lauderdale with both.

Anonymous Coward, Godlike Productions 23 Comments [9/6/2017 9:44:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 131303

Theory of Evolution was never fact, can anyone understand it was not fact nor was Darwin and expert in natural things he just up and with is friend channeling got these idea, is this science to you? Your ears are from monkeys, even if your family member do not have ear as yours. The man had a idea and kind of pushed the idea, and people jump on the bandwagon and do not know how to get off.

See it matches no other science, none, just their own stubborn pride. See the first was not remembering what his professor said and showed him about these earliest fossil of prehistoric fish like creature up in mountains, guess how the got there? Take a guess, it a Family and a boat that every nation and people say happened. The flood.

No, other science agrees with Darwin, they also love to hide things that disprove it, like very old large human foot prints following a dinosaur in Texas, on guy a evolution guy went in and distorted those foot prints, they were modern in shape but a very much larger human would have made them. That what you call desperate.

When you know of the kings list from before the flood which is a long lived people and it 300,000 or more years listed then you got to know they crazy. They also know man showed up way past those time they talk of I man modern man and animals just showed up with no records, just poof and there every new thing was.

hankie, Godlike Productions 9 Comments [9/6/2017 9:44:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 131298

I am a DEACON in NTBC, Pastor Grimes is the only PASTOR WE HAVE. Only someone with such a severe intellectual disability as autism would even think that there are these transitional fossils and these other things like men becoming women as women becoming men! It's important because it's degrading our culture and turning our nation into a bunch of sissy whiny millennial autistic snowflake retards! I'm sick of it! Stupid intellectually challenged millennials with their transgender and intersex and whatever other garbage the pull out of their rears! This is what happens when you turn your backs on the Lord!

The Real James A. Wilson, FSTDT 15 Comments [9/6/2017 7:45:31 AM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 131297

Here's my position for the record: based on the evidence I've read and seen, I've personally concluded that Uri Geller has psychic powers. Is it possible that I'm wrong? Is it possible that he cheated? Sure, but you could say that about almost anything. It's possible that I'm wrong that the country Spain actually exists - I've never visited it for myself. Am I as convinced that Uri has psychic powers as I am that Spain exists? Not quite, but it is my (provisional) conclusion.

Laird, psiencequest.net 16 Comments [9/6/2017 7:45:16 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Waller Joel

Quote# 131296





Mick Williams, Disqus - Faith & Religion 6 Comments [9/6/2017 7:45:04 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 131270

Lady Checkmate's headline: "Over 150 Evangelical's 'Nashville Statement' on sexuality DECLARES God's Design for Marriage & Family: Alt-left trolls lose their collective minds"

I support the 'Nashville Statement'. My only request is that it be named the 'United States of America Statement'.

Don't forget to RECOMMEND. Lets get the Truth out so that Light may shine bright in this dark place and Jesus Christ may be glorified.Even if the discussion is closed, please still RECOMMEND.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/30/evangelicals-draw-critics-with-nashville-statement-on-sexuality.html

Lady Checkmate, Disqus - Faith & Religion 10 Comments [9/6/2017 7:44:32 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 131267

(In a thread ridiculing this cartoon, people start advocating Nazi-punching. Then, this happens:)

thecarnivalqueen: just make sure the person you are physically assaulting is actually a nazi and not someone who is just bald or has “nazi hair” or has been labeled a nazi because they don’t blindly fall into step ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

agoodcartoon: Listen if theres a hitler hairdo makin me feel ill you better believe im gonna call the karma police on that bitch

agoodcartoon, Tumblr 12 Comments [9/6/2017 7:44:06 AM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: The Reptilian Jew

Quote# 131295

There has been some arguments about faith being true.

So why don't those arguing against it prove Christ to be false complete with actual evidence and show God has lied in his promises
in the OT.

So I guess that is an end to the matter. We can know faith is true and God is real and atheists just have to accept that what they cannot
disprove means it can be accepted as existing.

Sassy, Religion and Ethics 18 Comments [9/6/2017 3:52:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Nearly Sane

Quote# 131294

"Royalty, Rumors and Racists"

BY STEPHEN A. COSTON, SR.

