Quote# 138933

THE FRIGHTENING IMPLICATIONS OF THE TEN BASIC BELIEFS OF UNIVERSAL RECONCILIATION

Christians who believe in Jesus Christ and adhere to the teachings of the Bible have great cause of concern should the claims of universal reconciliation (UR) succeed. Here are 10 of the leading teachings of UR followed immediately by the serious and surprising implications.

Teaching #1: Love is the supreme attribute of God. His other attributes (holiness, justice, righteousness) are limited by his love. “God cannot act apart from love” (The Shack, 102). “Mercy triumphs over judgement because of love” (TS, 164).

Implications: (1) Out of logical necessity, God ceases to be God. For God to be God means that he is perfect in all his attributes. No one attribute is greater than another. If this is not the case, then some attributes would be imperfect, incomplete, and some standard outside of God would be the measure of God—and this is impossible. Thus by affirming that love is the supreme attribute of God UR has created a defective deity. God ceases to be God. (2) Humans have no standard by which to set the appropriate judgment and punishment for crimes. (3) Ultimately Jesus’ death on the cross is unnecessary. Jesus did not need to die for sins because God would have loved people enough to take them to heaven and his justice did not need to be fully satisfied. (4) Ultimately the incarnation of Jesus was unnecessary, because love as the supreme attribute would have brought all to God apart from the justice demanded by an eternal death for sin. (5) Sin is not so bad after all. (6) The Bible is untrustworthy, for it never limits any of God's attributes or exalts one over another.
Note: This is probably the most central and far-reaching claim of UR; and it is the most heretical. (2) Many of these implications apply to other teachings below.

Teaching #2: God has already reconciled all people to himself by Jesus’ death on the cross. He has already removed the hostility between himself and people (TS, 192, 222).
Implication: (1) If reconciliation is already true for all, then there is no need to preach the gospel about Jesus Christ. (2) There is no need for people to believe in order to appropriate reconciliation. They already possess it.

Teaching #3: People either repent and believe the gospel before they die, or those who go to hell after dying will repent and believe the gospel, and then go to heaven. All go to heaven. Those people in hell change their destiny.

Implications: (1) There is no need to preach the gospel; no need to be engaged in missions or outreach. (2) The Bible is incomplete and untrustworthy here for it nowhere states that anyone can change his destiny after dying. (3) The entire record of church history is filled with the misplaced emphasis on trying to reach the world with the good news. (4) Jesus is untrustworthy for he commanded his people to go to the whole world and preach the gospel (Matt 28:19-20). He taught that there are two destinies, one leading to life, the other leading to destruction (Matt 7:13-14).

Teaching #4: God does not punish sin. He seeks to cure it. Sin is its own punishment (TS, 120).

Implication: (1) There is no future judgment after death when all stand before God as Judge to receive punishment for their sins (2 Cor 10. (2) The Biblical account of judgments on individuals and nations (Adam and Eve, Cain, the generation of the Flood, the Tower of Babel, the people of Canaan, Israel and Judah because of idolatry, on Jesus at the cross) are not trustworthy.

Teaching #5: At the finality of all things the fallen angels and the Devil himself will all repent and go to heaven—and hell is no more.

Implications: (1) The sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross was/is unnecessary. There is another way to get to heaven, since the death of Jesus on the cross did not concern the sin of angels. (2) Heaven is unsafe because Satan could rebel against God in the distant future. With his past experience he could believe that his future rebellion would be more successful. (3) A future rebellion of Satan could be repeated ad infinitum, but this is impossible. (4) Jesus work on the cross to provide forgiveness for all people was not final. (5) If there is no hell there is no heaven; there is no need for heaven.

Teaching #6: Since Jesus between his death and resurrection went to hell to proclaim salvation to those there, then he could go a thousand times more to deliver others who have gone there since.

Implications: (1) It is not a convincing interpretation of certain texts that Jesus ever did this (see Eph. 4:8-10; 1 Pet. 3:18-20; 4:6). (2) Even if this happened then, there are no words from Jesus or from the Apostles that say that he will do this again.

Teaching #7: Hell is not as we have believed it. Hell is not a place of God’s everlasting punishment but of purging, correcting, reproving people so that given enough time all depart Hell (TS, 162-164).

Implications: (1) If there is no hell there is no heaven, for in the end heaven and hell are indistinguishable. (2) Jesus is untrustworthy because he warned of “everlasting torment” (Matt 25:41). (3) Then we humans have no standard by which to exert penalties and punishment for crimes done on earth.

Teaching #8: There is no place left in the universe where God’s love has not conquered all. He is totally victorious. None are left in rebellion against God. All are brought into submission by love.

Implications: (1) Then the will of some to refuse to believe the gospel is voided. (2) Then God did not will to create humanity with a will to be able to choose not to believe.

Teaching #9: The institutions of marriage, the church, and the government are the “man-created, trinity of terrors that ravages the earth and deceives those I care about. . . . It’s all false” and part of “a diabolical scheme” (TS, 122-124; 179).

Implications: (1) Then the devil is in control. (2) Jesus is untrustworthy, since he said that he would build his church (Matt 16). The Bible says that Jesus is head of the church (Eph 2:19-22; 3:6-11; 4:14-16; 5:23), that he loves the church and died for it (Eph 5:25). (3) The Bible is untrustworthy since it describes God as forming marriage (Gen 2; Eph 5:25-33) and instituting government (Rom 13:1-6). (4) Then there are no duly constituted authorities delegated by God. (5) Thus all acts of anarchy and terrorism are justified. (6) All forms of marriage and non-marriage are equally legitimate; no form is better than any other (including LGBTQ forms). (7) Divorce for any reason is legitimate. (8) Adultery and prostitution are as legitimate as marriage. (9) The family structure has no value. (10) Church structures with elders, deacons, bishops, a constitution or faith statement are all Satanic and wrong. (11) Christian gatherings are demonic.

Teaching #10: People are in a “circle of relationship” with God that is pure, having no authority and no subordination to God (TS, 122-124).

Implications: (1) Then Jesus’ commandments to obey him and to love others (as in John 14 16) are to be disobeyed; and P Young is to be obeyed. (2) The church should not submit to Jesus (contra Eph 5:24). (3) Jesus’ claim to have “all authority in heaven and earth” is false (Matt 28:19). (4) Jesus is not to be acknowledged as Lord, King, Head of the church, Prince of peace, the Mighty God, the everlasting Father, Savior, Master, etc. (4) Then believers should not “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (contra Eph 5:21). (5) All relationships will fail, since it is impossible to sustain “pure relationships” without structure and in a manner that benefits everyone.

In light of the preceding it is clear that UR can never succeed. It corresponds to no reality. It represents a man-centered theology. It has been tried many times before (the Garden of Eden for one place) and has always failed. But there is the constant need for vigilance to refute it, as Paul and the other Apostles instruct us (Eph. 2:1-2; 6:10-18), to be aware of false prophets and teachers as both Jesus (Matt. 7:13) and the Apostles warn (2 Cor. 11).

James De Young, Eric Barger Ministries 9 Comments [7/17/2018 6:30:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: CC

Quote# 138932

A hundred years ago the Czar and his family were murdered, which murder foreshadowed and led to the murder of huge numbers of ordinary people.

Progressives, including supposedly very moderate centrist progressives, made, and continue to make all sorts of myths justifying and rationalizing the murder, revealing their intent to do it all over again.

Myth: The Czar was brutal and oppressive, but the soldiers refused to fire on the revolting masses, so he was overthrown, and thus the communists, representing the masses to power.

Reality: The Czar was a cucked progressive. He had Lenin and Stalin his hands, guilty of all sorts of crimes that gave him grounds for execution or indefinite imprisonment, but let them off because letists are holier than thou. There were no revolting masses, just a series of coups made in the name of the revolting masses, and such riots and looting as occurred, occurred Ferguson style – the police were ordered to stand back and let the mobs loot stuff and smash stuff.

The February revolution was no revolution – rather the elite allowed the mobs to knock over a few breweries, to provide an excuse for them seizing power from the Czar while he was away at the front.

