Quote# 141623

I'm 19. I was born female, but I've lived as a transman for 4 years. I took testosterone for 2. I went cold turkey on T last week.
I'm detransitioning because I'm sick of this community. I'm sick of the kind of activism that's done in its name. I'm sick of people who want to beat up old ladies in London, completely unprovoked, because she has a different opinion than them.
It started when I saw all this bullshit on tumblr-- went cold turkey on that fucking site too. Transwomen saying shit like "anything a trans man can do, trans women can do better". Calling transmen "shrimp dick", "fish taco". Transwomen saying that women deserve to be murdered, raped, burned at the stake, because they're TERFs.
I saw this all before I transitioned. It's called male violence, aggression, entitlement. If I have to say through my teeth "transwomen are women" one more time, I'll fucking explode.
I know. I know that not all transwomen are horrible. I know there are incredible transwomen out there. But I can't pretend that they weren't born male, that I wasn't born female, and that we weren't socialized accordingly.
I'm disgusted and frightened by how cultlike this community has become. I lost friends for saying I was detransitioning. I'm going to lose more. No one wants you to say "I'm comfortable being gender non-conforming and NOT transitioning". I was a tomboy all my life. In high school, my transman friend told me I should transition. I did, because I was a fucking idiot, and I hated myself, and I hated being a girl.
I'm sick of being such a sexist fuck. A non binary ex friend of mine always called men with long hair "they/them". They sure as fuck didn't do that for guys with short hair. My sister, talking about our cousin's new baby, was all "she's such a rowdy baby. She'll probably turn out trans."
Why are we medicating people who don't conform? Why are we giving children the choice to make a life-altering medical decision based on sexism, when they can't even get a tattoo? Why are we telling girls who don't want to get caught in the trap of femininity, "oh, well, you must actually be a boy."
FUCK that.
I'm detransitioning. I'm sorry for every and any part I played in trans activism. I was complacent listening to people talk about punching women who disagreed with them. I believed such sexist fucking things. I let other people, the med complex, and stupid little problems like pronouns control my life. There are bigger issues in the world than bathrooms. I'm sorry I spent so much time, money, and emotional effort caring about something that meant less than shit.

sideeyestanley, Reddit 7 Comments [12/20/2018 12:27:25 PM]
Fundie Index: -1

Quote# 141622

Confessions of a “Transphobic”

I never had a chance to read Gavin McInnes’ article “Transphobia is Perfectly Natural,” since Thought Catalog has taken it down. (But we can read outraged reactions from around the web.) McInnes has apparently been hounded out of his job as chief creative officer of something called Rooster, which I am too unhip to have heard of.

I am sure McInnes’ article is somewhere out there on the web, and I am sure someone will send it to me eventually. But I don’t want to read it until I have written my own take on the subject matter. Frankly, I am jealous that McInnes wrote on this first, since I have been kicking a similar idea around for years. I did not write it out, because up until May of this year, I was living in San Francisco, and the trannies there are far scarier than the antifa. Like the lesbians of Berkeley, they can reduce a man to a skeleton in under 30 seconds.

“Transphobia,” like “homophobia,” is an inherently dishonest term. “Phobia” derives from the Greek “phobos” or fear, and phobias are by definition irrational fears. But transphobia is neither irrational nor a fear. It is an emotion, of course. But it is a completely natural, normal, and healthy emotion. Which is as rational as any emotion gets.

Specifically, transphobia is a perfectly natural feeling of revulsion at men who have their dicks chopped off and women who have their tits chopped off — among many, many other things — in order to “change their sex.” Of course, one’s sex is determined by one’s chromosomes, so “sex changes” do not change anyone’s sex. They merely transform a man into a butchered simulacrum of a woman, or a woman into a butchered simulacrum of a man.

Again: sex-changes are futile, because one cannot change one’s chromosomes. One can only butcher and drug one’s body to look like someone of the opposite sex. And when many transsexuals finally awaken to the horror and futility of what they have done, they kill themselves.

The revulsion I feel toward transsexuals is not based on “meanness” or “ignorance” as liberals would have it, but on sympathy. When a healthy person sees another in pain, he recoils in horror because he feels the pain of others (which is the literal meaning of sympathy — suffering with others). I love my penis, and the thought of losing it fills me with horror. And when one sees self-inflicted suffering, it is natural to feel loathing and anger as well, because it didn’t have to happen. And by hurting themselves, self-mutilators hurt the rest of us as well. I am a bit overly sensitive, perhaps, but I even cringe at the sight of tattoos, partly in pity, partly in revulsion.

The kind of people who don’t feel sympathy and horror at radical forms of self-mutilation are, frankly, sick. They lack elementary sympathy for the pain of others. They may even take pleasure in the pain of others. Or, like most liberals who champion trannies as the next great minority crusade, they take pleasure in the discomfort that sexual mutilation causes “those people” — conservatives, Christians, rednecks, hicks, etc. — the hated others of the liberal loveys. Trannies and other freaks are just tools in the culture war. But in this case, the enemy is not the Right side of the culture, but nature herself — mental and moral health, which apparently drives today’s Left to paroxysms of sadistic rage. Because they’re evil, of course.

After a healthy person feels sympathy-based revulsion at sexual self-mutilation, the first thought that pops into his mind is, “These people must be crazy.” But let’s just withhold judgment for a bit and ask the transsexuals themselves what they think. Interestingly enough, they too claim to suffer from mental illness, namely the feeling of being a man trapped in a woman’s body, or vice versa. So the real issue here is not whether these poor people suffer from a mental illness — they admit it themselves — but rather what sort of treatment they should seek. Self-mutilation is not the cure for mental illness, but just another symptom.

If a man thinks he is Jesus, we do not crucify him. If a man thinks he is Napoleon, we do not crown him emperor. If a man thinks he is a woman, why then should we go along with it? Shouldn’t we try to help him get over his desire to mutilate himself, just as we help anorexics to stop starving themselves, and cutters to stop carving themselves?

And since when is it consistent with the Hippocratic oath — the “First, Do No Harm” part — for doctors to mutilate healthy bodies and turn them into parodies of the opposite sex?

What would I do with transsexuals? First of all, let me say that I have actually known two people who have embarked upon this path. To all appearances they were good-looking heterosexual men who dropped out of sight and then re-emerged as not-so-good-looking women. But all their likable traits and shared interests were disconcertingly intact. So transsexuals are not some abstract other. They are very real to me. This is me being real: having a real reaction to real people undergoing real, drastic transformations. I feel compassion and revulsion toward the transsexuals themselves, and righteous indignation toward the people who enable and exploit them.

So what would my policy be?

First, I would simply say “No.” Every decent society should provide healthcare for the mentally and physically ill. When people are mentally ill, they cannot make responsible decisions for themselves. Thus a decent society needs to exercise paternalism in the interests of the mentally ill. And the primary interest of the mentally ill is to get better, to triumph over their delusions, not to be humored in them, much less aided in radical and futile forms of self-mutilation. Again, self-mutilation is a symptom of mental illness, not a cure. Compassion and responsibility require that we simply say “no.”

Second, the mutilation of healthy bodies is contrary to the proper aim of the medical profession. Thus every doctor who performs sex change operations should be stripped of his license and drummed out of the profession. Sex changes should be outlawed, and any doctor who performs them should be jailed. Indeed, the same treatment should be meted out to doctors who perform any and all forms of genital mutilation.

Third, we must keep a sense of perspective. I don’t hate transsexuals. (I am rather proud of my book Confessions of a Reluctant Hater, so if I did hate them, I would have no problem admitting it.) Transsexuals aren’t evil or threatening. They are not “sinners.” They are simply sick people who should be cared for, not hated or harmed.

The truly evil people are those who exploit these unfortunates for gain: the doctors who mutilate them for money and the Leftists who use them as the latest totems of diversity, progress, and enlightenment — thereby revealing that their true enemy is not injustice or inequality but nature, health, and sanity. Craziest of all, though, is a society that consents to be ruled by such monsters.

Greg Johnson, Counter-Currents 5 Comments [12/20/2018 12:27:15 PM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 141621

Putin Wants to Control Rap Music as Its Popularity Rises in Russia

Alarmed by the growing popularity of rap among Russian youth, President Vladimir Putin wants cultural leaders to devise a means of controlling, rather than banning, the popular music.