AUTHOR OF THE NEW BOOK:

KING JAMES
The VI Of Scotland & I Of England
Unjustly Accused?

The character assassination of His Majesty King James VI & I is an ongoing evolving process that has matured in this present day to a sort of "open season" of differing opinions variously setting forth different theories and hypotheses on the whys, hows, and ifs of the alleged "homosexuality" of King James VI & I. Part of the reason for so many differing opinions is that many historians and would-be historians have forsaken fact for fictional accounts on the life of King James VI & I. Without facts to restrain the imagination the investigative process turns into a rumor mill and as such is an aberration of the historical process. Often these highly speculative accounts, contemporary or modern, are based not on the actual life and words of King James VI & I but on what these individuals THINK what King James VI & I said and did meant. Honest professional historians are beginning to admit this and this is most welcome; however, King James VI & I still has his ardent critics.

More often than not even when actual facts of King James VI & I are presented they are subjected to interpretive twists designed to give the reader the impression that the words and deeds of King James VI & I support the allegations commonly leveled against him. Case in point, it is a known fact King James VI & I was handicapped from birth with weak limbs and injured himself many times. This caused him to have an unsteady gait. To compensate for this King James VI & I often leaned on his most trusted councilors and friends which also happened to be members of his personal staff, individuals critics freely term "favorites." It is often stated that "James was fond of leaning all over his beautiful young favorites" giving the reader the impression King James VI & I did so not because of a physical handicap but because of sexual attraction to same. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Further, it is also freely alleged that King James VI & I "passionately kissed" his "favorites" in public.

Critics of King James VI & I are fond of inferring from the above that King James VI & I engaged in the "French kissing" of his "favorites." They then use this assumption as yet another "proof" to support their contention that King James VI & I was indeed truly a "homosexual."

What the detractors of King James VI & I utterly fail to realize; however, (to their detriment) is the fact that the accounts responsible for popularizing this characterization were penned by individuals who hated not only King James VI & I as a Scot, but the whole country of Scotland as well. They were some of the most militant racists of the time of the most vicious type. Some of their contemporaries knew this and railed against them and defended King James VI & I and it is quite the mystery why modern critics seem not to know this.

Another point that critics of King James VI & I fail to recognize relative to this issue of kissing is that King James VI & I "slobbered" when he ate his food, consumed his drink, or even when he "kissed" someone's hand or cheek. Are we to infer then that King James VI & I passionately kissed inanimate objects, foods and drinks and bodily extremities? What about the widely accepted practice of a monarch's kiss at court to show the King's favor upon an individual? Besides that what of the British acceptance of public kissing for all kinds of events and circumstances. Are we then to infer that the whole island of Great Britain was a hot bed of homosexuality?

It is also inferred that because some individuals rejoiced to have King James VI & I's "legs soon in their arms" upon their return to court that this is somehow indicative of a reference to a sexual position. However, there exist many woodcuts depicting just this position of many noble and common men in with King James VI & I at court. It was customary to prostrate oneself at the feet of the monarch when allowed so close to His Majesty's person to receive a welcome, greeting or honor. King James VI & I's own son, the future King Charles I, himself was in just this position at the feet of his father when he returned from Spain. It is amazing that such shallow reasoning can be allowed to be pawned off as legitimate historical analysis.

Finally, much is made of King James VI & I articulating in his writing that he "loved" someone of the same gender giving the reader the mistaken belief that "love" stood for a sexual attraction and thus yet another "proof" of the "homosexuality" of King James VI & I. Also, it is alleged that King James VI & I "justified homosexuality many times" in his writings.

The most common offered "proof" of this mistaken assertion is a quotation from King James VI & I's speech to Parliament which is violently ripped from its intended meaning and context. For an in- depth refutation of this form of argument the diligent reader is referred to my book King James VI Of Scotland & I Of England - Unjustly Accused.

The Reverend Barrie Williams sums up the desperation of this reasoning:

"... there must be many besides myself for whom nine short words of the King are sufficient: 'Jesus had His John, and I have my George.' King James was in every estimate a devout protestant, and anyone who can believe that he would cast aspersions on the moral integrity of Our Saviour would have no difficulty in believing that the world is flat."