The communists did not overthrow the Czar. The Kadets overthrew the Czar. Then Kerensky overthrew the Kadets with a policy of no enemies to the left, no friends to the right, which meant he disarmed the military officers, and armed the communists. Then the communists overthrew Kerensky. The leftism of the Czar led to his overthrow by the even lefter Kadets, the indecisive leftism of the Kadets led to their overthrow by Kerensky, and the radical leftism of Kerensky led to his overthrow by the even lefter communists, who then murdered the Czar, and millions of peasants, until the madness ended with them murdering each other.

What happened to Russia was leftism leading to more leftism.

Progressives agree that serfdom was absolutely horrid, and perhaps it was. If it was horrid, the solution should have been to free the serfs and leave the land with the lords. Or perhaps give some of the land to the more competent, successful, and wealthy serfs. But this solution was considered unthinkably horrible and inconceivably reactionary, which implicitly acknowledged that most serfs were not ready to run their own lives. What progressives wanted was the serfs freed with the land. But quite obviously, most serfs were incompetent to operate a small farm. So progressives wanted them to operate the land collectively. But if one man trying to run a small farm is hard, one hundred men trying to run a large farm is considerably harder.

So, Alexander the liberator freed them with collective ownership of the land. Which was predictably a disaster. And there was thereafter a succession of ever lefter government measures to try to deal with the problem, each of which made the problem worse. Russian agriculture still has not recovered. By freeing the serfs and giving them the land collectively, but not individually, Alexander the liberator set in motion a slide ever leftwards that continued steadily all the way to the liquidation of the kulaks.

The liberation of the serfs with collective ownership of the land created a crisis, for which the solution was always more leftism, which led to more crisis. This created an expectation that the way to power was to be lefter than thou. The Czar’s generals and bureaucrats outflanked him on the left. Kerensky’s socialists outflanked them on the left, and the Communists outflanked Kerensky on the left. Then the communists proceeded to outflank each other, till Stalin put a stop to that.

If at any time any of Alexander the Liberator’s successors had been so horribly repressive as to demonstrate that lefter than thou was a seriously bad career move, as Stalin belatedly demonstrated, the slide leftwards would have halted and stayed halted. But instead the Czars allowed to the progressives to guilt them into doing whatever the progs demanded, which merely excited progressive bloodlust.

Jim, Jim's Blog 4 Comments [7/17/2018 6:30:09 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 138931

Warning To Pastors Re. Young’s Universalism

By Dr. James De Young, senior professor, Western Seminary, Portland, Or.

Recently I read a posting by a Southern Baptist leader from Oklahoma, Rev. Wade Burleson, who endorses Paul Young’s newest book, Lies We Believe about God. Burleson claims that Paul Young, the author of The Shack, expresses just another, optional viewpoint about the atonement. He cited Al Mohler and Paul Young as both believing in the atonement but differing only on the issue of its extent. Mohler, following Calvin, believes that the atonement, the sacrifice of Christ for sin on the cross, was limited to providing atonement for believers only. Young believes it is for all human beings. At least this is how Paul Young has explained it to pastor Burleson.

Recently, John MacMurray, a supporter of Paul Young (note that he is named on the last page of the book, Lies), argued similarly and criticizes those who fault Young’s theology.

Now my discussion is not just about what Burleson believes. For I suspect that many pastors are in the same position that Burleson is. They are influenced by their personal experience with Paul Young and give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to understanding his theology. They fail to ask the right questions. But with his most recent publication Young has erased all doubt as to what he believes and how far apart he and Mohler truly are. For Burleson and other pastors to fail to recall their evangelical theology and church history is an inexcusable failure. They are uninformed how universal reconciliation has brought havoc to the church.

Paul Young’s History and Mine

Many pastors are being misled. I’ve known Paul Young probably far longer than most of them. Paul and I go back at least two decades. And in this time Paul has twisted the truth to accommodate his reputation as a “Christian” writer. Here is a summary of events. He renounced his “evangelical paradigm” and converted to universal reconciliation (UR) (in a 103-page forum paper in 2004); reaffirmed his new belief to me and my wife in a church foyer (probably in 2006 or so); wrote for his kids The Shack, which was full of universalism (about 2006); with two pastor friends took a year to remove the UR (2006-2007?); in my home before many witnesses said that he no longer believed UR (in 2007); published The Shack; then has written two more novels with UR as an undercurrent throughout (Crossroads, 2012; Eve, 2015). See my reviews and other articles at burningdowntheshackbook.com.

During all this time, I’ve tried to warn Christians about the subtle propagation of UR that exists in his novels and now in the movie. I wrote my book, Burning Down the Shack, to clarify both what universalism is all about and how it has deceived many in the church and to show how it is embedded chapter by chapter in Paul’s novel. Many people have neglected my warnings or downplayed them. Again my web site clarifies the heretical points of this universalism.

Now Paul’s latest release confirms all my warnings. In Lies We Believe about God, Young deliberately takes on 28 statements that we Christians affirm and he dismisses them all as lies. He openly confesses allegiance to “universal reconciliation,” that all people are already saved (p. 118). It is no longer a “hope.” He writes this under the “lie” stated as “You need to get saved” (chap. 13).

So I say to Pastor Burleson and others like him: the argument is not just about the extent of the atonement. It is a question about whether there was an atonement at all! Young does not believe that Jesus Christ took sinners’ place to make an atonement for their sins on the cross—to provide propitiation. Young explicitly rejects penal substitution. If you don’t believe me, ask him. Yes, Jesus died there. But it was not a place of judgment. Paul expands on this under a couple of other “lies”: “The Cross was God’s idea” (ch. 17; rather, Paul says that it was man’s idea); “God requires child sacrifice” (ch. 19; here Young denies that the death of God’s son was necessary to pay the penalty that God’s justice required); “Hell is separation from God” (ch. 15; no, God is in hell, and he uses “fiery love” to bring all people to himself from there); “Sin separates us from God” (ch. 27; no, nothing including sin can ever separate any human being, whether a believer or not, from God; no one has ever been separated from God; all are “in God”); “Not everyone is a child of God” (ch. 24; no, all human beings are children of God: all were in Christ in his death and resurrection, and because Christ is in God, then all are in God); and “God is One alone” (ch. 28; here Young rejects his understanding of the Trinity as derived from his “evangelical Christian fundamentalism”).

When Are Enough Lies Enough?

So now I speak more directly. Pastor Burleson, and others, do you not see how these attacks on what we Christians “lie” about go to the very heart of the Gospel of the NT? Do you not see that there is no gospel or good news for you to preach, of how God judged our sins on the cross (Rom. 3:23-26), if you embrace these corrections of the “lies” that Christians make? Do you still think that this is simply a matter of the extent of the atonement? Do you preach that all people are equally children of God? How many more “lies” would Paul Young have to attack before you have finally had enough? How can you be a faithful shepherd of your flock if you deceive them with Young’s teaching or downplay it the way you do? Note the Apostle Paul’s words about distorting the gospel in 2 Cor. 2:17 and 4:2ff.

Some Final Concerns

A couple other things you should note. First, you need to recall some history. UR has been a heresy propagated by heretics from the third century on, beginning with Origen. It was condemned as heresy in the 5th and 6th centuries. It declined. Then with the freedom of inquiry that the Reformers promoted it found new life. It came to Colonial America in 1740 in the person of John Murray and became so popular that one out of every five Baptist ministers, it is said, converted to it. But God raised up other Baptists, such as Isaac Backus, to begin exposing it. It went into decline from 1850 or so for a hundred years. Now it is experiencing a resurgence again, through the writings of Young, McLaren, Talbott, and Bell, and others, and their apologists. I’ve written an entire book refuting UR.

Finally, one more thing you should note from my history with Paul Young. In 2007 he said before many witnesses including my pastor that he had given up his universalism but refused to tell us what he did believe. Now, with the book, Lies, he confesses (p. 118) that he has believed UR all along.

Does this account not reveal deceit? Does this not identify the author of Lies as a liar himself? Should this affect our understanding of his character?

These are heart-wrenching questions. But as a pastor you need to clarify where you stand—with Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior as revealed in the Bible or with Paul Young? It is the truth vs. Lies.