Putin says “if it is impossible to stop, then we must lead it and direct it.”

But Putin said at a St. Petersburg meeting with cultural advisers Saturday that attempts to ban artists from performing will have an adverse effect and bolster their popularity.

Putin noted that “rap is based on three pillars: sex, drugs and protest.” But he is particularly concerned with drug themes prevalent in rap, saying “this is a path to the degradation of the nation.”

He said “drug propaganda” is worse than cursing.

Putin’s comments come amid a crackdown on contemporary music that evoked Soviet-era censorship of the arts.

Last month, a rapper known as Husky, whose videos have garnered more than 6 million views on YouTube, was arrested after he staged an impromptu performance when his show was shut down in the southern Russian city of Krasnodar.

The 25-year-old rapper, known for his lyrics about poverty, corruption and police brutality, was preparing to take to the stage on Nov. 21 when local prosecutors warned the venue that his act had elements of what they termed “extremism.”

Husky climbed onto a car, surrounded by hundreds of fans, and chanted “I will sing my music, the most honest music!” before he was taken away by police.

On Nov. 30, rapper Gone.Fludd announced two concert cancellations, citing pressure from “every police agency you can imagine,” while the popular hip hop artist Allj cancelled his show in the Arctic city of Yakutsk after receiving threats of violence.

Other artists have been affected as well — pop sensation Monetochka and punk band Friendzona were among those who had their concerts shut down by the authorities last month.

Vladimir Putin, Time.com 5 Comments [12/20/2018 12:27:10 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 141619

(In response to "Why do you not believe in Jesus?")

They don’t study the Bible or attend a church or consider creation verses evelousion, a couple questions to ponder. 1. Why does man have dominion over animals. 2.would a human eye evolve when it has over 2 million curcutes

Ray Floyd Southard, Quora 15 Comments [12/20/2018 12:26:48 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 141618

Graham Kerr:
Madison, like Jefferson, never thought government should be protected from the church, but the exact opposite. Remember, the Church of England was one of the things they objected to.

Guzzman:
So you claim Jefferson and Madison "never thought government should be protected from the church, but the exact opposite"? Do you have a primary source for that claim?
The notion that Madison's and Jefferson's wall between religion and government works in one direction only – i.e., it serves to protect religion from government, but not government from religion – has no basis in history, law, or even common sense.
The very idea is self-contradictory: If ANY religious group is free to encroach upon and control government and thereby achieve a privileged status, all others are at risk of falling into disfavor and facing government discrimination and even persecution. One of the primary objectives of the First Amendment was to prevent arming any religious group with the force of law. A government controlled by religion is the very definition of theocracy - and that is precisely what the founders wished to avoid.

Graham Kerr:
"The notion that Madison's and Jefferson's wall between religion and government works in one direction only – i.e., it serves to protect religion from government, but not government from religion – has no basis in history, law, or even common sense."
Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists.
The aforementioned Church of England.
I'm not a product of the 21st century public school system, so I'm not quite as stupid and easy to manipulate as you think I am.
Peddle your lies somewhere else.

Guzzman:
Jefferson's "wall of separation" between religion and government means exactly that - a barrier that divides two things into distinct domains. A "usurpation by one side or the other" (to use Madison's phrase) would be a breach of that wall. Government can no more encroach upon religion than religion can encroach upon government.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed since 1879: "Separation means separation, not something less. Jefferson's metaphor in describing the relation between Church and State speaks of a 'wall of separation,' not of a fine line easily overstepped... 'The great American principle of eternal separation' - Elihu Root's phrase bears repetition - is one of the vital reliances of our Constitutional system for assuring unities among our people stronger than our diversities. It is the Court's duty to enforce this principle in its full integrity. We renew our conviction that 'we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion.' McCollum v. Board of Education, 1948.

Graham Kerr:
If you read the aforementioned letter, you'd know what Jefferson had in mind was protecting church from government. To imply anything else is a lie.

Guzzman:
From Jefferson's letter: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
How does "building a wall of separation between Church & State" protect only religion from government and not also government from religion? Read James Madison's 1817 "Detached Memoranda - Amendment I (Religion)" where he discusses "the dangers of encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies" as being a violation of the First Amendment. He further states that religious liberty is only safeguarded when you have constitutional "separation between Religion & Govt." He then discusses several historical examples of "encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies" and the "danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government." I don't how the founders could have been any more explicit in their writings that government and religion should be kept separate:
"The settled opinion here [in the United States] is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both." (Letter to Edward Everett, Montpelier, March 18, 1823).

Graham Kerr:
The thing is, you wish for it to be the case, and yet, it is clear the Jefferson letter doesn't make it so.
Why do you think the Constitution says freedom OF religion and not from it?
It's nothing but a lie to assert any of our founding fathers were against acknowledging God in a public venue. God is mentioned on the SCOTUS building, for Pete's sake.
If you want to campaign for a Godless America, do it at a website better suited for that sort of garbage. Because you are not impressing anyone, you're just trying to make yourself look important.

Guzzman:
FYI, the Constitution does not contain the words "freedom of religion" as you claim, but Amendment 1 does prevent government from "prohibiting the free exercise thereof. " Embodied in the concept of freedom of religion is freedom from religion. The government cannot dictate to us which god we must have, how many gods we must have, or that we must have any god at all. That is most certainly freedom of, and freedom from religion. As Justice John Paul Stevens explained in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985):
"Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all."

Graham Kerr:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Notice the words, "freedom from religion" don't appear. Period. Saying it does is just a wish of yours.
So far, you are zero for two.
If you dislike religion so much, move to China.

Graham Kerr, Christian News Network 10 Comments [12/20/2018 12:26:20 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 141617

Tom Walker: "What we observe is not Evolution, even in a small scale"
Yes, it is. I understand it and the body of evidence well enough to tell you it is. You don't. Out of more than 100 million scientifically educated folks with advanced degrees, a few thousand think you are right and the rest mostly ignore you as being insane.
When the world's experts tell you it is, and you deny it thinking that you know better than they do, that is a) almost certainly wrong and b) incredibly arrogant. Delusional by definition (delusions of grandeur).
You followed this up by telling me that you do accept evidence. No, you don't. I bet you hardly know the evidence and I further bet that you exclusively rely on religious sources or authors (including some scientifically degreed ones) for your scientific information. When you think that you can decide what evidence is good and which is not, you have broken the line between reality and delusion.
YOU do not get to decide which data is good. Data is just data and it does not respond to opinion.
The evidence I rely on is understood by me from the first experiment to the last, with years of study at the college level. I do not re-interpret it to make it fit what I think, I model what I think based on the data. When the data is updated my "beliefs" are updated whereas yours are not. That should be a clear sign of a problem - but it is one that I bet you can't see.
You likely think all Catholics and the Pope aren't Christian (they are and they out number you by a lot) and that the Bible is a great source of real world information (it isn't.) You might think the Bible is inerrant (which is insanity writ large). Such a framework is delusional when compared to real world material. Look up "cognitive dissonance" and think about this: If proof was a rock and it was set on the table in front of you - and you agreed it was real data and correct - would you be able to leave your belief system and adapt? Probably not. You could not leave a crafted world view behind, nor could you risk family, friends, peers and community over it. Look up Kurt Wise. Church and anti-evolution religious sites say in advance that their minds cannot be changed, which is stupidity on a plate.
Scientifically minded people do not operate that way. They change what they know in keeping with best current data. Prove me wrong and I will THANK YOU for it and update my world view.
That I can do that and you cannot should be a loud siren of warning

Martin: Tom
So demonstrate Evolution. Start with the LUCA and create the variety of life we see.
There is not one iota of evidence to support Evolution, you are whistling in the dark.
BTW, the reason I can say the Pope isn't a Christian is because the Bible says salvation is by grace through faith alone and the Pope rejects that.

Martin, Premier 7 Comments [12/20/2018 12:26:11 PM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 141616

Raptor: Don’t expect a cogent Bible-based answer any time soon Chelle! *Wink face emoji*

Chellberry: Well if he was to give one it would HAVE to line up with our belief as to why Jesus had to die. His blood had to be shed. It couldn't be any other way. If you take on board the requirements of the OT and the sacrificing of the animal blood for God's forgiveness , all pictures of Jesus sacrifice.
We know Jesus had to die so his blood could be offered as payments for our sins so we could enter heaven through believing on him.
To defeat death is a pathetic answer to a serious question.