The sheer etymological ignorance of this type of argument is astounding! In my book King James VI Of Scotland & I Of England - Unjustly Accused I examine the widespread and commonly accepted practice of men and women writing to each other in loving terms and expressing their "love" for one another. Such Jacobean stylistic expressions of this kind were in no way indicative of sexual attraction or homosexuality.

I believe Lucius Annaeus Seneca said it best when he wrote:

"... they refute their case by means of the very passages which lead them to infer it."

Certain revisionist historians would have you believe otherwise and advocate the use this method to prove Biblical characters were likewise "homosexuals" to include Jesus Christ, David and Jonathan. These types of evidences, if you can call them that, are the types of things that critics of King James VI & I use to validate their claims. When they can't force King James VI & I to say what they want they simply make him "mean" what they want. Or, in other words, what they can't find stated they simply infer is there and place between the lines even though it is not "in the lines." However, if King James VI & I did not mean what he wrote then who is anyone to tell us what he actually meant?

As far as "witnesses" go, critics can only cite a handful of contemporaries of King James VI & I and most of these were men fired from office (sour grapes), or were political or religious enemies of the King, or they were otherwise disgruntled courtiers with an ax to grind and none ever were eye witness to any overt sexual acts on the part of King James VI & I.

Not only this but I have not found one yet that ever formally accused King James VI & I of directly being a homosexual and brought his case before any legal or religious body not to mention attempting to obey the precepts of Scripture in making such outlandish claims. For an in- depth examination of the charges commonly leveled at King James VI & I the careful reader is referred to my book mentioned previously.

It is obvious that myriad are the claims leveled at James Charles Stuart's (King James VI & I) moral character or lack thereof. However, out of this great sea of negative opinion the tide is fortunately turning away from the shores of libel and gossip and heading towards the calm home port of objectivity and evidentiary concerns.

Historians like the rest of our society are not immune from the influences of modern faddish trends and regrettably King James VI & I has suffered more than his share of diatribes that are directly due to a falling away from classical objective interpretive methods that were long indicative of the traditional historical method. Recent trends have captivated modern historians and led them to experiment with eisegetical techniques and to put it colloquially "tabloid style journalism." Therefore, much that has been written regarding His Majesty King James VI & I has not been the result of a balanced exegetical method.

Further complicating the situation and making matters worse has been the regrettable over reliance by historians on certain scurrilous sources that were produced in an era when libels of the Stuarts and the Monarchy were at a premium in general and whose opinions were motivated by a distrust and outright hostility to the noble Scots as a nation and King James VI & I in particular. King James VI & I being the first Scot to sit on the English throne and the natural father of the last Stuart King to reign in England before the regicide of The Royal Martyr, King Charles I, King James VI & I was naturally a prime target for abuse.

Making an easy target for his pursuit of peace and his many physical handicaps, King James VI & I was and is ill treated by many who venture to put pen to paper with a view to ruminating on the character of this much misunderstood Monarch. Like all of us in the course of King James VI & I's life he made enemies, and as king he had more than his share. Not only this but King James VI & I had to deal and overcome outright racism against his home of birth, Scotland. It is a sad fact that most of King James VI & I's contemporary critics were either disgruntled courtiers who were removed from office by King James VI & I himself or otherwise suffered loss of political or peerage advancement under King James VI & I or were haters of the whole Scottish nation!

Much indeed has been written on King James VI & I and because of this plethora of information a few researchers when doing analysis on King James VI & I simply refer back to past popular and easily obtainable sources rather than expending time and effort in obtaining rare and difficult to find first hand accounts of either the critical or ameliorative sources. Most indeed who have written about King James VI & I have never actually sat down to read what he actually wrote. This environment has created a prime climate for the kind of slanders and libels King James VI & I has been subjected to.

In my years of research on the life and character of King James VI & I, I have found that there is a great reluctance on the part of some of the more militant and bellicose of modern day critics of King James VI & I who claim to have facts to prove (beyond what they assert in their books) King James VI & I was a homosexual.