The Lord Jesus will keep building his church, in spite of The Shack. But it may be without you.

Some of you say that you “hope” or wish that universalism is true. To hope for something that God has never said, and contradicts what God says, makes one a friend of Satan and an enemy of Christ.

And don’t ever align Paul Young with C.S. Lewis!

James De Young, Burning Down the Shack 5 Comments [7/17/2018 6:30:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: CC

Quote# 138929

Luciferians believe that Lucifer, the fallen Angel, or man, is light, and God is the dark. That God of the Bible is evil, and that they have a better way.

“For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the LORD. Live as children of light “ (Ephesians 5:8)

Satan is a liar and a thief. He tends to work to steal things of God, and steal away understanding. The Allegory of the Cave, for example, works well with the Bible. Darkness is lies. Have you ever believed a lie as truth? Maybe a friend told you something false, and you believed him for a few days? You could be said to be in The Dark. You would have a false perception of reality. Jesus Christ is the Light and the Truth. He leads people out of the cave of ignorance and darkness. Luciferians tend to use this Allegory and put something else as the light. A lie. Jesus Christ is the Truth of the World.

Adam Ramsey, Quora 5 Comments [7/17/2018 5:54:47 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 138928

Well, I know that, like a cancer-cell torments surrounding cells with short, sharp, wild and uncontrollable shock tactics, a bully will torment the nervous energy out of their neighbours, as well, forming a nasty tumour of like minded people who go around in gangs creating havoc, even death, because they to live by wild and uncontrollable laws. Now, don't you think that it is scientifically conceivable that Jesus Christ knew this as well and, using his Godly knowledge, was showing and teaching us how to keep our genetic health soothed and calm...because its a certain fact that since the populations have been so wildly and hysterically manipulated that the occurence of cancer has gone through the roof...and so, perhaps, Jesus had the answer all along. His accurate word, that is, not the iniquitous versions that many are so fond of.

NicholasMarks, Religion and Ethics 3 Comments [7/17/2018 5:53:59 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: NearlySane

Quote# 138818

Children simply lack the maturity to make sexual decisions. Our bodies may have evolved to be sexually mature by age 13, but the average person only lived into his thirties in prehistoric times. Just because the body is ready doesn't mean the mind can make mature decisions in today's world.

But they have the maturity to make traffic decisions as they walk to school or ride a bicycle? As I was suggesting to Brian, you seem to think sex is a dangerous thing. Its a wonder humanity survived if so.

Another strange thing about your point here is that you seem to think its harder to get by in today's world than prehistoric times! Therefore, more maturity is required with regards to sex! How completely preposterous! We can prevent pregnancies with drugs and condoms. Most diseases can be cured with a shot. STD testing can be done to ensure partners are disease free. I scarcely understand how more maturity is needed now than in the past.

I also don't see why sex has be such supreme danger. With an attitude like that, its a wonder you would let a 13 year old cross the road by themself.

Sex has real consequences that can change or end lives -- STDs, pregnancy, and emotional damage are all among them.

Well, I already addressed pregnancy and STDs. (And I still don't think they hold a candle to getting run over on a bicycle). But emotional damage? Where do you get this stuff?

Is it illegal for teens to have sex with eachother? No. So what of the emotional damage? Again, you seem to be saying that sex is extremely dangerous. Pah! You want emotional damage? Divorce. Death in the family. Moving away. Paralysis from a cheerleading accident.

For me, sex and sexual things have always been emotionally soothing. From playing doctor when I was a kid to bonking with my girlfriend today.

I wonder if you ever in your life considered the emotional damage of NOT having sex. I experienced plenty of that before I got out of college. It was a very painful time. I am grateful for every childhood and teen sexual experience I had, but I did not have nearly enough. Both my childhood and teen sexual experiences involved adults (though I wanted but did not have actual sex). The only thing that hurt me was have to wait for months and years before the next experience. Surely I am not alone.

If you ask me teens especially are being harmed emotionally by being cut off from the rest of the humanity in this way. I blame this state of affairs for things like smoking, binge drinking and runaways. Used to be a 13 year old could expect to be married soon. Now they are forced into celibacy essentially. Its inhuman cruelty and no wonder teens are viewed as being unstable when they are treated like this.

Maybe stoning is too harsh, but I'd have no problem seeing pedophiles castrated, if they're more than a few years older than their victims.

This sentence is mixed up 8 ways from Sunday. I have to assume that since you said pedophiles and victim, that you mean the younger party is twelve at the outside, since that is about average for puberty. A few years older would be 15. So you would not only call a 15 year old with a 12 year old partner a pedophile, you would have them castrated?

You also assume the younger party is upset or harmed and is a victim out of hand. And further you don't seem to realize that most age of consent violations are not committed by pedophiles.

Like BrianLewis, your viewpoints are based on unfounded assumptions that are very negative about sex and that have been feed to you by a sex negative society. Your viewpoints are contradictary and you don't seem to have examined anything in much depth at all. Yet it seems you have firmly made up your mind despite those horrible failings.

I had a couple friends, one girl of 14 and a man of 20. They fell in love. Their relationship was approved by her father, a man who is very strict and very protective of his children. Last I heard, they got married. I ask you, would you have my friend castrated?

---------- Post added at 02:37 ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 ----------

RolandtheHeadless said:

Amen. Adults who have sex with children are exploiting them, and they're rapists because children lack the capacity for consent.

Can a child consent to surgery? Can a child consent to eating mashed pototoes? Either could be life threatening. I find it strange where capacity to consent is touted as the end-all-be-all argument for sex issues, but completely ignored for pretty much all other issues.

I was a child once. I consented to a lot of things. I knew who I liked and who I didn't. I was very interested in sex and I knew who I would like to have sex with and who I wouldn't. I did not lack capacity. I lacked experience and knowledge. You don't gain either for doing nothing.

My view of your philosophy is that you first enforce ignorance. Then you say they can't consent because they are ignorant. Its extremely backward thinking.

I also don't like that you would call someone a rapist and exploiter just because of age even though they may well be kind and caring and generous to their sex partner, and would not dream of harming or tricking them. Rape has a real and serious meaning, and you dilute it with ideas like that.

It is preposterous to decide such issues on age alone at the expense of a million other details, including and especially the sentiments of the child or teen in question.

Pedophiles who act on their perversion make me want to punch their lights out.

They said the same of gays 50 years ago.

The only real perversion is asexuality.

Mark of Zorro, Japan Reference forums 6 Comments [7/16/2018 2:40:27 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Menomaru

Quote# 138817

To answer the question of whether pedophilia is a sickness or a crime, it is neither. It is popular and common to use the word to mean both or either, but that is complete and total misuse of the concept and the word, and that misuse has a major effect in ensuring the very separate topics are not handled correctly or fairly in the slightest. And I have no hope that the knot of stupidity will ever be untied in my lifetime, because the topics are valued by so many people as topics where they can feel free to rant and not dedicate one ounce of critical thought. The whole thing is dominated by witch hunters and I have been attacked numerous times for daring to address related topics with fairness, justice and logic.

I will explain why it is neither a sickness or a crime. First, it is not a sickness because the only reason it causes mental distress is because of societal intolerance. The only kind of pedophilia I would call a sickness would be where its compulsive and the person just can't help themselves but to molest or rape children practically on sight. But that sort of pedophile is exceedingly rare, pretty much like serial rapists.

Your average run-of-the-mill pedophile, someone who simply prefers pre-pubescents as sex partners, would be perfectly happy if society left them free to date and have sex with who they wanted (as in Polynesian society before the Europeans came, or even American and British societies where the age of consent was ten for hundreds of years). So while some might call their desires sick, it does not mean they are sick. They are no more sick than homosexuals, and it took society and psychology a long time to conclude that homosexuals were not sick, and that delay was simply the product of societal taboo, same as with pedophilia today.

But it has to be said that a pedophile is best defined as someone who PREFERS prepubescents. Just finding yourself attracted to prepubescents does not make one a pedophile, because if that were true, 25 percent to 33 percent of all males would be pedophiles, and the word would lose all meaning.