Raptor & Chellberry, Premier 9 Comments [12/20/2018 12:26:04 PM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 141615

Chellebaby: If God is love and not wrath then why would God's wrath need to be satisfied by Jesus?
Also I take you dismiss the several verses that mention things like the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom? I guess if you don't fear the Lord then you will show a lack of wisdom David.

DavidS: Once you have been saved by Christ you don't need to fear God.
You ask a good question. Perhaps Jesus sacrifice wasn't an act of penal substitution.
I read this article this morning - thought I would share it with you.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/teachingnonviolentatonement/2018/11/3-reasons-why-you-should-not-be-a-god-fearing-christian/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=FBCP-PATH&utm_content=Dec2018&fbclid=IwAR2Gx8cnGDuPHTOylK6pvoE7CPVURdJGoZvZK-o27S7mC-EbkH7mKpN9o6A

Chellebaby: So there does have to be fear before you get saved! That's an excellent point David and one that I agree with.

DavidS: No there doesn't need to be fear. Did you read the article I shared with you? It is possible the word 'fear' is a bad translation (along with all the other bad English translations).
God is love, he wants you to love him, not fear him.

Chellebaby: I know God is love and I do love him. I don't think it is an error in translation but I misunderstanding by people of what the term means. I understand it is a reverence of God. It is a good fear because at the end of the day, my life is God's to do what He desires.

DavidS: There are errors in translation, some of which have come about by mistake, some were deliberate, for example when the KJV was being translated the translators added bits that weren't in the original text, left bits out that were and altered some bits (including parts that King James thought challenged his position and authority). I think this is something we just have to accept.
Your life may be God's to do what he desires, but God doesn't desire to manipulate you or use you as his puppet. He does want us to use our God-give free will, to follow him, but he does allow us to make our own choices, he doesn't force himself on anyone.
I don't believe the word 'fear' here (if we accept that is the right word) means 'to be afraid of'.

Chellebaby: So then why did he have to die on the cross? You theory makes no sense and is as per usual way off the mark. If it is not to pay for our sins then why does the Bible mention over and over again about HIS blood being offered as payment or is that parts of the Bible you don't believe in?

DavidS: Jesus death wasn't the act of a vengeful God but a supreme demonstration of his eternal, great love for us.

Chellebaby: There are other ways he could have shown love, so why did he have to die David?

DavidS: He died to defeat death so that we may have eternal life.

Chellebaby:
Doesn't answer the question does it David? Why did his death defeat death so we can have eternal life? What was he defeating?

DavidS: He was defeating death.

Chellebaby: So you don't really have an answer then? Just going to repeat the same sentence over and over which does not answer the question.

DavidS: I've given you an answer, sorry if you can't see that.

Chellebaby: Haha no you haven't. I'm sorry if you can't see that you haven't.

DavidS: Look again.

Chellebaby: Don't need to. I know you haven't answered so if you have nothing further to add then I will shake the dust off my feet and will be done with you.

DavidS: Bless you Chelle.

Chelleberry, Premier 5 Comments [12/20/2018 12:25:56 PM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 141614

David it really does. Let me ask you something, if we were to stand before someone who knew absolutely nothing about God or this wicked earth we live on and you came with your Bible and the attitude of it is full of errors and you can only believe the words of Jesus without a decent argument for why the whole Bible is wrong except those words and I was to stand before them advising this is the only manual God gave us to learn about him and it was true and accurate, who do you think they are going to believe?
I put to you those who say it is full of errors and dismiss massive chunks of the Bible are the ones more likely to be manipulating scriptures to suit their lifestyles. You all say about our literal reading of the Bible is something to be ashamed of but I am not. I know the books such as psalms and proverbs are poetry therefore I don't pray for children to have their heads hit off a rock but I do believe in an all powerful God who was able to create everything we see, to create enough water to have a world wide flood, to create a fish large enough to swallow Jonah and keep him alive, to create all that happened to job, to part the red sea and to bring about the plagues of Egypt.
I find it quite sad you don't believe in such a God.

Chelleberry, Premier 4 Comments [12/20/2018 12:25:50 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: CC

Quote# 141611

Fear is a twofold word

The Bible says "Fear not, for I am with thee. Genesis 26:24. But the Bible also says Fear the Lord. Fear is a twofold word. One kind of fear is being afraid, we all are afraid from time to time.

The fear of the Lord is not to be afraid of Him. This kind of fear is to treat God with respect and trust . We reverence God for who He is, What He has done, what He is doing, and what He is going to do.

If we truly fear God with our whole heart, then we have nothing to fear.

"And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul." Deuteronomy 10:12.

God doesn't want us to be afraid of Him. He loves us and He wants our love in return.

The fear of God means that reverence for God which leads to obedience when we realize His power.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Psalm 111:10.

Patsy Lambert, Newberry Observer 4 Comments [12/20/2018 12:24:08 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Thanos6

Quote# 141608

The #WalkAway Campaign is a true grassroots movement, founded by former liberal, Brandon Straka, dedicated to providing a place to share #WalkAway testimonials and personal journeys to freedom. It is inspiring, exciting, heart-wrenching, and extraordinary to watch and read the stories of the individuals who no longer accept the current ideology of the Democratic Party, what it has become, and are now bravely sharing their stories with the world.

Some of us left long ago, while many have only recently begun to reject the narratives of the left. Some people have wanted to #WalkAway for some time now, but have feared the consequences they may be forced to endure from friends or family if they were to share their true feelings and #WalkAway.

The #WalkAway Campaign encourages and supports those on the Left to walk away from the divisive tenets endorsed and mandated by the Democratic Party of today. Classical liberalism on the left is a thing of the past. Today’s leftist pseudo-liberalism is more committed to expanding the scope of government, pushing us into collectivism, and groupthink. The Democratic Party has gone astray, and it is time to recognize that there is very little true liberalism practiced there anymore.
?
The “liberal” agenda of today has become authoritarian and fascist: forcing people into government-controlled health care; restricting school choice to assigned government-run schools; stifling speech that challenges liberal beliefs and candidates; buying political support from corrupt interest groups; welfare programs that breed dependence upon the state; legal preferences for particular groups rather than equality for all before the law; establishing price floors and ceilings enforceable by law; using government to redistribute wealth just to satisfy their egalitarian instincts, and shaming anyone who dares to deviate from their obligatory way of thinking.
?
The Democratic Party of today has adopted a destructive belief system, happily and without skepticism, separating people into groups based on identity and organizing them into camps of victims and oppressors. If you are a person of color, an LGBT person, a woman, or an American immigrant; the Democratic Party wants you to know that you are a victim and destined to stay that way.

They will insist that you are a victim doomed to exist within a system that is rigged against you; that you are a victim of systemic oppression; that you are a victim of your circumstances; and that no amount of hard work or motivational action will ever allow you to overcome your victimhood or the privilege of those around you.

This is perhaps the Democratic Party’s greatest and most insidious lie.

If you are a minority in America today the liberal media and left-wing politicians don’t want you to ever discover this lie. So they bombard us with stories designed to reinforce the narrative that you are in danger, that you can not succeed. They manipulate your fears and concerns by telling you that you are disadvantaged, disempowered, and disposable… to everyone except them.

Minorities in this country, are told by the Left, their entire lives that they are not welcome on the Right. They are told that they are hated because anyone who isn’t a Democrat is racist, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic, and sexist. It is now the time for us to help minorities recognize that they do not owe their subjugation and allegiance to the Democratic Party. Centrists, Libertarians, Independents, and Conservatives believe there is a seat at the table for everyone. It is time for us to show minorities that they are cared about, appreciated and welcomed by conservatives and Republicans alike.

We invite Americans who have never been Democrats to join the campaign to share their own written and video #WalkWith testimonials supporting those courageous enough to #WalkAway. We need Americans on the Right to stand up and use their voices to tell the world the truth about what it actually means to be a conservative in America. We must come together to declare, loudly and often, who we really are, our real values, and finally expose the lies the Left has tried to place on us for far too long.