They seem unwilling to stand up to investigative criticism of their conclusions. They speak of research but balk at detailing the fruits thereof. They are fond of citing whole volumes of books and articles which they claim validate their assertions but refuse to justify any conclusions or data found therein. Some of the more extreme "Christian" critics of King James VI & I are extremely reticent about applying Biblical injunctions against gossip and rumor to their sources or even allow King James VI & I the protection of Scripture as found in Deut. 19:15 or I Tim. 5:19. Further, some are found to deny King James VI & I even professed to be a Christian! I find this extremely curious that such individuals who claim to be "Christians" would ignore Biblical injunctions on falsely accusing a brother and the evidentiary requirements to sustain charges of the type they advocate.

Thankfully, modern secular critical opinion on King James VI & I is reevaluating the negative assertions of his moral character and moderate critics of King James VI & I are now admitting that these charges are basically OPINION not historical facts! As noted above, only a few extremist and militant and the most ardent of King James VI & I's critics are espousing some of the most vociferous and invectively rancorous libels of King James VI & I.

I have also found in the course of my research a most curious phenomenon, that there is almost a total vacuum of consideration of what King James VI & I actually wrote or what he believed outside of a few brief excerpts of his writings which are more often than not stripped from their context or misinterpreted almost beyond recognition. Great weight almost to the point of complete dependence is attached to the writings of a few disgruntled courtiers, racists and bigots (Sir Anthony Weldon, Francis Osborne and Sir Edward Peyton and a few others).

The writings of Peter Heylyn, Sir William Sanderson, Bishop Godfrey Goodman and Anthony A. Wood and others (not to mention King James VI & I himself) are almost totally forsaken thus creating an unbalanced view of King James VI & I as viewed from contemporary accounts. Similarly, most modern works which discount the critical view of King James VI & I are also almost completely ignored by those who wish to paint King James VI & I as a homosexual.

When authors are unduly influenced by the scandal value of such poor sources they tend to rely on them in extreme and thus forsake detailed historical research and ignore the principles of evidentiary preponderance of evidence and thus sacrifice this for the propensity of our frail human nature in its attraction for dirt and scandal. Contradictory applications of principles and imbalanced research techniques can only result from a defective research method. Unfortunately this type of phenomenon has run rampant and caused many such evaluations to run amuck of the facts concerning King James VI & I.

I have not found any persons yet who libel King James VI & I as being a homosexual who are willing to allow themselves to be judged based on the same lines of evidence and principles upon which they unjustly convict King James VI & I .

All these factors coupled with the cultural and etymological ignorance prevailing in our day and the outright historical bias of some against King James VI & I have produced a situation where King James VI & I's accusers have played free with the actual historical facts and in some cases invented more ingenious eisegetical interpretations than any stretching of the imagination could ever produce. Thus the facts of history have been traded for the inventions of the imagination and regrettably there has of yet been no limitation to the unbridled attacks on the ever blessed memory and reputation of His Majesty, King James VI & I. When such pseudo-history is accepted for the real thing and we refuse to be bound to actual historical facts and opinions are masqueraded in place of reality then no valid conclusions can ever be reached.

In my attempts to request evidence that is commonly purported to exist by the sternest critics of King James VI & I sadly I have found that this evidence is often elusive and at best highly speculative. Instead what I have been offered in place of hard data from King James VI & I's militant and extremist critics is sarcasm, evasion, ridicule, rudeness and outright refusal to provide the requested information.

From King James VI & I's more mild critics they are at least recognizing the fact that their opinions have led to incorrect assumptions that accusations of homosexuality leveled at King James VI & I are factual, which they are not, and are based on speculation and opinion. Many are even willing to entertain the belief that King James VI & I might not have been homosexual at all. This is something that King James VI & I's hard line critics have yet to do and seem dead set against.

The personal slanders and racially motivated innuendoes and epithets were indicative more of the declarant's anti-Scottish bias and resultant dislike of King James VI & I than they were etiologically the result of actual facts. Thus, the scandalous artifacts which have been so carefully exhumed setting forth the "dirt" of the matter are in need not of study but of burial. These slurs are only allegorically and vaguely implying misdeeds on the part of King James VI & I in the most indirect manner and should be highly suspect. Often by their own account imagination played a key role in their assertions and this was based on their own particular interpretation (not provable facts) of the actions of King James VI & I. It is highly coincidental that the promoters of the charges were those who either bore no good will to the Scots or otherwise had a grudge to bear against their King. So, like irreverent grave robbers having no respect for the dead they attempt to steal that which does not belong to them and not content with desecrating the memory and honor of King James VI & I they also trample under foot his blessed memory. This ought not be so!