Next, pedophilia is not a crime because pedophilia is not an act. Only acts can be crimes. Pedophilia is sexual preference, not an act. That is why I use the term "age of consent violation" rather than lump words like pedophilia, statutory rape and rape into one confusing jumble of overlapping concepts. Its just crazy to say that, for example, Mary Kay LeTourneau raped Villi Fualau. She didn't. They had consensual sex and they loved one another. In fact, they are now legally married. Its also crazy to say that Mary Kay is a pedophile. That is for many reasons. First, when they began sexual relations, Villi was not a prepubescent. So there is zero reason to think Mary Kay prefers prepubescents since she is not accused of ever sleeping with one. Next, she never even repeated her "crime" with another person underage, so she is certainly not compulsive in that sense.

Clearly what happened with Mary Kay is that she was in love. But some segments of society don't want to accept that and all others are too weak to speak against it. So Mary Kay gets labeled a pedophile out of hand and zero rational thought behind it.

All that said, I freely admit that Mary Kay is a bit off. I think she is compulsive, but just not toward underage boys. I believe her love is genuine, but allowing herself to get knocked up by a 13 year old, particularly when she has other children to care for, indicates someone without much foresight or self-control. The woman needed mental help for that. Instead, society gave her jail, all because witch hunters have contol of this topic.

So anyway, pedophilia is a sexual preference. A sickness would be compulsive pedophilia marked by a lack of self-control over the urge. A crime would be an age of consent violation, as that would be an act, as much as I think the label of crime is over-blown. Rape is just rape, hardly matters the age of the victim. The term statutory rape is absolute garbage and should be erased from the vernacular. And age of consent violations should be called precisely that, because calling consensual sex between a 15 year old and her 18 year old boyfriend as rape, pedophilia, sexual assault, or statutory rape is grossly and seriously unfair, injust and misleading to the point of me wanting to punch people's lights out.

The concept behind statutory rape is the general consensus from scientists that the brain is not developed enough to know the consequences of your actions at that age.

For starters, no, the concept of statutory rape began in the middle ages and no related legistlation, even modern, is based on any scientific study. Frankly, you just made that up.

Next, how does brain development translate into understanding the consequence of your actions? You cannot induce a baby into a coma, wake him up when he is 25, and expect him to understand the consequences of sticking his finger into a light socket even though his brain has fully developed.

My son is two years old. He understands the consequences of touching a hot stove.

In short, that whole brain development thing is complete red herring. The brain develops yes, but no one knows what effect that has on the decision making process. They only have guesses, and those guesses tend to conform toward agenda.

Further to that, if a child was refused a bicycle on the grounds of safety, how many people would say their parents are over-reacting? Kids ride around on bicycles all the time! Do you think they understand all the consequences, such as being hit by a car? Do you think they understand the dynamics of vehicular traffic well enough to truly be safe? Please! And a bicycle is more dangerous than sex.

How many 16 year olds are driving cars?! They could kill you. You could kill them. But if you loved them and had sex with them, there is some sort of massive danger??

That's subjective, of course, however I tend to believe that the law is more towards the younger end. Just out of personal experience, I have not met too many developed minds under 25.

The age of consent has only risen, and its now well beyond puberty, which is insane and unfair, as sex becomes an imperative after puberty.

I find it preposterous that anyone would consider an early teen to be mentally sound enough for sex with an adult.

So you are saying they are mentally sound enough for sex with eachother? Or are you saying they are raping, traumatizing and manipulating eachother? What do you mean by "mentally sound" anyway? What does it have to do with sex??

It's far too likely that such relationships are ones of manipulation.

Why? Why would you assume that any person's desire for a sexual relationship with a teen is based on manipulation? Do you think the human race is generally bent on manipulation? Do you know of any relationship based on manipulation?

For centuries teens were free to marry and age disparate couples were common. Many of our grandparents and great grandparents were in such a relationship. Now suddenly its wrong and all about manipulation?


I would question the ego of any adult that needs a relationship of manipulation.
So would I. But more than that I question your lack of faith in humanity. I do not believe that most people are out to manipulate the people they are attracted to, at least not maliciously. I do not believe that being minor attracted lends itself to a desire to manipulate maliciously.

In fact, if anything, I would say the tendency would be more toward a desire to protect and care for. But its usually the bad apples that get all the press isn't it? The news is rarely about people in love. So people who read the news tend to think people are evil at heart.


Mark of Zorro, Japan Reference forums 4 Comments [7/16/2018 2:35:06 PM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 138919

If your pastor teaches that it's not enough to see yourself as a guilty sinner in God's holy eyes to be saved (Romans 3:19); but also, he says you MUST turn away from sinful living and forsake the sinful bad habits in your life, and surrender all to Jesus to live for Him, then you are in a CULT!!! You DON'T have to invite Jesus into your life to be saved. You can do that and go straight to Hell when you die. You DON'T get saved by turning over a new leaf, nor do you get saved by ceasing from bad works to do good works. The world's churches are saturated with religious hypocrites, who are doing their best to abstain from sinning because they love God; yet they are going to split Hell wide open the very second they die and BURN FOREVER AND EVER!!!

Why you ask? It is because no amount of good works or human effort can erase the sins we've committed throughout life. I am a horrible sinner! You are a horrible sinner! We are all sinners by nature and by choice! We all commit wickedness!!! We all deserve to go straight to Hell—Do not pass go, do not collect $200, go directly to jail (remember the fun board game Monopoly?). Well, Hell isn't a game, and it won't be fun. There are no parties in Hell. You won't be with your friends in Hell. You don't have any power over your horrific conditions. In Hell, you are in God's torture prison, where there is no rest day nor night, no mercy and the smoke of your torment rises up forever from the fiery furnace (Revelation 14:11). Why would you want to go there? There are no winners in Hell, only big time losers for all eternity. If you choose to go to Hell by rejecting Christ Jesus as your personal Savior, then you will be the eternal loser.

Only a complete fool would reject God's free gift of eternal life (Ephesians 2:8-10). Tragically, most people won't come to Jesus to be saved, either because they feel safe while blinded in their false religion (like Roman Catholicism, Judaism and Mormonism); or else because they love their sins and don't want anything to do with the Holy Spirit who convicts people of their sins (John 3:20). If you go to Hell, you won't just be the lonesome loser, you'll also be the loneliest loser for all eternity!!! The choice is yours alone to make.

Revelation 21:8 lists a group of people who will be cast into the Lake of Fire and Brimstone, which is the Second Death. The first person listed is those who are timid, fearful. Hell will be filled with people who wanted answers but were too afraid to ask. God won't allow you to slide on Judgment Day.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Precious 10 Comments [7/16/2018 1:00:36 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 138924

The Creator sets the standards of what is right and what is wrong - whether we fallen human beings like it or not. This also applies to how we should handle our sexual relationships. Thus, His standard is Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or Madam and Eve.

To reject God's standards is to reject God Himself and those who reject God will be rejected by God with ultimately eternal consequences. Whether or not we interpret that as loving, the fact is that this is what God has revealed about Himself. He is God.

Watcher, Premier 9 Comments [7/16/2018 12:58:30 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: CC

Quote# 138921

The essence of corporatism is simply a different way of organising representation in government. The corporatist model in its pure form means that governmental representation is grouped on occupational lines, such as farmers, teachers, industrialists, labourers and so on. This is the most just way of governing the nation, as it affords people of great experience the direct opportunity to affect the course of policy within their occupational field. Let us not forget the words of Corneliu Codreanu:

“Democracy makes it impossible for a statesman to do his duty. A statesman of the greatest goodwill becomes, in a democracy, the slave of his supporters; he either satisfies their personal appetites or they destroy his backing. The statesman lives under the tyranny and the permanent threat of the electoral agent.”

We have become too used to using the democratic system that we fall into the trap of believing that change will only come about by using this system. This system let us not forget is used and sponsored by the very forms of politic that we wish to see the end of, they are invested in one another no matter how much they show us they are at odds with one another they are invested so deeply with one another that they need the democratic system to function to survive, it is for all intense and purposes a corrupt and dying system and one that Fascism has never needed.