The #WalkAway Campaign also serves another fundamental purpose. For far too long, the Left has controlled the narrative in this country within the news and media, while the “silent majority” on the Right have done what they always do – remain silent. The Left has been allowed to reinforce the narrative that everyone on the Right is a bigot, a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist, and so on. This dangerous lie cannot be perpetuated any longer.

The Left has become so extreme and relentless that it is now the time for us to fight back!

The #WalkAway Campaign is a movement of Patriots from all walks of life – men, women, black, brown, white, straight, LGBTQ, religious, and non-believers – who share something very important in common.

WE ARE ALL AMERICANS, and we will not surrender our country.

Brandon Straka, Walk Away Campaign 8 Comments [12/20/2018 12:20:03 PM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 141602

[those benevolent Christian slave owners]

The Christians didn't bring the slaves here, but once they were here, somebody had to take them in.
Naturally, good Christians treated slaves better than bad Christians.

They were making the best of a bad situation.
You have to think.
If the slaves went free, then where would they go? To the North, heaven forbid?
It was bad for blacks anywhere in America.
Still, many Christians assisted slaves in becoming literate, in buying their freedom, and in being able to support themselves in the New World.

Regarding the North and other solutions...
Christian Southerners reacted to the African immigrants on a human level.
Southerners shared resources and depended on each other for survival.
The African immigrants also understood family, tribes, bonding, and kinship.
Northerners, however, turned to money as the solution, in a very unChristian manner.
Northerners expected everyone to open a bank account or withdraw some insurance money to solve their problems.

., Yahoo Answers 12 Comments [12/20/2018 12:17:57 PM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 141600

(In response to: "Is there evidence of plagiarism within the Holy Bible… and if so, what is it?")

Plagarism is not the right term here. The Bible quotes and paraphrases itself in different passages. We see this in New Testament quotations of the Old Testament in many places, and the texts do not use a modern format of citation for stating where a quoted passage comes from. It’s not plagarism, because it quotes itself, and (by inspiration) the same God who inspired the Bible books uses the same quotes in different parts. There are cases where the Bible refers to the Book of Jashar (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18) and books of the Kings of Israel (I Kings 14:19). It quotes from the book of Enoch (Jude 9) about the body of Moses. Since many of the quotes are internal quotes, or are not documentable by modern standards, plagarism is not the right word.

Keith Rockefeller, Quora 5 Comments [12/20/2018 12:17:41 PM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 141599

Have Western media given up duty of objective reporting?

Time magazine recently published an article about Mihrigul Tursun, a Uyghur woman who claimed she came from a Xinjiang vocational training center, and tweeted a video clip of her testimony of alleged torture with tears and sobs.

I did an experiment: Sending the link to ordinary Chinese I know. Most of them laughed when they heard Tursun's testimony. "It's nonsense," was their first reaction. Why did they react this way? The question should be left for editors from Time magazine to answer. If they treated her testimony more skeptically, figured out how outdated was the language she used and whether her remarks were reasonable, then the magazine wouldn't have made such a fool of itself. China has made enough explanation. But those editors are still unimaginably ignorant of China. Will more explanation work?

Similar reports and interviews with Tursun can be found in many other Western media outlets. Western media love her, as if they hit the jackpot and finally seized the testimony of a witness to attack China, while being so indifferent to all the loopholes in her words.

Some foreigners buy Tursun's stories as they have a severe misunderstanding of China which stems from ignorance. Quite a few Westerners still believe that China is generally an underdeveloped country where its people work in sweatshops and have very little freedom. Does China have cars? Does China have electricity? Do Chinese love freedom? These are the tip of the iceberg of questions raised on the Quora question-and-answer website in 2017.

It is supposed to be the mainstream media's responsibility to answer these questions with objective and comprehensive information. Sadly, editors from Time have no basic knowledge of China and they have become the creators and spreaders of rumors.

Their mind-set is still stuck in the Cultural Revolution. Before publishing relevant articles, they might have hardly had any chance to actually visit China or talk to a real Chinese. How can people trust their reports?

Tursun's stories alike are hardly new. It happened more than once that the testimonies given before the US Congress were found to be false with fabricated stories. The purpose was to support US political and military actions.

It is unfortunate to see Time magazine, which enjoys an influential readership among US intellectuals, degenerating into one of the media that focuses more on selling eye-catching, groundless stories rather than proven facts.

At least these reports showed some insights into the US perception of China. Why did the trade war occur? Why are there always radical thoughts against China in the US? Why is there constant untrue speculation about the number of Muslims who have been sent to vocational training centers, which can be 1 million today or 2 million tomorrow? One can't help but wonder if the Western media have given up their responsibility to objective reporting.

Ai Jun, Global Times 4 Comments [12/20/2018 12:17:25 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 141598

WE ARE NOT WRONG. ALLAHS HEAD IS FILLED WITH HATE, AND ENVY, THE DEVIL HAS GRASPED ONTO HIS HEART.

It should be noted that all the facts used by the Christian in the above hypothetical conversation are true. Yes, God is the first cause, the designer of life, the resurrected Christ, the Author of Scripture, and the Savior of Christians. Yet the way these facts are used is not decisive. That is, none of the above arguments really prove that God exists.

Some of the above arguments are very weak: appeals to personal experience, vicious circular reasoning, and appeals to a first cause. While the facts are true, the arguments do not come close to proving the existence of the biblical God. Some of the arguments seem stronger; I happen to think that irreducible complexity and information in DNA are strong confirmations of biblical creation. And predictive prophecy does confirm the inspiration of Scripture. Nonetheless, for each one of these arguments, the atheist was able to invent a “rescuing device.” He was able to propose an explanation for this evidence that is compatible with his belief that God does not exist.

Moreover, most of the atheist’s explanations are actually pretty reasonable, given his view of the world. He’s not being illogical. He is being consistent with his position. Christians and atheists have different worldviews—different philosophies of life. And we must learn to argue on the level of worldviews if we are to argue in a cogent and effective fashion.

The Christian in the above hypothetical conversation did not have a correct approach to apologetics. He was arguing on the basis of specific evidences with someone who had a totally different professed worldview than his own. This approach is never conclusive, because the critic can always invoke a rescuing device to protect his worldview.1 Thus, if we are to be effective, we must use an argument that deals with worldviews, and not simply isolated facts. The best argument for the existence of God will be a “big-picture” kind of argument.

God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists

THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT ATHEISTS ARE NOT REALLY ATHEISTS.

The Bible teaches that atheists are not really atheists. That is, those who profess to be atheists do ultimately believe in God in their heart-of-hearts. The Bible teaches that everyone knows God, because God has revealed Himself to all (Romans 1:19). In fact, the Bible tells us that God’s existence is so obvious that anyone who suppresses this truth is “without excuse” (Romans 1:20). The atheist denies with his lips what he knows in his heart. But if they know God, then why do atheists claim that they do not believe in God?

The answer may be found in Romans 1:18. God is angry at unbelievers for their wickedness. And an all-powerful, all-knowing God who is angry at you is a terrifying prospect. So even though many atheists might claim that they are neutral, objective observers, and that their disbelief in God is purely rational, in reality, they are strongly motivated to reject the biblical God who is rightly angry with them. So they suppress that truth in unrighteousness. They convince themselves that they do not believe in God.2 The atheist is intellectually schizophrenic—believing in God, but believing that he does not believe in God.3

Therefore, we do not really need to give the atheist any more specific evidences for God’s existence. He already knows in his heart-of-hearts that God exists, but he doesn’t want to believe it. Our goal is to expose the atheist’s suppressed knowledge of God.4 With gentleness and respect, we can show the atheist that he already knows about God, but is suppressing what he knows to be true.

Exposing the Inconsistency

BECAUSE AN ATHEIST DOES BELIEVE IN GOD, BUT DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT HE BELIEVES IN GOD, HE IS SIMPLY A WALKING BUNDLE OF INCONSISTENCIES.

Because an atheist does believe in God, but does not believe that he believes in God, he is simply a walking bundle of inconsistencies. One type to watch for is a behavioral inconsistency; this is where a person’s behavior does not comport with what he claims to believe. For example, consider the atheist university professor who teaches that human beings are simply chemical accidents—the end result of a long and purposeless chain of biological evolution. But then he goes home and kisses his wife and hugs his children, as if they were not simply chemical accidents, but valuable, irreplaceable persons deserving of respect and worthy of love.

Consider the atheist who is outraged at seeing a violent murder on the ten o’clock news. He is very upset and hopes that the murderer will be punished for his wicked actions. But in his view of the world, why should he be angry? In an atheistic, evolutionary universe where people are just animals, murder is no different than a lion killing an antelope. But we don’t punish the lion! If people are just chemical accidents, then why punish one for killing another? We wouldn’t get upset at baking soda for reacting with vinegar; that’s just what chemicals do. The concepts that human beings are valuable, are not simply animals, are not simply chemicals, have genuine freedom to make choices, are responsible for their actions, and are bound by a universal objective moral code all stem from a Christian worldview. Such things simply do not make sense in an atheistic view of life.

Many atheists behave morally and expect others to behave morally as well. But absolute morality simply does not comport with atheism. Why should there be an absolute, objective standard of behavior that all people should obey if the universe and the people within it are simply accidents of nature? Of course, people can assert that there is a moral code. But who is to say what that moral code should be? Some people think it is okay to be racist; others think it is okay to kill babies, and others think we should kill people of other religions or ethnicities, etc. Who is to say which position should be followed? Any standard of our own creation would necessarily be subjective and arbitrary.

Now, some atheists might respond, “That’s right! Morality is subjective. We each have the right to create our own moral code. And therefore, you cannot impose your personal morality on other people!” But of course, this statement is self-refuting, because when they say, “you cannot impose your personal morality on other people” they are imposing their personal moral code on other people. When push comes to shove, no one really believes that morality is merely a subjective, personal choice.

Logical Inconsistency

Another inconsistency occurs when atheists attempt to be rational. Rationality involves the use of laws of logic. Laws of logic prescribe the correct chain of reasoning between truth claims. For example, consider the argument: “If it is snowing outside, then it must be cold out. It is snowing. Therefore, it is cold out.” This argument is correct because it uses a law of logic called modus ponens. Laws of logic, like modus ponens, are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities. They are immaterial because you can’t touch them or stub your toe on one. They are universal and invariant because they apply in all places and at all times (modus ponens works just as well in Africa as it does in the United States, and just as well on Friday as it does on Monday). And they are abstract because they deal with concepts.

LAWS OF LOGIC STEM FROM GOD’S SOVEREIGN NATURE; THEY ARE A REFLECTION OF THE WAY HE THINKS.

Laws of logic stem from God’s sovereign nature; they are a reflection of the way He thinks. They are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities, because God is an immaterial (Spirit), omnipresent, unchanging God who has all knowledge (Colossians 2:3). Thus, all true statements will be governed by God’s thinking—they will be logical. The law of non-contradiction, for example, stems from the fact that God does not deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13). The Christian can account for laws of logic; they are the correct standard for reasoning because God is sovereign over all truth. We can know some of God’s thoughts because God has revealed Himself to us through the words of Scripture and the person of Jesus Christ.

However, the atheist cannot account for laws of logic. He cannot make sense of them within his own worldview. How could there be immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract laws in a chance universe formed by a big bang? Why should there be an absolute standard of reasoning if everything is simply “molecules in motion”? Most atheists have a materialistic outlook—meaning they believe that everything that exists is material, or explained by material processes. But laws of logic are not material! You cannot pull a law of logic out of the refrigerator! If atheistic materialism is true, then there could be no laws of logic, since they are immaterial. Thus, logical reasoning would be impossible!

Laws of Logic

No one is denying that atheists are able to reason and use laws of logic. The point is that if atheism were true, the atheist would not be able to reason or use laws of logic because such things would not be meaningful. The fact that the atheist is able to reason demonstrates that he is wrong. By using that which makes no sense given his worldview, the atheist is being horribly inconsistent. He is using God’s laws of logic, while denying the biblical God that makes such laws possible.

How could there be laws at all without a lawgiver? The atheist cannot account for (1) the existence of laws of logic, (2) why they are immaterial, (3) why they are universal, (4) why they do not change with time, and (5) how human beings can possibly know about them or their properties. But of course, all these things make perfect sense on the Christian system. Laws of logic owe their existence to the biblical God. Yet they are required to reason rationally, to prove things. So the biblical God must exist in order for reasoning to be possible. Therefore, the best proof of God’s existence is that without Him we couldn’t prove anything at all! The existence of the biblical God is the prerequisite for knowledge and rationality. This is called the “transcendental argument for God” or TAG for short. It is a devastating and conclusive argument, one that only a few people have even attempted to refute (and none of them successfully).5

Proof Versus Persuasion

Transcendental Argument

Though the transcendental argument for God is deductively sound, not all atheists will be convinced upon hearing it. It may take time for them to even understand the argument in the first place. As I write this chapter, I am in the midst of an electronic exchange with an atheist who has not yet fully grasped the argument. Real-life discussions on this issue take time. But even if the atheist fully understands the argument, he may not be convinced. We must remember that there is a difference between proof and persuasion. Proof is objective, but persuasion is subjective. The transcendental argument does indeed objectively prove that God exists. However, that does not mean that the atheists will necessarily cry “uncle.” Atheists are strongly motivated to not believe in the biblical God—a God who is rightly angry at them for their treason against Him.

THE ATHEIST’S DENIAL OF GOD IS AN EMOTIONAL REACTION, NOT A LOGICAL ONE.

But the atheist’s denial of God is an emotional reaction, not a logical one. We might imagine a disobedient child who is about to be punished by his father. He might cover his eyes with his hands and say of his father, “You don’t exist!” but that would hardly be rational. Atheists deny (with their lips) the biblical God, not for logical reasons, but for psychological reasons. We must also keep in mind that the unbeliever’s problem is not simply an emotional issue, but a deep spiritual problem (1 Corinthians 2:14). It is the Holy Spirit that must give him the ability to repent (1 Corinthians 12:3; 2 Timothy 2:25).

So we must keep in mind that it is not our job to convert people—nor can we. Our job is to give a defense of the faith in a way that is faithful to the Scriptures (1 Peter 3:15). It is the Holy Spirit that brings conversion. But God can use our arguments as part of the process by which He draws people to Himself.


Sierra Wright, Quora 5 Comments [12/20/2018 12:17:09 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 141597

Christians are right tho. Our Bible came first. And the different translations are simply different angles on one Truth. Jesus did die on the Cross. No dithering around, where angels took him off. Even the Koran says Jesus was the Messiah. Well what is a Messiah.

And Muslims love to ask..”where in the Bible did Jesus Himself actually claim to be God?’ Answer. Many places, but to start, in the Book of John.

And also in what was not said. Notice how the disciples prayed a lot. But not when Jesus was with them. Only after He had died. Also Jesus said ..’before ABraham was, I Am.’ not know ‘I was’….He was with us way back before time began.

Jesus said He was humble. And we believe Him. But at the same time left a Jesus said he forgave sins. One man sins against another. Doesnt sound humble.

The Bible says, ‘whoever brings a religion other than that Jesus is Son of God is of the EVIL one’.

Jesus said. ‘I am the Way, the Truth, the Light. Nobody comes to the Father except thru me’….well of course. HE IS GOD

but despite these bold claims, we still believe Jesus when He says He is humble.

And unlike Mohammed, who is likely roaming in Hell, Jesus did nothing wrong ever.

So….we will be welcomed into the Joy of the Lord.

P.s. all we have to do…is place our hands into His…muslims can never know if they have made heaven in this life. I read that. ‘we are never safe until we die an nd only then will we know we made jannah’

We place our trust in Jesus and wall and talk with a loving Heavenly Father who knew we could never ever earn heaven. So He came Himself. As Jesus died on one side of the Cross…we…Susi, Tom, Dick..Harriet…all died on the OTHER side of the Cross. We died too.! And are already seated in the Heavenly places

But we are at the same time stuffed back in to these suits of human flesh. Which has mortal human urges. So we confess and are forgiven.

I will not see a stranger when I die. But a friend.