There seems to be a divergence of opinion amongst King James VI & I's critics. This is indicative of the fact that modern attitudes on King James VI & I are changing and the hard liners are refusing to budge. So far factual rebuttals of the hard line opponents of King James VI & I have had little effect as the pugnacious critics are refusing to yield to the actual evidence and are holding on to the rumors of the past. Such is the decline and decay of our society when we will allow the least of us, those who cannot defend themselves, to be thrown to the wolves if you will and be unjustly accused. In our passive acceptance of this injustice I see the fate of us all in that one day we may all find ourselves the target of false accusers. Where have moral and historical ethics gone!

The sheer bankruptcy of the critical case should be evident to any sincere lover of history. To those who will convict King James VI & I on the scantiest of evidence it must be seen that these individuals will thus embody the demise of all true history. The plethora of moral indictments and claims against King James VI & I's character are not historical facts but rather in all actuality primarily unjust criticisms which are commonly mistaken for facts.

Serious dialogue seems to have been relegated to the museum of ancient history and fallen into disuse. However, the criticisms of King James VI & I actually reveal more about our society's preoccupation with scandal and dirt than they do about the life and character of King James VI & I . We can no longer allow lopsided research to overpower the facts of history.

The best advise and observation on this sad situation ironically comes from King James VI & I himself. As His Majesty King James VI & I noted almost prophetically long ago:

"And principally exercise true wisdom in discerning wisely between true and false reports. First concerning the nature of the person reporter; next, what effect he can have in the well or evil of him whom of he maketh the report; thirdly, the likelihood of the purpose itself, and the last the nature and past life of the delated person ... "

And:

"They quarrel me (not for any evil or vice in me) but because I was a king, which they thought the highest evil, and because they were ashamed to profess this quarrel they were busy to look narrowly in all my actions, and I warrant you a moat in my eye, yes a false report was matter enough for them to work upon."

His Majesty King James VI & I,

Basilicon Doron


Stephen A. Coston, Sr, Jesus is Savior 13 Comments [9/6/2017 3:52:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 131293

So you autistic liberals are "scientists" now? God created the world, because there's no evidence that we evolved! Zero transitional fossils have been found and ZERO will ever be found! Of course, those fools like ENGINEER Bill Nye will try to claim "Lucy" is the "missing link" whenever no such thing exists. I'm not surprised autistic liberals who think that people came from pond slime would think that we can make a man into a woman with some cosmetic surgery. If Bradley Manning and Bruce Jenner are women, than Michael Jackson was Caucasian. Fools!


The Real James A. Wilson, FSTDT 29 Comments [9/6/2017 3:52:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 131292



[Image is of a ladies string thong that reads "JESUS IS MY PRESIDENT"]

Logic72, Spreadshirt 17 Comments [9/6/2017 3:51:54 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Salami

Quote# 131291




[Shirt reads "Blood of Christ: CAN'T BEAT THE REAL THING" with John 6:56 quoted on the logo]

GPMedia, Spreadshirt 11 Comments [9/6/2017 3:51:50 AM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 131290

You cannot see past your bitterness. Remember envy and bitterness rots the bones.
The correct mantra from the Left is that 98% of climatologists agree on Global Warming. This is a fundamentally flawed statement because many are afraid of what the Liberal Media will do to them if they disagree. But don't worry after 8 years of President Trump you won't remember this blip in the road.
Well I guess that's why this site is called Formerly Fundie?

Bob Shiloh, Patheos 7 Comments [9/6/2017 3:50:40 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 131288

Bruce Wang:
This might seem like an obvious question, but if you're opposed to homosexual marriage, how about if you just don't get married to someone of the same gender? Problem solved. Worry about yourself and let other people make their own decisions.

Amos Moses:
how about that IS A FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT and a STRAWMAN ...... and NO it does not "solve the problem" ..........

Bruce Wang:
Why? What is it about your faith that you think gives you the right to control the lives of other people?