Fascism is and always has been a revolutionary thought in mind and heart, it strikes at the very heart of the system of government that has been holding back the nation for so long it defies everything that democracy and it system of voting stands for. There is not one instance of a true fascist government coming to power through the use of the ballot box and that is the way it should always be today especially. Fascism is not suited for the ballot box it is not democratic it is not designed for it to be that way; it is and will always remain a revolutionary thought and practice. Let me be very clear so as not to be misunderstood, when we say Fascist we mean Fascist we can not count the National Socialist rise to power in Germany as they were NOT Fascist, they were National Socialists, and held to a very different creed. With this in mind it is true to say that there has never been a system of Fascist government that has achieved the power of government in and through the ballot box, many have tried and many have failed including the great Oswald Mosley, he tried and he failed. Sir Oswald might have very well polled some great numbers in the east end of London and in some other areas of the country and he might very well have had support from lots of people but when it came to the time for them to vote they voted safe and in great numbers.

This is because Fascism was never meant to be won by way of the ballot box then or even now. Sure we might post great numbers in some areas and we might get seats on come councils but attaining the highest legislative body in this or any other country comes through revolution and nothing else. The great Mussolini the founding Father of modern fascism knew this and didn’t even entertain the idea of voting more than once, his whole aim was to seize power through the collective will of the people and he did when the black shirts marched on Rome on October 22 - 29 1922. And while the march on Rome only consisted of 30,000 men they had taken most of the strategic points of the city leaving the king to choice but to begin talks. Fascist Italy was born not from a coordinated plan to win at the ballot box but though a coordinated mass of people to bring down the government, it was in essence a revolution.

In Spain the same can said although the circumstances were slightly different, Franco took control of the armies of Spain and merged all of the monarchist and right-wing parties together forming one single unified fighting force and political system although the Spanish quest for fascist rule came at a high price of civil war the point is at no point was the fascist ticket on a any ballot paper, in fact those parties in Spain that did go to the ballot box and win elections became so corrupt that the army and the nationalist rose up to stop it and then turned to the monarchist and the fascist to bring down the socialist movement and then sparking of the civil war.

We need to ask ourselves what is it that we are doing. We need to look in the mirror and take a long hard look at ourselves and ask what we want. Do we want to gain the fascist state or are we doing all this for our own self aggrandisement? To look good to those political elites in Westminster? What are we really doing? Our role should be to establish the fascist state and do all that is necessary for that to be accomplished. I know that it will not come through the ballot box but it will only come through revolution or separation. Please hear me out. I am not asking for us to start a war in our own land but I am asking us to look at another way of obtaining that which we all want a fascist state and if that is all we want then it can be done without the ballot box and it might at the very last come down to civil war but knowing our governments love for peace and calm I see that we can receive what we want without the need for that action.

So let us remind ourselves of the words of the great Corneliu Codreanu when he said ‘Democracy makes it impossible for a statesman to do his duty. A statesman of the greatest goodwill becomes, in a democracy, the slave of his supporters; he either satisfies their personal appetites or they destroy his backing’

With that in mind let us look at what has happened over the course of the previous elections. We have seen the downfall of our nation and its democratic system, our nation as we know it no longer exists, not really. The very reason that democracy exists is for the people to speak, for their voice to be heard, but as is so often the case this voice has gone unheard for far too long in this country. The majority of people didn’t turn out to vote in the most recent European and council elections in fact the actual percentage of people that turned out was less than 31% this is because they feel that politics has no place in their lives, they believe that the people who set themselves up to run our lives have failed them and that they do not listen to the voice of the people. The people have concerns about a great many things, much of it to do with joblessness and the economy, but many have not been heard on issues such as immigration and the safety and the security of our borders. It would seem that no matter how many times the people speak out and no matter how many times the politicians stand and say ‘We have heard you and we feel your pain’ they never act in the interests of the people. This argument can be said for both of the main political parties in this country, no matter who resides in power at number ten Downing Street it always ends the same in disappointment and failure. Do not be fooled in to thinking that the success enjoyed by UKIP will end any differently. They have yet to gain a seat in the power house that matters, Westminster, and come the general election next year I don’t see that narrative changing, we have a two party system that holds all the power and that will never change, it will go back and forth to and fro until it falls in ruins or we fall with them. No matter how successful the little party is they will never hold the rein of real power in this country because the system is loaded for them to fail. This is why I stand by the belief that democracy has failed and its system is broken and no longer represents the people of this country and therefore no longer represents a growing larger part of its population. Our country is gone, we are to far down the road of ruin and destruction for this to be turned around and so we need a new approach, we need a new idea, a radical idea, a revolutionary idea.

Secession is that revolutionary idea and the wave of the future; it is our call and must be our answer to the tyranny that today oppresses us. After Lithuania seceded, the Soviet Union broke apart into the separate nations which had been forcibly yoked together under communism. Eastern Europe, formerly under Soviet hegemony, has also seen new nation states emerge from ancient nationalities. Today we see this come to the fore again with the Crimea breaking away from the Ukraine, and the eastern part of that country wanting independence, which in its self has raised a new question, do the western powers want free and independent states? Do they value the rights of those that wish to break away form the status quo? The answer as we have seen in the Crimea is No! And with the continuing war in the east of Ukraine with the world powers interfering and trying to affect the outcome the answer there also remains No! But it still remains the right of all men to choose whom they should be ruled by or how they should be ruled.

Gary Raikes, New British Union 0 Comments [7/16/2018 12:56:57 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: hydrolythe

Quote# 138918

I find this show the most horrible on earth. I am also disgusted at how bad of a person Chris Hansen is. He knows he's (basically) ending another man's life and he's just sitting there calm about it. I'm all for them getting their punishments etc., but not censoring their faces/voice and airing their name for the entire world to see is just wrong.

It's not like any of the people on the show is actively looking for 13 year olds because in reality, there is no 13 year old cute girl in adult chat rooms looking for a 45 year old perv to lose her virginity to. They're just putting out dream-come-true scenarios that are too good to be true with young cute girls willing to do anything for free, and some dumb guys falls for it. So far, has there even been 1 single guy on this show that had any record of previous sexual charges against minors? I don't think so.

Rape is sexual intercourse without the other party's consent. Children can't consent. All sex with children is rape, you sick fuck.

Shut the fuck up you dumb fucking douchebag. Rape=/=Child sexual abuse. She wanted it, it's still illegal, I know. But quit saying "raping a child". And besides, he wasn't going to rape a child, he was going to talk to Christ Hansen.

Shut the fuck up, you're so retarded it hurts. I honestly wish there was a retard-lock for reddit so that people like you would get the fuck away. But RES block function will have to do the job for now, bye you dumb fucking loser. :)

xHPx, Reddit 7 Comments [7/16/2018 12:54:12 PM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 138915




TRANSCRIPTION
CABLE GUY: Cable guy here, with the first 4 letters of the alphabet:

Plan A: CLEAR HILLARY
Strzok's plan worked right brilliant, but those 'smelly Walmart' people didn't like his commie candidate, and elected them a REAL president!

On to Plan B: IMPEACH!
If I was that Putin feller, I'd heap rather have Hillary in there as president. Just another checker player like Obama, and Putin sure mopped up the floor with that guy! Impeach is dead, and the dems keep whippin' that poor ol' horse, but he's down for the count!

Plan C: Obstruct, and take back congress
The dems are holdin' up over a thousand folks that need to get appointed, but Trump's gettin' 'er done anyway! What's this for givin' Strzok a purple heart? What a slap in the face to military folks he looks down his nose at! But those crazy dems just keep on shootin' themselves in the foot.

Plan D: Violence and anarchy
If you can't get control of the house, then burn it down. That's the globalist plan anyhow--turn America into Europe. Those wide-open borders are a great way to commit suicide!

And there it is like a dead fish on the pier at high noon. Phew!

Mick Williams, Disqus - Faith & Religion 9 Comments [7/16/2018 12:49:29 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 138914


It all begins and ends with an invisible, superabundant, dynamic energy...that has always been and always will be, Stranger. Not unlike dark energy and dark matter, but with a much bigger bite. If you can't get your head around that then you won't get your head around anything I say...but Almighty God, endorsed by Jesus Christ, says clearly...look into the heavens, who put them all there, with the superabundance of his dynamic energy/mighty power, not one is missing...and everyone is identified and catalogued, according to the same verses, in Isaiah, if your interested.

Now...if you hit upon the correct science you can identify all things that have a scientific footprint...and Jesus Christ and Almighty God made those footprints.

NicholasMarks, Religion and Ethics 1 Comments [7/16/2018 12:49:06 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: NearlySane

Quote# 138911

Gaymaxx theory

Gay people have the most sex.
If average male has 2-3 sex partners
The gay counterpart has about 70
Just go on March naked and fondle some cute guys balls.
Insant lay, also you will get some nice attention

Ubercel, incels.me 14 Comments [7/16/2018 7:38:37 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 138909

Life ends in your late 20s

There are no experiences worth having beyond this point. Life is just slavery, whether you're an incel or normie. The only difference is who we serve. Beta males will dedicate the rest of their cucked existence to their (((jobs))), ungrateful roastie wives, and Chad's kids. JFL if you envy them. JFL if you want to be grown.

I don't think we were meant to live this long. Youngcels, enjoy the small amount of freedom you have now because youth is everything.

fukmylyf, incels.me 14 Comments [7/16/2018 7:38:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 138908

Peter LaBarbera Is Upset ‘Love, Simon’ Did Not Mention The ‘Judgment Of God’ On Gay People

Anti-LGBTQ activist Peter LaBarbera was, unsurprisingly, not a fan of the new gay teenage romance film “Love, Simon,” complaining to Religious Right radio host Janet Mefferd on Tuesday that the film fails to promote a “religious message” and does not warn audiences that gay people face a life of physical and mental illness “and of course the judgment of God.”

LaBarbera joined Mefferd on Tuesday to weigh in on the release of “Love, Simon,” which is a romantic comedy film that features a 17-year-old boy who reveals his sexual orientation to his friends and family and falls in love with a classmate. LaBarbera, who has long been livid about the entertainment industry advancing LGBTQ causes, shared with Mefferd what he saw to be “three myths” promoted in the film.

“Number one is that being homosexual—quote-unquote ‘gay’—is basically who you are, intrinsically who you are. You know, if that line just happens to be gay. That’s number one. Number two, that there’s a total mutual equivalence between homosexual romances and the gay lifestyle and normal, heterosexual living, so it’s presented as totally equal. Number three, that parental love, the way they love their son after he comes out and declares his homosexuality or they find out, the parents, is they just basically express regret they didn’t know earlier,” he said. “There’s no sorrow. There’s no religious message at all in the movie, Janet, and there’s nothing that says any disapproval.”

LaBarbera said he believed the movie was “like a Disney gay movie” that was made for teenagers before complaining that “there’s no aftermath after this boy finds his quote-unquote ‘gay’ romance.”

“We’re never going to hear later about the diseases associated with homosexuality that he likely would get, mental illness, and of course the judgment of God,” LaBarbera said.

Mefferd asked LaBarbera to expand on what he meant when he referred to mental illness, to which LaBarbera responded by promoting the book “The Health Hazards of Homosexuality,” published by the anti-gay group MassResistence. He claimed that conditions like HIV are now “gay male diseases,” claiming that this is the case “because homosexual behavior is a perversion like God says it is, it is deviant, it is not normal.”

LaBarbera also said he was upset that “Love, Simon” posed the question of why heterosexual people don’t have to come out as “straight” to their friends and family. He answered the question by saying it was “because that’s the way God designed it.”

“It’s so basic and yet Hollywood is doing everything it can now. We’re going to see more and more movies like this. And Janet, this is the first major teen homosexual romance film to be a big box-office hit. And so this is, again, Hollywood is trying to mainstream sexual sin,” LaBarbera said.

Peter LaBarbera, Right Wing Watch 11 Comments [7/16/2018 7:38:20 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Christopher

Quote# 138907

But since, as the Bible says, a homosexual who becomes a Christian ceases to be a Christian, it is likelihood is that it would be considered 'conversion therapy'.

Martin, Premier 8 Comments [7/16/2018 7:38:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: CC

Quote# 138905

At a certain point we have to stop blaming people for their success. White people are in power because they were able to colonize non-whites. They were able to do that because they had better technology and military. How are either of those things bad? Better yet, aren’t both of things worthy of praise?

Matthew Manning, Quora 11 Comments [7/16/2018 1:50:12 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 138904

here's also the religious explanation which has been missed out. Whatever your prejudices on this subject, for objectivity's sake, this one should have been included.

Pope John Paul II (died 2005) canonised as a Christian saint a carrot peeler nun (ie, very humble, low-level nun) who claimed in her diary that Jesus had told her that the universe is teeming with life. St Faustina.

The Catholic position is that there is no dogma on this matter, although the above makes it an informal teaching. But it's particularly interesting since a Catholic priest invented the Big Bang theory, Lemaitre, and a Catholic monk, Mendel, is considered the father of modern genetics. (Catholicism has never had a dogma of a literal interpretation of the Bible.)

Meanwhile, the ex-atheist, near-death-experience, Arts professor, Howard Storm (now a methodist), says that he was shown by God that not only is the universe teeming with life, but also intelligent life, and that we are either the only or one of very few that rebelled against God. All other planets with intelligent life receive God's blessings without resistence. Considering God's blessings to us include death, I suppose that's not too surprising. :)

The interesting detail in Storm's testimony is why outside life isn't communicating with us (radio waves etc): there is no need as, excepting humans, intelligent beings communicate without need of material means, particularly through 'union' in which they experience each other's existence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faustina_Kowalska

Howard Storm, talking to some old ladies ina Church:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmY2yZU_CGk

No, it shouldn't be included. This is a scientific discussion. Religion is for theologians and philosophers. Take it there.

Lol!! You're presumably an atheist. Only an atheist prejudice would make such a claim. The question isn't purely scientific. And no reasonable scientist would exclude this possibility. An atheist scientist would, however.

And while there has been an amazing loss of faith among the young, (mostly due to successful misinformation from atheists such as Dawkins), atheism continues to be a minority belief. Most people are at most agnostic, making no atheistic presumptions. And atheism is presumptuous since there has never been a proof of no god, and plenty of evidence that that might be one, starting with the fact that there are so many people claiming to have had personal contact with a god. Which includes myself.


itsastickup, ars technica 7 Comments [7/16/2018 1:50:02 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: zyr

Quote# 138903

What's wrong with marijuana?

(The author argues against marijuana legalization. She says that marijuana is getting more potent, that it can cause disease, that "users showed an increase in violent and aggressive behavior," and that it doesn't really have medicinal qualities. Then she finishes with this as her closing point.)

A Physical and Spiritual Sin — Controversy over marijuana seems partially from confusion on the subject. Effects differ from person to person with the same amount of the drug and even occasion to occasion in the same individual. Some emphasize this and the pleasure of the high, to argue that everyone should be "free" to use cannabis. To clear the confusion, we have to open our Bibles.

(1 Corinthians 6:20) Scripture reveals that our bodies and minds are not our own to abuse. God commands us "Glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's." An incredible, eternal future awaits each of us when we turn to God to let Him develop our minds and character. Intoxicating ourselves on the "pleasures of sin." (Hebrews 11:25) and the "lust of flesh" destroys this incredible human potential. (Galatians 5:16, 1 John 2:16). If you have a problem with drugs, you can beat it! Philippians 4:13 says all things are possible with Christ strengthening us. "Come boldly unto the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need." (Hebrews 4:16)

Margaret Brackett, Newberry Observer 8 Comments [7/16/2018 1:48:42 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Thanos6

Quote# 138902

THE CURSED ONES OF MATTHEW 7,21-23

Then the Lord God Jesus said to me “Look, listen and learn. This place, called the Outer Darkness of Hell, is full of the ungodly, the wicked, and the unrepentant and the lukewarm backslidden professing Christians that returned to sinning and would not repent of their evil works. There came a time when they died and immediately they arrived here. These are the disobedient professing servants of God who consist of hypocritical Catholics, Christians, Jews – “And my people are bent to backsliding from me” (Hosea 11,7), and also members of any other religious organisations. There are people of all races and religious backgrounds who are in this place which is now named the Outer Darkness of Hell this very hour.”

The Lord God Jesus said, ”Follow me” so we walked through the gate, and I began to hear what seemed like thousands of people screaming and crying. The smell of rotted flesh filled the air. There were small craters of dim flicking fire, which protruded out of the ground all around us. I was terrified. I began to hold on to Jesus. Then all of a sudden, dark shadows, forms and figures began to dart before us. Jesus said, “Fear not”. And he told me that He had overcome Death, Hell and the Grave.

REPENTANCE

Before I continue telling you what I saw, I want to say to all of those who read this, especially you preachers, please repent of your sins. All people of the Earth please turn from your wicked ways. Ask the Lord God Jesus into your heart and to save you so that you will not come to this horrible place called Hell.

CELLBLOCK OF SEVEN LEVELS

Now I will tell you what I saw, a huge demonic dark angel, about 8 feet in height, with outstretched wings, holding a big black book. As he read from the book he began to identify different types of ministers that were in the jail cells, human souls that were inside those jail cells, male and female. He also named the different levels of the cellblock.

The dark angel said, “The 1st level contains the unrepentant lukewarm ministers who are evil, backslidden and hypocritical Apostles. The 2nd level contains the unrepentant lukewarm ministers who are evil, backslidden and hypocritical Prophets. The 3rd level contains the unrepentant lukewarm ministers who are evil, backslidden and hypocritical Evangelists (which included some Catholic priests). The 4th level contains the unrepentant lukewarm ministers who are evil, backslidden and hypocritical Pastors. The 5th level contains the unrepentant lukewarm ministers who are evil, backslidden and hypocritical Bible Teachers. The 6th level contains those who the Lord God Jesus called to feed the poor, and they did so, but their works were evil. The 7th level is the smallest level which contains the unrepentant lukewarm ministers who are evil, backslidden and hypocritical overseers; the pastoral Bishops.”

I continued to listen as He identified ministers from different church denominations and religious organisations, even some I had never heard of. The cellblock was packed from top to bottom with countless souls of the living dead. I saw skeletal forms reaching their bony hands through what looked like prison bars, and as I watched the entire call block ignited with Fire, and the skeletal forms began to SCREAM in pain and agony. The dark angel began to laugh.

THEIR FRUITS AND WORKS

I pleaded with the Lord God Jesus to let them out. He replied to me “These are the servants who, while on Earth, I called upon to be my ministers, my children, but they refused to serve Me with a pure and whole heart. They were hypocritical in their service to me. They stole from the poor, they took advantage of the sick, and they mocked those that were in prison on the Earth. They had complete disrespect for strangers that would come into the churches where they were preaching. I sent strangers, who were my servants to their churches to see how well they would be treated. As well, I sent my holy angels, often appearing as men and women (Heb 13,2), who were also treated with disrespect and came back to report about the churches activities.”

“The angel who keeps watch over the Apostle’s ministry, which is part of the five finger Church, the right hand of God (the 5 fold ministry, Eph 4,11 “He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers) reported to me that within the churches of the Apostles ministry was racism, hatred, and fornication amongst the people, which the Apostle’s allowed to take place. The angel who keeps watch over the Prophet’s ministry reported to me that within the churches of the Prophets ministry, that there were spirits of greed, adultery, and other sins that the Prophets allowed to take place. The angel who keeps watch over the Evangelist’s ministry (which included some Catholic priests) reported to me that within the churches of the Evangelists ministry that the Evangelists allowed unrepentant mobsters of organised crime to come in and pollute the church and also allowed strong drinks of alcohol, racism and homosexual activity to be performed on little children, as well as others sins.”

“The angel who keeps watch over the Pastors ministry reported to me that within the churches of the Pastor’s ministry, the pastors allowed witchcraft and other occult practices to take place. The angel who keeps watch over the Teachers ministry reported to me that within the churches of the Teachers of the Bible ministry, the Bible teachers, they were giving heed to doctrines of demons, and allowed lies instead of truth to be taught. This type of teaching caused corruption in the minds and hearts of its people. One particular church had given in to the use of illegal drugs.”

The Lord God Jesus continued, “The souls that you see here this hour are being tormented in the Outer Darkness of Hell. They have been here for a long time, many years. They are ministers from around the world. They had plenty of time to repent of their hypocritical, unrepentant, sinful and evils ways, but they did not. I had given them much space to repent, but they ignored my loving grace. They were warned. They knew what would happen to them if they continued to blaspheme my Holy Word, and live hypocritical.” (Rom 3,21-24).

TWO TYPES OF PEOPLE

This prison block that you are looking at now contains two types of people in nature. The first kind is the unprofitable servants of God – Matt 25,30 …”And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” The second kind are another group of people who speak of the laws of my commandments, but have no fellowship with my Holy Spirit or my Holy Word which you call the Bible. – Matt 24, 50-51 … “the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him and at an hour that he is not aware of, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

“BUT LORD, DIDN’T WE ….”

I could see and hear from the lower level of the prison cell in which the backslidden apostles were imprisoned, many voices began to cry out the Lord God Jesus, and a mans voice said “Let me out of here, Master Lord God Jesus! I am one of your good Apostles!” Then voices rang out from the second level, the Prophets saying ”Let me out of here, let me out of here! Didn’t I prophecy in your name?” Then voices called out from the third level, where the Evangelists were saying “Didn’t I cast out demons in your name?” Voices rang out from the fourth level where the backslidden Pastors were, saying “Did we not work miracles in your name by preaching your word, and did we not raise the dead?” Then voices rang out from the fifth level, where the backslidden Teachers were, saying ”Did we not teach your mighty word and do mighty works in your name? Did we not cast out demons and heal the sick?”

The Lord God Jesus said to them, “You Hypocrites! Truly, you did those things, but your works were for your own good.” They all screamed, “No my Lord! Those works were all done for you” Then the Lord God Jesus said to them, “Even in the Outer Darkness of Hell, you are still telling lies!” Then the voices cried from the sixth floor, from those who were called to feed the poor, a man cried “Lord, Lord remember me? Did I not feed the poor, visit the sick, cloth the naked and give shelter to the homeless?” The Lord God Jesus said those pitiful souls, “You Hypocrites! Surely you all did these things, but you only did them half-heartedly. The money that I entrusted you with to take care of the poor, you wasted it on other things, mostly yourselves!”

Then cries and unexplained woes of pain and grief erupted form the seventh floor, where the backslidden Bishops were. I listened in fear as Bishop after Bishop gave the Lord God Jesus many reasons why they should not be in Hell. The Lord God Jesus looked up at the pitiful souls on the seventh level with tears running down his face as He said “You Hypocrites! I gave you the highest office within my Church. I gave you perfect instructions (1Tim3,1-7) on how to love and care for the church. You yourselves I told to be holy and blameless and you lived a lifestyle of un-holiness and sin. Not only were you responsible for your own conduct, but also you were responsible for the conduct of the church that I placed under your authority. That is why you are in Hell, even in rank over all other souls in this cellblock. You are in cellblock level number seven. The number seven is the very number of perfection. You knew perfectly well what your duties were as a Bishop. Therefore, this hour I say unto you, your punishment for disobedience will be perfected this very hour. All of the souls that are here in these prison calls beneath you Bishops, they are now being punished because of a lack of responsibility and authority I entrusted you with in care of my five finger (5 fold) ministry in my right hand. I will let you out of here on the day of my Great White Throne Judgment (Rev 20,11-15 – to be sentenced to the Lake of Fire) but as for now you must stay and face your punishment for your unrepentant hypocritical and evil works. Depart from me, you that work iniquity, I know you not.”

– Matt 7, 21-23 … “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

THE TORMENTS OF THE DAMNED

I looked to the right of me, and I saw a huge shadow racing across the ground. As it came closer to where the Lord God Jesus and I were standing, I saw it was thousands of tiny black spiders. I watched in horror as the spiders raced across the ground in masses, crawling up the bars to the very top of the jail cells, where the Bishops were. I noticed that they had teeth and red eyes. I watched as they entered the jail cells, and began to crawl all over the Bishops, attacking them and biting them all over their bodies with their teeth. There were masses of them; so many that they covered all the cells. You could not see the cells or the poor souls that were in them because thousands of those black spiders covered them like an enormous black blanket. Oh what screams and cries came from within the cells, from the Apostles, Prophets, Teachers, Evangelists, Pastors, Bishops who were disobedient children of God. Then the Lord God Jesus said to me, “These are the cursed ones, the disobedient children that I called into my Kingdom, but this hour they are here in this place of Outer Darkness, tormented and suffering for their disobedience”

– Romans 1,18-19 … “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them”

BEWARE OF SEDUCING SPIRITS

Then the Lord God Jesus said, “Look, listen and learn. Those spiders you see are demonic spirits who were assigned by the Prince of Hell to go to the Earth and seduce the ministers of God. Those demonic spiders have the power to cause men and women to be sexually seduced. They are sexual seducing spirits, better known as unclean spirits. They are part of the blame for those ministers that you see in those prisons cells to be here this very hour. These preachers became involved in all sorts of fornication, adultery, homosexuality, masturbation, pornography, lust, the ways of Sodom and Gomorrah, sexually taking advantage of little children and bestiality. Had they gained control over their sexual appetite, they would not be here. If only they had not given heed to those seducing demonic unclean spirits that appear as spiders. All demons spirits do not look like this, there are different shapes and forms of many sizes.”

Roger Mills, Christ is Coming 7 Comments [7/16/2018 1:48:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 138898

Sexual harassment in SOME cases isn't about women inviting comments. In many cases, I agree 100%. I do however, think that there are also SOME women out there, who DO invite comments. You can't dress like a hooker, and expect to be treated like a lady.

Wow, you could be an Australian Cleric. Some girls who dress slutty are experimenting, some don't want to be talked to by like a lady, and some might wear the t-shirt "Just because I'm a slut doesn't mean I'll sleep with you" ouch.

If only the gay boys took to such reasoning. He was wearing a tank top, I could just tell he wanted it. Nope, not going to fly. Want to have sex? get consent. A bikini does not signify consent.

Your reasoning might work except your examples are lacking.

If girls who are wearing t-shirts and self-proclaiming themselves sluts, they have little respect for themselves and can hardly cry unfair when they get treated like a slut.

I never said bikini's signified consent. However, if you're 14 years old with breasts just popping out of your chest and you're running around in hooker boots and booty shorts where half your ass hangs out (No, not just short shorts, I mean booty shorts where half your ass really IS hanging out) and a bikini top or some other fragile excuse for clothing, and you get spoken to with disrespect, and you get treated with disrespect, then my point is that they can't really place the entire blame on the other party. The disrespect began with themselves.

Yes, some girls are just experimenting and some quickly learn that isn't the way they want to be seen. I see 12/13/14 year olds walking around here, wearing stiletto boots, miniskirts (and I mean *MINI*) and crop tops with their bellies hanging out & these miniskirts aren't even like the 80's miniskirts, these are mini on the leg & mini on the hips. I quite literally have underwear which covers more than these skirts do.

Am I saying "all the blame rests with the victims" no, not by a long shot. However, like I said before, common sense should prevail. If a woman makes herself an easy target for lewd remarks and sexual harassment, common sense should speak to reason, and she should realize that if she dressed less slutty, she'd get treated with more respect. We don't live in the age of ignorance. If a woman is working late & its dark outside & her car is parked on the far side of a dimly lit underground parking lot, is she to blame if she gets attacked? No, but YES there are preventative methods available in most of these instances, to keep stuff like this from happening. Ie, have a security guard escort you to your car.

Basically you reap what you sow.

If you disrespect yourself, and show it through your own method of dress, you cannot expect respect from others.

If you ignore common sense for dangerous situations, then yes you ARE partially at fault for the fact that it even happened and YES there WERE ways that you could've prevented it from happening, in many instances.

Women want "equal status" except they want to hang onto their "vulnerable" female helpless status at the same time? I don't think so. Physically we are no match for most men, that is fact. Mentally we could be equal if we'd stop placing ALL the blame elsewhere & started using our brains and common


Persiana, Canadaka 2 Comments [7/16/2018 1:48:19 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 138893

Remember when they said that LGBT wasn't a "slippery-slope?"

This is what America will be forced (BY LAW) to embrace if you vote Democrat!

Republicans are your only rational choice for 2018!

#MAGA #Ghost

https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/cooper-gender-fluid-little-boys-makeup/#gs.IFLrFXs

Ghost, Gab 7 Comments [7/16/2018 1:46:27 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 138900

“Firefighter prophet” and radical conspiracy theorist Mark Taylor appeared on “The NutriMedical Report Show” yesterday, where he and host Bill Deagle asserted that FBI agent Peter Strzok, Hillary Clinton, and those who oppose President Trump “are not human” and are, in fact, demons.

Deagle, a nutritional supplement proprietor and radio host who recently vowed to kill any liberal protester who dared to harass him, declared that he has an amazing “spiritual gift” that allows him identify “the names of the succubi and incubi inside Peter Strzok” just by looking at him.

“Individuals like Peter Strzok and Hillary Clinton, these are people of clay and iron,” Deagel said. “Clay being human flesh and iron being the trans-dimensional energy that is inside of them. They’re being avatared like a video game … These are not just normal human beings—your brothers and sisters—these are your bothers and sisters who are totally taken over by evil.”

“These people are not human,” Taylor agreed.

“These people like Peter Strzok,” Deagle responded, “when I saw him screwing up his face and leaning forward and making his eyes look really dark, I’m thinking, ‘Ooh, we’re not hearing a person talk, we’re hearing a demonic entity talk through his mouth.’ It’s disgusting.”

“It’s almost like the protests your are seeing now,” Taylor then added. “Those are not protests, those demonstrations; they’re demon-strations. … They’re flailing around, these are demon-strations, these are demons that are manifesting because they know that their time is short.”

Mark Taylor and Bill Deagle, Right Wing Watch 16 Comments [7/15/2018 1:30:15 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Kuyohashi

Quote# 138899

I never said bikini's signified consent. However, if you're 14 years old with breasts just popping out of your chest and you're running around in hooker boots and booty shorts where half your ass hangs out (No, not just short shorts, I mean booty shorts where half your ass really IS hanging out) and a bikini top or some other fragile excuse for clothing, and you get spoken to with disrespect, and you get treated with disrespect, then my point is that they can't really place the entire blame on the other party. The disrespect began with themselves.

Again sorry, this does not signify disrepect on the part of the girls or the apropriatness of a fifty year old man to offer his services.

I suppose it depends on the individual, really. There's the girls who are simply too young & ignorant, and rather unfortunately have parents who simply don't care... they usually grow into young adults who also don't care, it has a rather snowball effect. There's also the 'rebels' ...the girls who do come from perfectly good homes, who rebel against their parents morals and do so by being as scantily clad as they can without getting arrested for public indecency. Women and girls who dress "nicely" are fine. Women and girls who dress "slutty" and "Skanky" are not so fine. I do not look at them & think "Wow, they look fine!" although you as a male perhaps are doing so without even realizing how shockingly low these girls self-esteem truly is. Healthy sexuality does not mean that they have to sleep with everybody who pays them a compliment, nor does "slut" equal healthy sexuality. A girl who wears a "slut" t-shirt and takes a 50 year old guy up on his offers, isn't healthy. I rather prefer the girls who can actually realize the inappropriateness of the fifty year old man offering his services that you mentioned, than the ones who don't. Both types of girls exist but when they dress the same way, how is the 50 year old guy supposed to be able to tell them apart? Get it yet? Its a learning curve. 50 year old guy has probably learned that he has better luck with skanks than classy women, so those are the ones he offers his services to.

Persiana, Canadaka 5 Comments [7/15/2018 1:30:01 PM]
Fundie Index: 3