Muhammad Rasheed, Quora 0 Comments [12/20/2018 12:16:59 PM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 141596

(=Context: I am not sure if this really belongs on here, but the following is a reading of an article. I am not sure I can take anything from Argent's actual commentary as their views are fairly vague, so we're sticking with the reading; it should be noted the video is entitled "ELECTRIC SHOCK THERAPY TO CURE HOMOSEXUALITY MAKE... CHINA ECONOMY STRONG!!!" so make of that as you will=)

Undercover video shows horrific reality of China's gay shock therapy - where young men are pumped with electricity to try and 'cure' them of their homosexuality

Gay shock therapy uncovered in Chinese hospitals

15 years since homosexuality was considered a 'mental illness' in China
Electric shock therapy and nausea-inducing drugs cost $800 per session
Hospitals in Tianjin and Huashan are exposed by undercover patients
Barbaric treatment is secretly filmed but activists face prison

China’s Gay Shock Therapy story on Tuesday’s Dateline at 9.30pm on SBS
They are horrific images of young Chinese men with electrodes placed near their genitals and on their head before being subjected to huge doses of electric voltage to try and rid them of their homosexuality.


It's been revealed that men are still regularly subjected to gay electric shock therapy in China, 15 years after it was no longer classified a 'mental illness'.

Hospitals across the country continue to offer the brutal treatment, saying they can 'cure homosexuality'. Their barbaric methods are exposed by the Dateline program.

Electric shock therapy being used to 'cure' homosexuality in China

An undercover 'patient' is subjected to gay electric shock therapy inside a Chinese hospital. Leading psychotherapist Johnny Li said 'the damage can be long-term' +9

An undercover 'patient' is subjected to gay electric shock therapy inside a Chinese hospital. Leading psychotherapist Johnny Li said 'the damage can be long-term'

In one scene a young man posing as a 'patient' appears to have electrodes placed near his genitalia before the shock treatment begins and tells the nervous 'I'm nervous' +9

In one scene a young man posing as a 'patient' appears to have electrodes placed near his genitalia before the shock treatment begins and tells the nervous 'I'm nervous'

The program charts the process of finding a hospital which offers the treatment right through to the therapy +9

The program charts the process of finding a hospital which offers the treatment right through to the therapy

Secret filming by 'patients' uncovers the gay shock therapy still used in some Chinese hospitals +9

Secret filming by 'patients' uncovers the gay shock therapy still used in some Chinese hospitals

Activist John Shen is filmed making enquiries at Chinese hospitals about treatment for homosexuality. He is pictured with reporter Shaunagh Connaire +9

Activist John Shen is filmed making enquiries at Chinese hospitals about treatment for homosexuality. He is pictured with reporter Shaunagh Connaire

Viewers are taken inside medical facilities like the Tianjin Mental Health Hospital where undercover activist, John Shen, is told he can be prescribed drugs and shock therapy.

'It’s a small electric rod, when you have these urges, you shock yourself with the rod, then you know you should avoid these urges,' a psychiatrist tells Mr Shen.

In one particularly confronting image it appears a nurse even places electrodes near the man's genitalia as he calls out that 'I'm nervous'.

China outlawed the classification more than 15 years ago but that hasn't stopped the shocking practice taking place in medical facilities.

The SBS program also reveals how he is told his current 'condition reflex' makes him feel love for the same sex.

'Now what I want to make you to feel is scared,' the clinician tells him as she sends the charge through his body.

Activist John Chen breaks down as the Dateline crew leaves the hospital, revealing that he can be jailed if he makes complains about the gay shock treatment to authorities +9

Activist John Chen breaks down as the Dateline crew leaves the hospital, revealing that he can be jailed if he makes complains about the gay shock treatment to authorities

Activists against the Chinese shock treatment reveal they are regularly threatened with jail +9

Activists against the Chinese shock treatment reveal they are regularly threatened with jail

Another 'patient' went ahead with the treatment at the Huashan Hospital to secretly recorded the process.

'When these urges arise, you can take a cold shower or go jogging to release the excess hormones,” a psychiatrist suggested to him before offering the electric shock treatment.

He is told it costs $800 each time and that several appointments will be required for him to be 'cured'..

Electrodes are attached to the man's head, which goes numb as the voltage is turned up.

'He’s told it will rebalance his nervous system.'

Despite the law change, police closely monitor any public dissent and reporter Shaunagh Connaire is told opponents are threatened with jail.

'I think aversion therapy can hurt anyone, especially gay people,” psychotherapist Johnny Li said.

'Aversion therapy reinforces their lack of self-identity and their feelings of rejection, the damage can be long-term or even last a lifetime.'

None; reader is "Argent", Youtube 4 Comments [12/20/2018 12:16:51 PM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 141594

(In a thread titled "Why are antifa such a big bunch of faggot crybabies?")

Everyone under democracy is a bunch of effete (note: the word "faggot" is a sad substitute for this) crybabies.

The solution is eugenics + monarchy + nationalism + traditionalism + a caste system

Any fucking questions?

diversity_is_racism, Reddit - /r/antifa 5 Comments [12/20/2018 12:16:34 PM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 141593

(=Comments on The Death of the Episcopal Church and Liberal Christianity in General=)

nadem: "The sin of Sodom was a failure to take care of the poor" *Three laughing to the point of tears emoji's*

Trebor Marshall: And homosexuality which God calls an abomination.. other words possibly close might be detestable, sickening, rotten, horrible, terrible, worse than garbage..?

Homosexuality is close to child molestation and beastiality. Prob why child molestation and homosexuality have both been called sodomy?

Nadem & Trebor Marshall, Youtube 0 Comments [12/20/2018 12:16:14 PM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 141591

The King James Bible is God's crimson book—God's blood-sprinkled, pure, perfect, infallible, inerrant, inspired, dependable, eternal, Book. Every page of this King James Bible is crimsoned with the blood of its Author!!! King James Bible is crimsoned with the blood of its Author! All 66 books of this holy inspired Bible is crimsoned with the blood of Jesus Christ. All 1,189 chapters are crimsoned with the blood of Jesus Christ! All 31,175 verses are crimsoned with the blood of Jesus Christ! All 810,697 words are crimsoned with the blood of Jesus Christ. All 3,568,489 letters are crimsoned with the blood of Jesus Christ!!!!!!! It's a blood-sprinkled Book! The blood of the Lamb streaks every page!!! This King James Bible is signed and sealed by the blood of its Author!!!

Why should we believe that the King James Bible is inspired? Because it is a blood-sprinkled Book!!!
Why should we believe that the King James Bible is perfect? Because it is a blood-sprinkled Book!!!
Why should we believe that the King James Bible is infallible? Because it is a blood-sprinkled Book!!!
Why should we believe that the King James Bible is inerrant? Because it is a blood-sprinkled Book!!!

The King James Bible is a blood-sprinkled Book; therefore we:

We obey it, because it's God's sprinkled Book!
We love it, because it's God's sprinkled Book!
We trust it, because it's God's sprinkled Book!
We read it, because it's God's sprinkled Book!
We study it, because it's God's sprinkled Book!
We preach it, because it's God's sprinkled Book!
We proclaim it to be God's sprinkled Book!

THE BOOK is a crimson (the color of blood, i.e., blood) sprinkled Book...

Its veracity is established, because it is a crimson Book!
Its purity is established, because it is a crimson Book!
Its dependability is established, because it is a crimson Book!
Its truth is established, because it is a crimson Book!
Kept pure BY THE BLOOD!

If you don't have a King James Bible, you have a Devil's Bible!!!!!!

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Precious 10 Comments [12/20/2018 12:15:39 PM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 141590

An Ohio man was arrested on charges that he attempted to support the Islamic State by planning an attack on a synagogue in Toledo after the Pittsburgh massacre, federal officials announced Monday.
Damon M. Joseph, 21, of Holland, Ohio, was arrested Friday and charged with one count of attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State.
The case began after Joseph posted photographs of weapons and messages in support of the Islamic State on his social media accounts, according to a news release about Joseph’s arrest from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Ohio’s Northern District.
Undercover FBI agents began corresponding with Joseph. In some of these discussions, Joseph said he supported the Islamic State and made propaganda “in support of ISIS recruitment,” which included videos to recruit people, according to the release. And he expressed his support for violence, officials said.
He said that he supported “martyrdom operations,” that “what must be done, must be done” and that “there will always be casualties of war.”
After a gunman killed 11 congregants at a Pittsburgh synagogue, Joseph told an undercover agent that he “admire[d] what the guy did with the shooting,” federal officials said.
“I can see myself carrying out this type of operation inshallah,” Joseph said, according to officials. “They wouldn’t even expect in my area.”
On Dec. 2, Joseph forwarded a document that specified his plans for an attack. He described attacking where a large number of people were gathered to inflict the most casualties, officials said.
Two days later, he said he was deciding between two synagogues in the area, saying the choice depended on “which one will have the most people, what time and what day. Go big or go home.”
He told an undercover agent he wanted to a kill a rabbi, saying that he hoped to attack two synagogues but that it was more realistic to attack only one, officials said. On Dec. 7, Joseph met with the undercover agent and took from the agent a black duffel bag containing two semiautomatic rifles that had been rendered inoperable by law enforcement officers, the release said. Agents then arrested him.
“In a matter of months, Damon Joseph progressed from radicalized, virtual jihadist to attack planner,” acting special agent in charge Jeff Fortunato of the FBI’s Cleveland division said in the release. “He ultimately decided to target two Toledo-area synagogues for a mass-casualty attack in the name of ISIS. Joseph will now be accountable in a court of law for his pursuit of a violent act of terrorism upon our fellow citizens attending their desired house of worship.”

Damon Joseph, Washington Post 0 Comments [12/20/2018 12:05:11 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Nemo

Quote# 141589

R T Deco:
Well, now that we're headed down the "identity" path to the point that a person seriously claims that he has a right to legally identify as 20 years younger, how long will it be until adults claim the right to "identify" as children so as to "play doctor" with them?

Lady Checkmate:
That's their next "logical" step. They consider mainstream society's acceptance of other sexual immorality as an indicator that society will accept them grooming children for rape as well, but NO and NO a million times.

Lady Checkmate, Disqus - News Network 6 Comments [12/20/2018 12:05:03 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 141588

Lady Checkmate's headline: "A Short Primer on the Bible and Homosexual Practice By Michael Brown"

Here's a brief primer, along with some helpful resources.

1) Every single reference to homosexual practice in the Bible is categorically negative.

2) There is not one positive reference to homosexual practice in the Bible nor one positive example of a homosexual relationship.

3) There is not one single archaeological or textual or linguistic discovery that has been made in the last 50 or 100 years that would alter our understanding of the Bible and homosexuality.

4) When Moses condemned homosexual practice, it was not for Israel alone (in contrast, say, with the food laws). Instead, it was unlawful for the Israelites because it was unlawful for all.

5) Although Jesus did not need to clarify his stance on homosexual practice, since it was clearly forbidden by first-century Judaism, he addressed it in at least three different ways, reaffirming marriage as the union of one man and one woman for life.

6) Paul stated plainly that male and female homosexual acts were contrary to God's design in creation.

7) Paul also stated that those who practice homosexuality would not enter the kingdom of God. He also stated that, just as there were former adulterers and fornicators and drunkards, all of whom had been forgiven and cleansed by the blood of Jesus, there were also former practitioners of homosexuality.

8) Though the Bible does not directly speak to the question of "sexual orientation" (a relatively new concept), it does tell us that the entire human race is fallen and flawed, in need of a Redeemer. And while the Scriptures do not state that anyone is "born gay," the Scriptures do tell us that all human beings must be "born again."

9) Ancient Jewish traditions that may have been known in Jesus' day claim that one reason God destroyed the world in Noah's day was because of homosexual marriage.

10) The ancient Greek world in which Paul lived was familiar with long-term homosexual relationships, homosexual "marriages" and even entertained questions about homosexual desires being innate.

11) Jesus died for homosexual and heterosexual alike, offering forgiveness, redemption and new life to all.

12) Jesus did not practice affirmational inclusion—meaning, He did not meet sinners where they were and affirm them in their sin. Rather, He practiced transformational inclusion—meaning, He met sinners where they were and transformed them.

CAN YOU BE GAY AND CHRISTIAN?
https://youtu.be/5l_GY6mXgQg

TESTIMONIES FROM EX-GAYS
https://youtu.be/VKSFPdyH8x4

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. May God bless you and keep you.

Lady Checkmate, Disqus - Faith & Religion 5 Comments [12/20/2018 12:04:34 PM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 141586

In Sunday’s New York Times, Andrea Long Chu writes a heartfelt and heartbreaking op-ed on life with gender dysphoria. Titled “My New Vagina Won’t Make Me Happy,” the op-ed reveals painful truths about many transgender lives and inadvertently communicates almost the exact opposite of its intended argument.

Next week, Chu will undergo vaginoplasty surgery. Or, as Chu puts it: “Next Thursday, I will get a vagina. The procedure will last around six hours, and I will be in recovery for at least three months.”

Will this bring happiness? Probably not, but Chu wants it all the same: “This is what I want, but there is no guarantee it will make me happier. In fact, I don’t expect it to. That shouldn’t disqualify me from getting it.”

Chu argues that the simple desire for sex-reassignment surgery should be all that is required for a patient to receive it. No consideration for authentic health and wellbeing or concern about poor outcomes should prevent a doctor from performing the surgery if a patient wants it. Chu explains: “no amount of pain, anticipated or continuing, justifies its withholding.”

This is a rather extreme conclusion. Chu writes: “surgery’s only prerequisite should be a simple demonstration of want.” This is quite a claim. And we’ll come back to it. But as the op-ed builds to this stark conclusion, Chu reveals many frequently unacknowledged truths about transgender lives—truths that we should attend to.



Sex isn’t “assigned,” and surgery can’t change it

First, Chu acknowledges that the surgery won’t actually “reassign” sex: “my body will regard the vagina as a wound; as a result, it will require regular, painful attention to maintain.”

Sex reassignment is quite literally impossible. Surgery can’t actually reassign sex, because sex isn’t “assigned” in the first place.

As I point out in When Harry Became Sally, sex is a bodily reality—the reality of how an organism is organized with respect to sexual reproduction. That reality isn’t “assigned” at birth or any time after.

Sex—maleness or femaleness—is established at a child’s conception, can be ascertained even at the earliest stages of human development by technological means, and can be observed visually well before birth with ultrasound imaging. Cosmetic surgery and cross-sex hormones don’t change biological reality.

People who undergo sex-reassignment procedures do not become the opposite sex—they merely masculinize or feminize their outward appearance.

Gender dysphoria Is deeply painful

Second, Chu acknowledges the deep pain of gender dysphoria, the sense of distress or alienation one feels at one’s bodily sex:

Dysphoria feels like being unable to get warm, no matter how many layers you put on. It feels like hunger without appetite. It feels like getting on an airplane to fly home, only to realize mid-flight that this is it: You’re going to spend the rest of your life on an airplane. It feels like grieving. It feels like having nothing to grieve.

“Transitioning” may not make things better and could make them worse

Third, Chu acknowledges that “transitioning” may not make things better and could even make things worse. Chu writes: “I feel demonstrably worse since I started on hormones.” And continues: “Like many of my trans friends, I’ve watched my dysphoria balloon since I began transition.”

Indeed, as I document in When Harry Became Sally, the medical evidence suggests that sex reassignment does not adequately address the psychosocial difficulties faced by people who identify as transgender. Even when the procedures are successful technically and cosmetically, and even in cultures that are relatively “trans-friendly,” transitioners still face poor outcomes.

Even the Obama administration admitted that the best studies do not report improvement after reassignment surgery.

In August 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid wrote: “the four best designed and conducted studies that assessed quality of life before and after surgery using validated (albeit non-specific) psychometric studies did not demonstrate clinically significant changes or differences in psychometric test results after GRS [gender reassignment surgery].”

What does that mean? A population of patients is suffering so much that they would submit to amputations and other radical surgeries, and the best research the Obama administration could find suggests that it brings them no meaningful improvements in their quality of life.

Suicide is a serious risk

Fourth, Chu acknowledges a struggle with suicide ideation: “I was not suicidal before hormones. Now I often am.”

In 2016, the Obama administration acknowledged a similar reality. In a discussion of the largest and most robust study on sex-reassignment, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid pointed out “The study identified increased mortality and psychiatric hospitalization compared to the matched controls. The mortality was primarily due to completed suicides (19.1-fold greater than in control Swedes).”

These results are tragic. And they directly contradict the most popular media narratives, as well as many of the snapshot studies that do not track people over time.

Indeed, the Obama administration noted that “mortality from this patient population did not become apparent until after 10 years.” So when the media tout studies that only track outcomes for a few years, and claim that reassignment is a stunning success, there are good grounds for skepticism.

The purpose of medicine is healing

This brings us back to Chu’s argument that “surgery’s only prerequisite should be a simple demonstration of want.” What should we make of it?

Why should a doctor perform surgery when it won’t make the patient happy, it won’t accomplish its intended goal, it won’t improve the underlying condition, it might make the underlying condition worse, and it might increase the likelihood of suicide?

Chu wants to turn the profession of medicine on its head, transforming a medical doctor into nothing more than “a highly competent hired syringe,” in the words of Leon Kass.

Unfortunately, Chu isn’t alone. Many professionals now view health care—including mental health care—primarily as a means of fulfilling patients’ desires, whatever those are. Kass explains:

The implicit (and sometimes explicit) model of the doctor-patient relationship is one of contract: the physician—a highly competent hired syringe, as it were—sells his services on demand, restrained only by the law (though he is free to refuse his services if the patient is unwilling or unable to meet his fee).

Here’s the deal: for the patient, autonomy and service; for the doctor, money, graced by the pleasure of giving the patient what he wants. If a patient wants to fix her nose or change his gender, determine the sex of unborn children, or take euphoriant drugs just for kicks, the physician can and will go to work—provided that the price is right and that the contract is explicit about what happens if the customer isn’t satisfied.

This vision of medicine and medical professionals gets it wrong. Professionals ought to profess their devotion to the purposes and ideals they serve. That’s what makes them professionals, and not just service providers.

Teachers should be devoted to learning, lawyers to justice under law, and physicians to “healing the sick, looking up to health and wholeness.” Healing is “the central core of medicine,” Kass writes—“to heal, to make whole, is the doctor’s primary business.”

But Chu’s vision of medicine turns the doctor into someone who merely satisfies desires, even if what is done isn’t good for a patient. Chu writes:

I still want this, all of it. I want the tears; I want the pain. Transition doesn’t have to make me happy for me to want it. Left to their own devices, people will rarely pursue what makes them feel good in the long term. Desire and happiness are independent agents.

Sound medicine isn’t about desire, it’s about healing. To provide the best possible care, serving the patient’s medical interests requires an understanding of human wholeness and well-being. Mental health care must be guided by a sound concept of human flourishing.

Our brains and senses are designed to bring us into contact with reality, connecting us with the outside world and with the reality of ourselves. Thoughts and feelings that disguise or distort reality are misguided, and they can cause harm. In When Harry Became Sally, I argue that we need to do a better job of helping people who face these struggles.

Misrepresentations of my work

And Chu takes issue with me:

Many conservatives call this [gender dysphoria] crazy. A popular right-wing narrative holds that gender dysphoria is a clinical delusion; hence, feeding that delusion with hormones and surgeries constitutes a violation of medical ethics.

Just ask the Heritage Foundation fellow Ryan T. Anderson, whose book “When Harry Became Sally” draws heavily on the work of Dr. Paul McHugh, the psychiatrist who shut down the gender identity clinic at Johns Hopkins in 1979 on the grounds that trans-affirmative care meant “cooperating with a mental illness.”

Mr. Anderson writes, “We must avoid adding to the pain experienced by people with gender dysphoria, while we present them with alternatives to transitioning.”

Of course I never call people with gender dysphoria crazy. And I explicitly state in the book that I take no position on the technical question of whether someone’s thinking that he or she is the opposite sex is a clinical delusion. That’s why Chu couldn’t quote any portion of my book saying as much.

Throughout the book, I point out that the feelings that people who identify as transgender report are real—they really feel a disconnect with their bodily sex—but I also acknowledge the fact that those feelings don’t change bodily reality. I recognize the real distress that gender dysphoria can cause, but never do I call people experiencing it crazy.

I repeatedly acknowledge that gender dysphoria is a serious condition, that people who experience a gender identity conflict should be treated with respect and compassion, that we need to find better, more humane and effective, responses to people who experience dysphoria.

Nevertheless, Chu claims that I am engaged in “‘compassion-mongering,’ peddling bigotry in the guise of sympathetic concern.”

For the record, Chu never contacted me regarding my research or my book. Nor did the Times contact me to verify any of the claims made about me in the op-ed. Indeed, this is the second time the New York Times has published an op-ed with inaccurate criticisms of me and my book.

Americans disagree about gender identity and the best approaches to treating gender dysphoria. We need to respect the dignity of people who identify as transgender while also doing everything possible to help people find wholeness and happiness.

That will require a better conversation about these issues, which is why I wrote my book. And it’s presumably why Chu wrote this op-ed. Now is not the time for personal attacks and name-calling, but for sober and respectful truth-telling.

Chu may regard me as a “bigot,” but I regard Chu as a fellow human being made in the image and likeness of God who is struggling with a painful and dangerous condition. As such, Chu deserves care and support that will bring health and wholeness—not the on-demand delivery of “services” that even Chu acknowledges are unlikely to make life better and may make it very much worse.


Ryan T. Anderson, Mercator Net 0 Comments [12/20/2018 12:00:34 PM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 141585

This is not a life, but some kind of nonstop humiliation

Is this supposed to be funny? Is it a joke? Even the most sadistic fuck couldn't come up with something like this. I can't even begin to describe how perfectly every minute of this life has been calculated to cause total demoralization and anguish. If this was a game of chess, you have only a king on one square while all other squares on the board have an enemy queen. You are checkmated in every way possible. You are checkmated in ways you didn't even know you could be checkmated.

If you are reading this you have been devastatingly humiliated already multiple times today. Did you take a shit today? There is very little worse than having to take a shit. You literally have feces inside of your body that you have to expel, but some of them get stuck to you, so you have to wipe feces off of your body. Can you imagine anything more degrading? I've just said it and I'll say it again: Even the most sadistic fuck couldn't come up with something like this. So where did this absurdity come from? Every moment I wish it was just a bad dream, or a bad lsd trip, that will eventually go away. I am fucking owned, pwned and thrashed by life every moment of every day, there is no respite, it's like a superintelligence calculated the most perfect way possible of crushing someone. Am I living in hell? If so, I am really fucking sorry for what I did to deserve this.

Even childhood is supposed to be your tutorial mode, but if you aren't born a failed start, (starving to death as a kid, which happens a lot) then your childhood, if it's the best possible one, with no abuse, only serves to maximum bluepill you so you enter adult life totally unprepared with a rosy colored view that life then delights in crushing to pieces. And you weren't even intelligent enough as a child to enjoy your childhood as much as you should. If your childhood sucks, then you don't become hardened and tough like you deserve to be, instead, a shitty childhood turns to a shitty adulthood and then it only gets more distorted and dysphoric from there. Speaking of being utterly unprepared, how am I so completely unprepared just to exist? My thin, frail body can barely support it's own weight in this gravity. Seriously, don't we have millions of years of evolution that should have gotten us ready for this? Millions of years of evolution, and the summers are too fucking hot and the winters are too fucking cold. You would think that with millions of years of evolution we would be able to handle the ambient fucking conditions of our planet? Well, think again, fucktard. You are born powerless. You are also born wanting things you can't have, and then your brain hurts you by making you depressed when you have no possible way of satisfying its impossible demands.

One figures that with foids controlling evolution, we end up hopelessly weak and stupid creatures that are doomed to madness and failure. If high iq men controlled evolution, we would be 5th dimensional energy beings by now, but no, everything is perfect horror and thus the most unqualified things that can possibly exist- women, end up controlling the most important of all processes. It's like having a baby as the pilot of your plane.

This is the worst possible reality, yet somehow paradoxically complete with still having the opportunity to get twice as bad as it is at any moment. Humiliation day in and day out, coping is humiliation, roping it obscene levels of humiliation. There is no way out. There is nothing more cucked than having been born, and being alive. Even now I can think of hundreds and hundreds of ways in which life is wiping the floor with me. BrazilianSigma get a job.

Toroidaljoints, r/Braincels 8 Comments [12/20/2018 12:00:21 PM]
Fundie Index: 4