Amos Moses:
what is it about your faith that makes YOU think YOU have that right ..... to destroy society and language and marriage and free speech and destroy your life and others lives ...... because THAT is what you are doing and advocating for ..................

Bruce Wang:
I don't have a faith, and I leave people alone to live their lives. They have the right to do that.

Amos Moses:
you live by MORE FAITH than any christian .... and ... it is BLIND FAITH

Bruce Wang:
Now you're just being willfully obtuse. I DEFY you to come up with one SINGLE thing I believe in that's "blind faith". That's the OPPOSITE of what I choose to believe.

Amos Moses:
A peer-reviewed journal said it, I have no reason to doubt it, that settles it ..... Unless new evidence becomes available.
With science all things are somewhat probable.
TBBT explains how nothing exploded and random chance created EVERYTHING ..... including YOU .... and then rocks became animate ..........
you accept science ... and in all probability .... you have never personally confirmed even one tenth of what you believe science is ..... BLIND FAITH ......... and that one tenth is a GENEROUS estimation ........

Bruce Wang:
So what I have is tested and accepted science. And you call that blind faith.
What you have is...blind faith in a 2000 year old book, and you mock ME?

Amos Moses:
no ........ YOU tested NOTHING ............ YOU accepted .......... ON FAITH .... and BLIND faith at that ...............

Bruce Wang:
I didn't have to test, other people did it for me. And that isn't blind faith. Blind faith is what you have.

Amos Moses:
again ..... BLIND FAITH ..........

Bruce Wang:
The material is contained in universities and libraries. That's the opposite of "blind". It's a very sad person that goes through life denying what's been shown and proven to be true.

Amos Moses:
believing the words of another without VERIFYING those words ..... = ...... BLIND FAITH ....... and YOU have NEVER verified even 1 % of ANY of it ..... BLIND FAITH ..........

Bruce Wang:
I don't need to read a manual on how a fire truck works to know that it works. Not blind faith. Do you go through life disbelieving everything you can't explain? How's that working out for you?

Amos Moses:
you do not know how quantum physics works and you are taking anothers word BLINDLY that they DO ........... and you have no means whatsoever of verifying it as true ..... nor have you ever, in all probability, done so .......and that is FAITH ..... and BLIND FAITH at that ....... when ones knows the truth ....... one then knows what to believe and what NOT to believe .... as TRUTH is the MEASURE of all else ........... and it is knowable without any other thing .......you still have no idea if it is true or not .... you BLINDLY ACCEPT through FAITH ........ and you have no means to verify EVEN BY READING their studies as you are not a, most likely, a quantum physicist ..... and you would have to be to even understand if what they were saying is true or not ........ nope .... your only "understanding" is "A peer-reviewed journal said it, I have no reason to doubt it, that settles it ..... Unless new evidence becomes available." ........ BLIND FAITH ............

Bruce Wang:
I don't blindly accept through faith. I knowingly accept through science. I don't accept it because a peer-reviewed journal said it...I accept it because the journal has been thoroughly tested and found to be accurate. Which is NOT "blind faith".

Amos Moses:
you knowing WORSHIP science with BLIND FAITH ......... and you REJECT TRUTH and you do not know the truth ...........



Amos Moses, Christian News Network 14 Comments [9/6/2017 3:49:28 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 131286

The Hindu community in Australia and overseas is upset at the Hindu deity Ganesha being featured in a video ad to promote the consumption of lamb meat.

Meat and Livestock Australia’s latest ad campaign released on Monday shows the Ganesha sitting among others gods and goddesses and prophets of different faiths coming together over lamb at a modern day spring barbecue.

While Meat and Livestock Australia says the ad positions Lamb as the meat people can eat regardless of their religious beliefs, background or dietary requirements, many people feel it has offended their cultural and religious sensitivities and have condemned it calling the ad “irresponsible” and an “assault” on the diverse cultures in Australia.

Some members of the Hindu community in Australia have called for boycotting lamb in order to get their feelings across to the MLA. Some followers of the Sikh faith which like Hinduism, originated in India- have also criticized the ad.

"This is a disrespect to Hindu Religion, hurting our sentiments and a senseless campaign. Your team has got it to Totally wrong by implying Lord Ganesha is having Lamb at dinner table with other Gods," commented Anuj Gupta.

"For your information Hindu Gods and meat do not go together.
I demand an unconditionally apology and you revoke this campaign immediately."

"We strongly urge MLA to withdraw the offensive ad immediately and extend an unconditional apology to not only the Hindu-Australian but to members of all religious groups that are hurt by this nonsensical ad," the Hindu Council of Australia said in a statement.

Rajan Zed, a US-based Hindu organisation has called for an apology from the board of the Meat and Livestock Australia. He said the MLA should understand that “love united us and brought us together and not lamb meat”.

“Lord Ganesha was highly revered in Hinduism and he was meant to be worshipped in temples or home shrines and not to be used in selling lamb meat for mercantile greed,” Mr Zed said.

Lord Ganesha- as the Hindus refer to the deity, is worshipped as the god of wisdom and the nemesis of impediments. In the Hindu culture, the Ganesha is invoked before the beginning of any important undertaking.

Mr Zed said trivialization of a deity was disturbing to the Hindus world over.

“Hindus are for free artistic expression and speech as much as anybody else if not more. But faith is something sacred and attempts at trivializing it hurt the followers,” he said in a statement.

Meat and Livestock Australia says it's aim is not to offend anyone.

"The campaign features gods, prophets and deities from across a wide range of religions alongside atheism, in a clearly fantastic nature, with the intent of being as inclusive as possible. To achieve this we undertook extensive research and consultation, MLA's Group Marketing Manager Andrew Howie told SBS Punjabi.

“Our intent is never to offend, but rather acknowledge that Lamb is a meat consumed by a wide variety of cultures and capture how the world could look if people left their differing views at the door and came to the table with open arms, and minds."

Anuj Gupta, Hindu Council of Australia, Rajan Zed, et. al., SBS 13 Comments [9/6/2017 3:46:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Salami

Quote# 131281

ALL of Obamas programs were meant to help illegals and criminals!

"Dream Act" was to allow gang members to stay and vote.

"Obamacare" was to give free healthcare to illegals.

"Free phones" was to give drug dealers free and untraceable phones.

Nothing Obama did was designed to assist legal, law abiding, US citizens.

Anonymous Coward, Godlike Productions 20 Comments [9/5/2017 10:37:22 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 131280

Suppose you suddenly create a new victim group, with very special privileges and entitlements. Suppose you give the members the right to have a fellow employee fired, simply by saying that the employee didn’t use your “right” pronoun. Suppose that the members have priority in college admissions and job applications. Suppose that the government willingly pays for the psychiatric help and surgery.

Lo and behold you will have hordes of people entering the group! Especially when all it takes is to declare that you are in “transition.” You don’t need to actually change anything.

The benefits are enormous, and there are no drawbacks, in a society where nothing is right and nothing is wrong, and there is no shame, and you suddenly become “someone.”

I want the USA back, Free Republic 17 Comments [9/5/2017 10:36:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 131272

Sermon 8: Baptism

By Bro. Steven R.

Bro. James Wilson and I are both filling in for Rev. Grimes this week, so I have a short sermon that will serve as a companion to Bro. James' about proper administration of the church. Check his out here

Let's start with the Greek word "ßapt???," or "baptizo," which is a verb meaning "to immerse." This is the verb used to describe baptism in the New Testament. "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:" 1 Peter 3:21. So we are to be immersed, and baptism does not forgive sins. It is supposed to be a symbol of us dying and being buried with Christ, and you simply cannot have that symbolic ordinance with sprinkling or pouring! We are to be baptized by immersion in clean water, and there is no grace in the act itself, but in the ultimate Sacrifice and Resurrection of Christ! This is according to Colossians 2:12, "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

For instance, we often talk on here about different entertainers that are leading susceptible youth to sins. Many were raised in Roman Catholic or Protestant backgrounds, and being sprinkled as babies will not save their soul since YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN! They are going to be sent to Hell with their false idols if they keep believing in false idols in the modern form of Baal! This is why we are Baptist, and not Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant! We are Baptists because we have the fullness of truth and strong doctrines! Mark 16:16 says that "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." It does NOT say that baptism causes one to be saved! You MUST believe first! Believeth and not be damned! Not baptized and not be damned! You CANNOT believe if you are an infant, so infant "baptism" is a SHAM! Believer's baptism with immersion after believing and being saved and born again is the ONLY WAY and it is plainly stated in the trustworthy KJV!

Steven R., New Testament Baptist Church 29 Comments [9/5/2017 10:25:32 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 131271

Trannies hateth the Word of the Lord! I will keep on calling Bruce Jenner Bruce Jenner and Bradley Manning Bradley Manning! I don't care what these depraved and wicked individuals think, because they're reprobate. They're both men because they have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome and no amount of surgery could change that. It's funny how liberals love junk science like Darwinism and hate real science like this.

The Real James A. Wilson, FSTDT 35 Comments [9/5/2017 10:25:08 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 131266

Sermon 7: Singing a Joyful Noise Unto the Lord
By Bro. James Wilson
Bro. Steven R. and I will be filling in for Reverend Grimes this week as we work to make New Testament Baptist Church a full time operation, so make sure to check out his companion sermon in the Sermon 8 slot. Both of us will have a short sermon this week.
Psalm 100:1-2 says "Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands. Serve the Lord with gladness: come before his presence with singing." If we are going to sing, we have to sing loudly and sing praises unto the Lord Jesus Christ. Men have gotta be MANLY IN CHRIST JESUS and stop whispering like what happens when these liberal McChurches have these garbage services with "contemporary Christian music!" They're over there wearing AC/DC and Hooter's shirts in these "non-denominational" fun-houses that try to be inclusive and have zero doctrine like the Episcopalians and the Unitarian Universalists! They don't condemn sodomy, Onanism, or lust, and they have these Starbucks stores outside after they sing their effeminate "contemporary Christian" trash! You have to sing old school hymns from old school hymnals and sing like a MAN like Elvis Presley did in his gospel records!!!!
When they sing in that effeminate way, they sound like they are in the bedroom whispering to their wives like in bedroom conduct. They have these microphones and they're acting like they're trying to serenade the audicence like those Backstreet Boy and *NSYNC boy bands!!! Not honoring the Lord like He saith in Psalm 100!!! Or like how Taylor Swift the evil succubus whispers and moans in her new song "Ready for It" which sounds just like this fake contemporary "Christian" trash sounds! Let your noises unto the Lord be JOYFUL AND LOUD AND NOT RESEMBLING BEDROOM CONDUCT SO YOU CAN HONOR GOD AS SCRIPTURE PRESCRIBES!

James Wilson, New Testament Baptist Church 35 Comments [9/4/2017 11:15:43 PM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 131264

[Video Thumbnail]



The Vigilant Christian, Youtube 7 Comments [9/4/2017 11:11:11 PM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 131262



Anonymous, Facebook 28 Comments [9/4/2017 11:07:01 PM]
Fundie Index: 18
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 131261

A man vying for the position of top cop in Alabama toed the ethical line this weekend when he revealed personal information about an abortion provider.

As Hemant Mehta of The Friendly Atheist reports at Patheos, Sam McLure, an Alabama attorney general candidate, linked to a site that “doxxes” or reveals contact and personal information of abortion providers in the state to promote his hard-line anti-abortion agenda.

“This woman killed babies on Friday in Montgomery,” McClure’s Facebook post linking to an abortion doxxing website read. “Can anyone publicly defend why she should not be prosecuted for murder?”

As Mehta points out, McLure’s platform for Alabama’s AG appears to be built entirely on anti-abortion rhetoric. In another post on his campaign page, he claims legalized abortion is a myth.

“In other eclipse news,” McClure wrote the day of the total solar eclipse, “Alabama’s insane addiction to Fed $ is only overshadowed by the urban legend that Roe v Wade is the law of the land.”

McClure is a member of the Alabama chapter of the Constitution Party, a Republican group that pushes a pro-Christian agenda.

Along with running for AG, McClure is president of the Birmingham-based Adoption Law Firm and anti-abortion group Proposal 16.

Sam McLure, Raw Story 16 Comments [9/4/2017 11:06:11 PM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom