Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Community Log In
1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 40
Quote# 102137

The thuggish pastor of a small Southern California church and two of his parishioners tortured a 13-year-old boy who lived at a church-run group home, savagely beating him, grinding salt into his raw wounds and forcing him to dig his own grave. The pastor, Lonny Remmers, 56, and his two goons even tortured the teen during a group Bible study session, forcing him to sit in front of the others while they twisted his nipples with pliers, court documents show, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The assaults were part of a brutal campaign to "scare" the boy straight after he was moved from one home, where his mother and sister lived, to another allegedly for acting out, the Times reported.

Remmers, Nicholas Craig, 24, and Darryll Jeter Jr., 30, pleaded guilty Monday to charges including inflicting corporal injury on a child, assault with a deadly weapon and making criminal threats. Remmers, who runs the Hart of Worship Community Church in Corona, was expected to be sentenced to two years in prison. The other two were given a year in home confinement, plus three years of probation.


After getting orders from Remmers to "scare" the boy, Craig and Jeter drove him to a remote area, where they lashed him with a belt and forced him to dig his own grave. The twisted pair then forced the boy to get in the hole as they tossed dirt on him from above, as though they were burying him alive, the documents said.

Later, they returned to the home and the boy took a shower, while Craig and Jeter rubbed salt into the cuts on his back, authorities said. They also tied him down and sprayed mace in his face, causing his nose to bleed, the documents said.

The boy later told police he thrashed so violently, he left the shower spattered with blood, the Times reported. Other members of the home reported seeing the blood the next day.

The torment continued later that night at the Bible study session at Remmers' home, where the men clamped his nipples with pliers in front of about a dozen other men.

Authorities said the sicko pastor claimed the boy needed to be disciplined for "not accepting responsibility for his actions."

The boy's mother had brought him to Remmers' church, which has 15 to 20 members. Corona is in Riverside County, about an hour east of Los Angeles.

The teen hasn't been identified.

By pleading guilty, the men avoided a kidnapping charge, which would have been the most serious against them.

Remmers is scheduled to be sentenced Sept. 26.

Lonny Remmers, Nicholas Craig, Darryll Jeter , NY Daily News 44 Comments [7/17/2014 3:23:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 35
Submitted By: SZD
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 118564

The president of theocratic law group The Liberty Council announced on the social medium Twitter that she plans to carry a gun with her to the women’s restroom at Target stores so that she can shoot anyone she thinks is transgender.

Blogger Joe My God wrote on Monday, “Liberty Counsel president Anita Staver declared Friday that she will be taking her Glock .45 handgun to Target as protection against assaults by transgender patrons.”

[Screenshot of a tweet that says "I'm taking a Glock .45 to the ladies room. It identifies as my bodyguard. #BoycottTarget @Target"]

Anita Staver is married to Mat Staver, head of the legal team that defended Kentucky’s outspoken anti-marriage equality county clerk Kim Davis in her effort to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

Conservative activists have worked themselves into a lather over Target stores’ decision to allow trans customers to use restrooms designated for their expressed gender. The group launched a #BoycottTarget campaign on social media last week.

Anita Staver, Raw Story 15 Comments [4/28/2016 3:24:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 118535

The Utah lawmaker who introduced a state resolution declaring pornography a “public health crisis” has taken his opposition a step further. During a conservative talk radio appearance on Friday, state Rep. Todd Weiler (R) said that the internet, essentially, violates a person’s First Amendment rights by “delivering pornography” to people who don’t want to view it.

“Someone may have the First Amendment right, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, to view pornography,” Weiler told Tony Perkins, host of “Washington Watch” radio show. “But what about my First Amendment right not to view it?”

This interview comes days after Gov. Gary Herbet (R) signed Weiler’s bill into law.

At first, Weiler specifically blamed McDonald’s for having free WiFi that did not block porn sites. According to Weiler, kids often go to McDonald’s or public libraries to watch porn on their WiFi networks — especially if it’s blocked on their home internet.

“If these libraries and McDonald’s were delivering cigarettes to our children, we’d be picketing them,” he said.

Weiler’s understanding of the First Amendment is deeply flawed, however. The amendment specifically bans laws that prohibit a person’s ability to exercise free speech. It does not, however, ban a person from NOT viewing another’s act of free speech. That’s like saying the amendment protects a pro-choice advocate’s right to never encounter anti-abortion protesters.

Instead, Weiler’s argument rests on his inability to control how others browse the internet. But exerting control over another person’s behavior in that way isn’t a constitutional right — far from it.

Weiler said he’s working with U.S. Senator Orin Hatch (R) to create a way for internet users to “opt-in” to online porn, rather than using parental filters to opt-out of porn sites.

Sen. Todd Weiler (R), ThinkProgress 36 Comments [4/27/2016 3:08:35 AM]
Fundie Index: 13
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 118571

Amos Moses:
No, you are confused......... and you are trying to confuse the issue...... XX or XY..... done and done........ all of this other nonsense is just that... we do not choose our gender.. it is not "imposed" by society..... that is all subjective nonsense...

Gender Ideology Harms Children
Originally posted March 21, 2016 – a temporary statement with references. A full statement will be published in summer 2016. Updated with Clarifications on April 6, 2016.
American College of Pediatrians

(Transphobic copypasta from the American College of Pediatricians)

Ambulance Chaser:
OK, that's nice, but the American Association of Pediatrics has taken the exact opposite position on this measure. So there are some "doctors, men of science, pediatricians" who strongly disagree with this law. So now you have to make a choice: which are you going to believe?

1. The American Association of Pediatrics is the official, nationally-recognized organization for representing pediatricians. It has over 60,000 members nationwide and publishes the respected Journal of Pediatrics.

2. The American College of Pediatricians was founded in 2002, specifically to oppose everything the AAP says. They have somewhere around 200 members (at best) and put forth no scientific evidence to support their positions. Those positions are basically the Republican platform on everything medical. In other words, they're a fringe group that exists solely to oppose liberal ideas and the AAP, while sounding like a legitimate medical organization so that right-wingers can quote them and sound important.

Amos Moses:
i am going to believe Christ..........................

Ambulance Chaser:
What was it you said before about not being able to refute the points?

But hey, that's your prerogative. You can "believe in Christ" on this issue. What was it He had to say about transgenderism again?

Amos Moses:
19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Oh, gee,,,,,NOTHING there about transgenders......... just MEN AND WOMEN.....XX and XY....

Ambulance Chaser:
Yes, as you said, nothing about transgenders. He doesn't define "male" and "female" and there's certainly nothing about chromosomes in there.

Amos Moses:
The bible is not a science text.......... So it would not say those things...... especially the so called modern English terms.... people invent words to avoid being told they are wrong.... God created men and women....... there is nothing outside of it.......... except sin and confusion.......... make all the convoluted arguments you want.... it wont change anything ...

Ambulance Chaser:
No, I'm sure it won't change anything for you. You've made it clear that you aren't interested in hearing facts.

Amos Moses:
If you ever find any........let me know............. but i doubt you have any to begin with.......

Who do you say Christ is?............

Ambulance Chaser:
If you really want to learn about transgender people, you might start with the APA's position paper. It's full of answers, backed up research, and publicly available.

Who do I say Christ is? I don't know what that means, but I don't think much about Christ on a daily basis because the subject has zero impact on my life.

Amos Moses:
Good to know your opinion on Christ.......... the rest of what you write about then......... is of no interest to me because......... it lacks any verifiable truth...............

"6 Reasons Why Most Scientific Research is Fake, False or Fraudulent"

(Citation to Waking Times, a conspiracy site)

Ambulance Chaser:
Well, aside from the fact that Waking Times appears to be a nutcase crank website (it cites Cracked as a source!?), let's assume that what they say is true.

Okay, so now we've established, for the moment, that something is not automatically true just because it's written in a scientific journal. There could be flaws, bias, whatever.

So, what are the flaws in, oh, pick a study on transgenderism. Any one. And critique it.

No, don't throw me more crank websites or arguments against "science" as a whole. Those aren't useful or relevant. No peer reviewer ever earned a grant by saying "hurr durr, science isn't reliable, so this study is false lol!" I mean ACTUALLY read it, critically, and with an eye toward any problems it may have.

Yes, what I'm asking you to do is HARD. It's work. I mean, graduate-level psychology-type work. Work I can't do, by the way; I freely admit it's beyond my skills. But it shouldn't be a problem for you, because you believe that your knowledge of psychology is greater than that of the preeminent experts in the field.

So what do you say? Are you up for this?

Amos Moses:
It is all fallacious... it cannot be science..... it is all subjective "feelings".... by definition.... NOT science........ unless one thinks a person is just a mixed bag of blood and electro-chemical processes and that men have no control over who and what they are...... which is also fallacious............

"I was born this way"..... is just garbage reasoning for "my feelings" are the only thing that is important........... Hey....... i was born the way i am....... a christian with a sound mind...... so who are any of them to tell us that we are wrong and they are right if that is all it is.............. It is NOT!.........

Ambulance Chaser:
It's "all fallacious?" So then, a few posts ago, when you were trumpeting the American College of Pediatricians' position as "scientific" was that fallacious too?

Amos Moses:
No, because it lines up with scripture, science, and common sense............. just because a scientist says it.......... does not make it science........... and peer review only costs about $500 and you can get pretty much any nonsense published....

Ambulance Chaser:
So, science is great and we should all believe science, as long as it's science that supports what you want to believe. Otherwise, it's fake.

Got it.

Amos Moses:
Very good......... because that is exactly what many "scientists" are doing today ..... they have "a Priori" removed certain conclusions based on nothing but their biases and beliefs.... and that belief is "materialism"......... so that even if all the evidence points to anything outside "materialism" ................ it is "a Priori" dismissed as being the correct answer......................

Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

The prominent evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

So DESPITE the claim of an "Open Mind" and "Following the Evidence"..........they have clearly stated that they.... and a vast majority of "scientists" .......WILL NOT follow the evidence.................. So anything they have to say............ IS NOT SCIENCE...................

Amos Moses, Christian News Network 29 Comments [4/28/2016 3:37:18 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 118567

I'm a progressive, but also a pessimist and a misanthrope. My support for progressive policies is motivated by a firm belief that most people are crazy, evil, or just plain stupid and cannot be left to their own devices without ultimately screwing themselves and/or others. I don't see any contradiction between being a progressive and a control freak because "freedom" to me means freedom for them, not us ... since we have well-developed internal restraints, so while reducing external restraints wouldn't change our behaviors, it would change the behaviors of the people that we are logically most interested in controlling.

The irony is that while mental illness is regarded as grounds for leniency, I could argue that diminished faculties means they're more likely to require strong external controls and simple, powerful associations between undesirable behaviors and negative consequences. If only we really could "throw away" all the clinical psychopaths (as defined by patterns of behavior and/or measurable physical differences in brain structure): throw every banker, MBA, and Republican politician in jail.

Visceral, Daily Kos 17 Comments [4/28/2016 3:34:02 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 118556

Arnold Atheist enjoyed learning about the fall of the Roman Empire as he watched the History channel. He clicked over to the Science channel and watched two programs. One was on the power of magnetic fields and the other was on gravity.

As an atheist, Arnold loved science. He equated the two. He glanced at his high-tech digital clock and thought about how quickly time had flown. He took a deep breath, grabbed the remote control, turned off the TV, called his wife who was working late and told her that he loved her. As he opened his garage door a strong wind messed up his hair that had been neatly combed a few moments earlier. He spoke an address into his phone, and let GPS guide him to his destination.

Arnold believed in invisible history. He watched a program on invisible magnetic fields. Then he watched another on invisible gravity. Then he measured invisible time, breathed invisible oxygen, used an invisible signal to turn off his TV with his remote, told his wife he had an invisible emotion for her, had his hair messed up by the invisible wind, and was directed to his meeting by an invisible positioning system.

Arnold was excited by the subject at his local atheist meeting: "Why we don't believe in the invisible."

Ray Comfort, Atheist Central 29 Comments [4/28/2016 3:08:37 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Chris
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 118540

In a Facebook post now hidden from view, the likely new sheriff of Denton County, Texas said he would beat a transgender woman so severely she’d end up in a hospital if she tried to share a bathroom with his daughter.

According to the Dallas Observer, Tracy Murphfree — who only faces token opposition from a Libertarian Party candidate and no Democratic candidate — jumped on the anti-transgender bandwagon with his Friday afternoon post.

“This whole bathroom thing is craziness I have never seen,” Murphree wrote last Friday. “All I can say is this: If my little girl is in a public women’s restroom and a man, regardless of how he may identify, goes into the bathroom, he will then identify as a John Doe until he wakes up in whatever hospital he may be taken to. Your identity does not trump my little girl’s safety. I identify as an overprotective father that loves his kids and would do anything to protect them”

In the comments that followed, Murphree clashed with Amber Dyden Briggle, a former candidate for Denton City Council who has a transgender son.

“As the parent of a transgender child who is only 8 years old, Tracy, this … really, really upsets me,” she wrote. “I know you are a protective parent, but SO AM I. If my son were to walk into a women’s room, looking the way he does, he would no doubt be corrected and sent to the men’s room. What we’ve done now is call attention to a young child, only 8 years old, who is now behind closed doors with a bunch of men — had he walked in there to use the bathroom to pee in the first place, no one would have batted an eye, because he looks like and IS a boy. ”

“Let me put it another way: halfway through first grade, this PERFECT child of mine, who is just as miraculous and amazing today as he was on the day of his birth, stopped feeling comfortable using the girls’ room,” she added, before going on to explain the difficulties her child has encountered since then.

Murphree responded to Briggle by insisting he’s not a “bigot” and that she is part of the problem.

“Amber, you have demonstrated part of the problem. You advocate your right to defend your child and state that your child has the right to pee in peace. Yet when I advocate my right to defend my child and her right to pee in peace I’m a bigot and dangerous. I’m not a bigot I have nothing against you or your child. I would defend both of you with my life,” he wrote.

“Yes, I will be the next sheriff, and I will serve all citizens. I will not sit back and not voice my beliefs and opinions. I will not give in to the political correctness police. I won’t be threatened by those who may call me a bigot or ignorant. I have no issue with transgenders. That’s between them and God,” he added. “The few transgenders rights do not trump the rights of the many. I will not stand by in political correctness afraid of being labeled and allow a male to enter a bathroom my daughter occupies. I just won’t do it.”

Tracy Murphree, Raw Story 19 Comments [4/27/2016 3:15:06 AM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 118562

(Story: "Pro-choice Feminist Thinks Women Having Abortions is Comparable to Men Having Sex"):

"Women end up getting botched back-alley abortions where many of them DIE."

False. Bernard Nathanson admitted later after converting to pro-life that his numbers regarding same were totally made up.

"Women have the same number of abortions, legal or illegal."

False. The law is a powerful teacher, and this has been shown to be true in both directions - where abortion was made legal and also where it was made illegal.

If your "logic" were valid, we would still have the same amount of racial slavery that we did in the 1800's. Very poor logic on your part.

"Your moral opinion of this matter is not the same as other people's moral opinion of it."

Correct. Which means one of us is correct and one is wrong. If abortion kills a human who has committed no crime, then you are wrong to the tune of the worst human rights holocaust in history. If abortion merely removes a clump of cells and does not kill a human, then I am unfairly restricting a woman's choice. Sadly, basic human biology proves that I am right and you are wrong. You have to deny science to get where you are.

"The fact remains that abortion is a decision for the woman to make."

Not any more than slavery was a decision for the plantation owner to make.

"Not the church, not other people, and certainly not the government."

Great! You just repealed Roe! Thanks for doing it for me! :-)

WorldGoneCrazy, Live Action News 16 Comments [4/28/2016 3:24:39 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: Jocasta McFucken
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 118563







Henry Johnson and Joe Taylor, Omniology.com 7 Comments [4/28/2016 3:24:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Arceus
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 118542

A penis is a rape device; as domestic violence statistics reveal, men are the evil virus problem. Given sperm may be created without use of a man, and women have well proven themselves even more capable then men, castration is something to be enforced eventually for all men. A peaceful and productive future depends on real vision and executing a plan that cuts to the core issue here. Castration is the cure. Stop the Rape!”
“Girls, it’s easy—just feed him female hormones. Small doses at first. Once you see his boobs develop just gradually increase the hormones. My husband can’t get it up and my girlfriends with their strap-on vibrators give me orgasms that no man can equal.”

Feminst Lesbian, FSTDT 48 Comments [4/27/2016 3:17:42 AM]
Fundie Index: 16
Submitted By: Arceus
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 118552

Rerun Article: Did Dinosaurs REALLY Evolve Into Birds?
I hope everyone had a terrific Harvest Day! As you might recall, last year I took part in the Nanowrimo (National Novel Writing Month) challenge, which requires me to write a 50,000-word novel during the month of November. I am doing this challenge again this year, so I will be posting quite a few rerun articles this month. Don't worry though, I'll pick articles from a little ways back.

Anyway, Thanksgiving will soon be upon us? Do you have any Thanksgiving traditions? If so, leave them in a comment below.

Days till:
It is: 16 days till The Good Dinosaur's theatrical release
It is: 17 days till Thanksgiving
It is: 45 days till Christmas

In the Spotlight:
Again, nothing of note to share this week.

Topic of the Week by Christian Ryan

Did dinosaurs really evolve into birds? What does the fossil record actually reveal?
Every Thanksgiving, people all over the United States cook and serve the American turkey. Despite not being part of the first Thanksgiving, the turkey is a symbol for this holiday. But for many Americans, they aren't merely eating a bird – they're actually eating a dinosaur! Evolutionists believe that all birds, including the turkey, descended from small, feathered theropod dinosaurs; to be more accurate, they actually believe that birds are dinosaurs. Such a claim, if true, would be a major problem for creationists. How should a creationist respond to such this idea? What's the truth behind this belief?

Is this delicious Thanksgiving entree the descendant of dinosaurs?
The idea that reptiles evolved into birds isn't new. Not long after renowned naturalist Charles Darwin published his book in 1859 called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life . . . it's easy to see why most people just call it The Origin of Species. In 1860, a feather was discovered fossilized in Germany and the species of which the feather belonged to was called Archaeopteryx. In 1863, Sir Richard Owen (the inventor of the name “dinosaur” and a creationist) described an entire skeleton of the creature; the fossils revealed a relatively small creature, with feathered and clawed wings, teeth and a long bony tail. In 1869, biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, often considered “Darwin's Bulldog” declared the animal as the missing link between reptiles – specifically dinosaurs – and birds. Ever since, most evolutionary scientists cling to the idea that theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds.

The similarities between dinosaurs like Compsognathus and birds led Huxley to believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds.
Before we go any farther, we must understand both perspectives of the origin of birds: the creation perspective and the evolutionary perspective. Let's look at them both now. Most evolutionists believe that sometime between the early to late Jurassic Period, about 201-145 million years ago, the scales of small theropod dinosaurs began evolving into fur-like proto-feathers for warmth. After millions of years of evolution, these proto-feathers evolved to be firmer and longer; dinosaurs began using their longer feathers for display purposes, perhaps to attract mates. Evolutionists are unsure as to how the power of flight came about. Some evolutionists believe these feathered dinosaurs were tree-climbers and began using their feathered limbs to glide through the trees; others believe they developed the power of flight from the ground up, using their proto-wings to increase their leaps into the air, perhaps after prey. Either way, these dinosaurs eventually were able to get airborne and were now technically birds.

An early conception of "proto-birds" from 1916.
What does the Bible say about the evolution of birds? Well, it says God created all the flying creatures on the Fifth day of the Creation week, 6,000 years ago, the day before He created dinosaurs.
“And God created...every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good...And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.” Genesis 1:21-23.
This is a major contradiction to the evolution story, which states that dinosaurs came about before birds. Meanwhile the Bible states that land animals – dinosaurs included – came after birds! And instead of evolving through the processes of natural selection and mutation like evolution teaches, birds appeared on earth fully-formed and ready for action.

Evolutionists commonly point to Archaeopteryx as being a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds.
Many evolutionists (specifically atheists) believe that there is too much evidence for evolution for creation to be true. I find it rather interesting how many evolutionists refuse to even consider creation an option; in fact, many will go as far as to say that creationists don't know science. I was browsing the internet and came across an article entitled Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy by Brian Switek. “Oh, really?” I thought upon seeing this article; I was rather unimpressed by this evolutionist's attempt to denounce creationists. Curious, I read the article, expecting to find much criticism aimed at creationists. Much of the article was devoted to how our view of dinosaurs has changed over the years, but perhaps a quarter into the material, he talked about creationists and the “overwhelming evidence” that dinosaurs evolved into birds, in addition to his other criticisms about dinosaurs living with humans and dinosaurs living 6,000 years ago etc. He also spent a great deal of time talking about Answers in Genesis CEO Ken Ham and the Creation Museum. Here's an excerpt below:
“...dinosaurs with feathers are not welcome at Ham's amusement park [speaking of the Creation Museum]. Even though paleontologists have uncovered numerous dinosaurs with everything from bristles and fuzz to full-flight feathers—which document the evolution of plumage from fluff to aerodynamic structures that allowed dinosaurs to take to the air—creationists deny the clear fossil record.”
He had much more to say of course, some of which I'll get to in a minute. I must say that while reading the article, I was troubled how many misconceptions Switek has about creationism. What really ticks me off is when evolutionists try to make a case for themselves without actually doing the research. I find Switek's ignorance of what we creationists believe appalling. If only he continued to research and find answers to why creationists don't believe dinosaurs evolved into birds, then perhaps he would not have been so bold in his statements. Like any other fossils in the fossil record, even though the observable evidence – dinosaur and bird fossils – can point to or suggest a certain conclusion, they do not speak for themselves and are left to the interpretation of the individual based upon observable evidence. Evolutionists like to claim that creationists start from a presupposition and use that to base their opinions on, while they base their opinions on scientific facts. Now, it is true that we have presumptions, but so do evolutionists! They fail to realize is that they do the exact same thing. In this article, I plan to talk about the evidence for and against the dino-to-bird hypothesis and see what the evidence best suggests.

So what is the “evidence” for this belief in dinosaurs evolving into birds? Switek claims there is a “mountain of evidence that birds are living dinosaurs” and that we creationists deny the clear fossil record. Let's at the so-called evidence now and see whether we're the ones rejecting the clear fossil record. Before we go on though, let me explain that evolutionists do not believe all dinosaurs evolved into birds; they believe the ancestors of birds are maniraptorans, small theropod (meat-eating) dinosaurs. Some of these dinosaurs include Deinonychus, Troodon and the famous Velociraptor.

Dromaeosaurs, such as this Velociraptor, are commonly seen as relatives of modern birds.

Bird-hipped and Lizard-hipped Dinosaurs
Evolutionists are quick to mention that maniraptorans are very similar to modern birds anatomically. This is true. In fact there are over 100 skeletal features that dinosaurs share with birds; some dinosaurs such as Velociraptor even had a wishbone. But what is often not mentioned are the often quite significant differences between the two. Within the order Dinosauria there are two subcategories in which dinosaurs are divided, saurischians (lizard-hipped dinosaurs) and ornithiscians (bird-hipped dinosaurs). The dinosaurs in these two categories are divided based upon their hip shape. The difference between the two hip shapes is the pubis bone; the pubis bone in birds and bird-hipped dinosaurs points toward the rear instead of to the front as in lizard-hipped dinosaurs, modern reptiles and mammals.

Saurischian or lizard-like hip structure.

Ornithischian or bird-like hip structure.

Problem with dino-to-bird evolution? All the dinosaurs that evolutionists believe are related to birds (e.g. Velociraptor, Troodon, Sinornithosaurus) are lizard-hipped! Dinosaurs that are bird-hipped include Stegosaurus, Triceratops and Parasaurolophus. These dinosaurs bear very few bird-like features and are not believed to have evolved into birds. Yet the few times this is ever mentioned in secular literature, documentaries and etc. this problem is never presented any emphasis. And why would they?

The lumbering 4-ton Stegosaurus is a bird-hipped dinosaur, meaning it must have evolved into birds! Right? Of course not!

Three-Fingered Hands

The hand bones of Dienonychus (left) and Archaeopteryx (right) are quite similar.
Evolutionists absolutely love to talk about how both theropods and birds have three-fingered hand bones. Evidence of a dino-bird relationship? Hardly. As birds supposedly evolved from theropods, you'd expect that the digits represented in the hand bones would be the same in both dinosaurs and birds. However, dinosaurs have the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd digits (the first being the thumb); birds have the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th digits in their hand. What happened?

Avian vs. Reptilian Lungs

The dinosaur Sinosauropteryx was so well preserved, that the reptilian-like lungs have also been fossilized.
If theropods are the ancestors of birds, you should find avian-like lungs in theropods. Of course, as most dinosaur remains are fossil bones, we can't know too much about their lungs and respiratory system. However, paleontologists have discovered the fossilized remains of a Sinosauropteryx, a small bird-like theropod from China, related to Compsognathus. This Sinosauropteryx specimen retains the outline of the visceral cavity, and it is very well preserved. Much to the dismay of evolutionists, they reveal that the lung is very much like that of a crocodile.

In Switek's article, he mentions how the Creation Museum didn't display feathered dinosaurs, nor does Answers in Genesis portray dinosaurs with feathers in books and DVD's. And he's right. But what if there's actually a scientifically good reason for this? Of course, failing to do his research to see why creationists don't portray feathered dinosaurs, he just scoffs and claims that “they take pride in promoting out-of-date, monstrous dinosaurs that more easily fit their contention that these animals were created separately from all other forms of life.” I'm very sorry Switek, but maybe you are the one who's trying to go against the fossil evidence. Like just about every other evolutionist out there, he claims that creationists just believe in non-feathered dinosaurs because we believe they didn't evolve into birds and then points to so-called “feathered” dinosaurs; no further explanation is given. He would have only had to read a few articles on the Answers in Genesis website to find their true opinion, which I will get to in a minute.

Is there actually evidence to support the belief that dinosaurs, like this Troodon, had feathers?
There are two types of “feathered dinosaurs” you'll hear about: dinosaurs with bird-like flight feathers and dinosaurs with proto-feathers. First let's look at the dinosaurs with “proto-feathers”. In 1996, evolutionists thought they found the amazing proof for their theory upon the discovery of Sinosauropteryx. This small carnivorous dinosaur is associated with the outline of what many believe to be fur-like proto-feathers. But upon looking at the “proto-feathers” closely, you can see that they really aren't that feather-like. They are much more similar to hair in appearence. In fact, it seems to some creationists that seems that these features are actually connective tissue fibers (collagen); this is found in the deeper dermal layers of the skin. These features have been found not only on other dinosaurs, but also ichthyosaurs, dolphin-like marine reptiles! Yet no one suggests these creatures were feathered. Another thing about the "fluffy-looking" structures that creation scientists have noticed is that many of these structures appear almost fur-like. Perhaps some of these dinosaurs were covered in something similar to pcynofibers, fur-like structures found on pterosaurs that are very similar to mammalian hair.

Dinosaurs like Sinosauropteryx might have been covered in a type of "fur".
In this article, Switek mentions this fossil discovery:
“Put feathers on a Velociraptor—we know it had feathers thanks to quill knobs preserved along its arm bones—and you get something disturbingly birdlike, revealing the dinosaur's kinship to the ancestors of Archaeopteryx and other early birds.”
In 2007, scientists published the find of a fossil arm bone of a Velociraptor. Along the forearm are six bumps that they claimed were very similar to those found on the bones of some modern birds. In modern birds the bumps are the quill knobs where feathers were once supposedly rooted. Is this proof of a feathered dinosaur? Perhaps, but sources that talk about this find give no details as to why the quill knobs don't extend further along this bone or if there were other fossils were also examined or how complete the find was. Who's to say this is even the arm bone of a Velociraptor? There are many uncertainties with this fossil. Keep in mind that I'm not doubting the validity of the scientists who studied the fossil, but we should also remember that we should be cautious about such claims based on scant evidence and the claims made by scientists with evolutionary presuppositions.

No feathers seem to have been present on Velociraptor, but pcynofiber-like fuzz is still a possibility.
What about “dinosaurs” that actually have fully-functional actual feathers? Archaeopteryx and Microraptor are two such creatures. Both of these animals bear toothy snouts, clawed and feathery wings and bony tails. They also both have a pair of enlarged retractable toe claws like those of raptor dinosaurs, such as Deinonychus and Velociraptor. Surely this is proof that these animals are the missing links between dinosaurs and birds.

Microraptor is a very unique creature with four fully-functional feathered wings.
First of all the feathers on the bodies of Archaeopteryx and Microraptor are actual feathers and not collagen fibers or fur-like structures. They also have the same digits configuration of modern birds (like modern birds they bear the 2nd, 3rd and 4th digits). Undoubtedly, these animals are birds. The fact that they have reptilian features does not make them half reptile/half bird. In fact, there are several actual birds that have reptilian features: ostriches and baby hoatzins also have clawed wings, and no one questions that these animals are birds; the extinct bird Hesperornis possesses teeth in its beak; and the seriema of today even has an enlarged second toe claw, similar to the ones seen in raptors. If you don't need a missing link between dinosaurs and birds (which creationists don't) then there's no need to call Microraptor and Archaeopteryx anything other than 100% birds.

The seriema is a medium-sized bird living today with an enlarged toe claw, similar to the ones found on dromaeosaurs.
If you look in dinosaur books, you've likely seen diagrams similar to the one below:

This is a typical chart showing the evolution of dinosaurs to birds.
This picture suggests that the fossil record wonderfully displays the evolution from dinosaurs to birds; with more dinosaur-like creatures in lower geologic rock layers and more bird-like creatures in higher layers, slowly evolving more complex feathers. Isn't it strange that we creationists reject the plain evidence in the fossil record as Switek states we do?

Unfortunately, this isn't what the fossil record represents at all! Despite this being portrayed in just about every secular dinosaur book, the “clear fossil record” (as Switek puts it) tells a different story. Archaeopteryx, the famed transitional between dinosaurs and birds is believed to have existed 150-148 million years ago, during the Late Jurassic Period. The problem? Most bird-like dinosaurs that are commonly said to be closely related to birds, according to this worldview, lived before Archaeopteryx! Sinosauropteryx, a dinosaur with “proto-feathers” is claimed to have lived 124-122 million years ago! In fact, most dinosaurs with so-called “proto-feathers” are found above rock layers with more bird-like animals! The only dinosaur with "proto-feathers" that evolutionists have that didn't live after Archaeopteryx is Juravenator. But according to evolutionists, Juravenator lived at the same time as Archaeopteryx! In addition to this, we find birds very similar to the ones we see today living with "dino-birds". A Microraptor skeleton described in 2011 was discovered with tree-perching bird fossils (more bird-like than Microraptor) inside of its abdomen! This animal didn't only live with modern-like birds – it ate them! Even Velociraptor, a very bird-like dinosaur, is usually dated to live about 80 million years ago, long after birds has supposedly been flying through the skies for millions of years. These creatures were hardly ancestors to the birds. I for think the fossil record clearly demonstrates that dinosaurs evolved into birds, don't you? (That was sarcastic by the way).

Of course, I am not at all saying we should find all the transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds if this transition really did occur, but we should find a few. Evolution on this scale would take tens of millions of years and millions of generations between dinosaurs and birds. Where are these fossils? Surely some should have popped up if the "clear fossil record" suggests dinosaurs evolved into birds.

And to make matters even worse for evolutionists, extinct birds such as Anchiornis, Xiaotingia, Aurornis and potentially Protoavis are buried in sediment “older” than Archaeopteryx!

So, Switek, you believe the "clear fossil record" portrays dinosaurs evolving into birds? Hm...

Earlier, I mentioned how Switek claimed creationists don't like feathered dinosaurs. What if a feathered dinosaur with actual feathers were discovered? Would this prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds and that the Bible is untrue? Nope! In fact, nothing in the Bible goes against the idea that dinosaurs might have had feathers. Not only that, but I happen to like the look of feathered dinosaurs; I am not against the notion of feathered dinosaurs in the slightest, just the idea that they evolved into birds. Finding a feathered dinosaur would be no different than finding a mammal that lays eggs. which we actually have! The duck-billed platypus and porcupine-like echidna are monotreme mammals that lay eggs instead of giving birth to live young like all other mammals. Yet they aren't half mammals/half reptiles; they're mammals that lay eggs. We creationists aren't against the idea of feathered dinosaurs at all, it's just that so far, the evidence for feathered dinosaurs is missing in action.

Like Microraptor, the platypus bears characteristics of many different creatures, including the ability to lay eggs, a duck-like bill, a beaver-like tail and webbed feet, a mammal's fur, the ability to use a form of sonar and even a venomous spur. Yet it is not some evolutionary missing link, but a mosaic.
In order to prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds, one would need to find evidence of a transition between the two in the fossil record (like reptile scales evolving into feathers) and the fossil record would need to show dinosaurs and birds evolving in the right order. This is not what we find!

Why haven't evolutionists who love to talk badly about creationists bring up the points I made in this article? An even better question is why would they do such a thing? Never in Switek's article does he even mention these problems with the dino-bird theory (or solutions to them)! Like many other evolutionists out there, he decided to pick on the claim made by creationists rather than the evidence that backs up the claim in order to make creationists sound like unprofessional idiots. What he wrote in this article shows just how utterly and willingly ignorant he is of creationism and what we believe to be true (and more importantly why we believe it to be true).

As I hope to have made clear throughout this article, if one looks at the fossil record from an evolutionary perspective, we don't really learn about the origin of birds. It's really sad how little research Switek did on the truth about creationism, Answers in Genesis, dinosaurs, birds and the fossil record as a whole. I doubt hearing the truth would have actually change his mind, but at least he would have been more informed. Until he decides to learn what creationists actually have to say and only talking about evidence from his own side of the argument, he should avoid talking about creationism altogether. (Unlike him, I used information from both sides).

I do however hope that this article has enlightened you, my readers, and helped you understand that the fossil record doesn't support the belief that birds and dinosaurs didn't share the same lineage, but that they do share the same wonderful Creator God.

You can relax, dinosaur lovers! The turkey you'll have for Thanksgiving this year isn't the descendant of this Velociraptor!

Christian Ryan, Christian Ryan 15 Comments [4/27/2016 3:20:43 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: PETF(People eating tasty fundies)
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 118559

[ The 19-year-old victim was sentenced last year to 90 lashes for meeting with an unrelated male, a former friend from whom she was retrieving photographs. The seven rapists, who abducted the pair and raped both, received sentences ranging from 10 months to five years in prison.

The victim's attorney, Abdulrahman al-Lahim, contested the rapists' sentence, contending there is a fatwa, or edict under Islamic law, that considers such crimes Hiraba (sinful violent crime) and the punishment should be death.

"After a year, the preliminary court changed the punishment and made it two to nine years for the defendants," al-Lahim said of the new decision handed down Wednesday. "However, we were shocked that they also changed the victim's sentence to be six months in prison and 200 lashes."...

I do not condone it, nor condemn it. It is possible to do neither. If you choose to slant my response that is your problem.

We have some rules here I think are stupid, barbaric, and reprehensible and I even break some of those rules. However if I get caught breaking them (or something awful happens during the course of my breaking them), I would expect to be held accountable even though I think the rules are wrong, unfair, and debilitating to my happiness and health.

"Secondly" she isn't being punished for being a rape victim, she is being punished for breaking a national rule/law. So if a person is shot but not killed by his accomplice while robbing a store, he should not be charged with robbery because he is a victim of a shooting?

I understand everyone wants to spin this to be a punishment for being raped but it has been made clear by the Saudis; her punishment was for breaking a law, not for being a victim of rape.

[ It should be noted that arabic custom places much more responsibility for prevention of rape, adultery, and pre marital sex on women...

I want to get this straight right now, before any of you moral crusaders try and pull a fast one. My next statement isnt at all an attempt to exonerate the guys who did this. Do keep this in mind, if you take my following statement as the opposite of its intention, than you have a particular interest in seeing the world in that particular POV, and therefore are at the lowest end of human wisdom...

At what point does or should a female partake in the responsibility of ones actions??? In this example, to what extent was her being in a car with some guy a partial cause of the incident???

Same thing you hear about when a girl gets gang raped in a drug neighborhood. Does it make what happened any less horrific; of course not. But to what extent was her being somewhere she knew could be potentially dangerous a partial cause for the incident???

What you have here is a clash of cultures. Muslims in most cases tend to put much more of the blame on the females as opposed to westernized nations.

It really says something when people are so adamant in their cultural norms being the best, most just, most dominant etc... Wonder what it says?

The other point that seems to be being avoided is that it is law in Saudi that women not go alone without a male relative, she is being lashed for leaving home in the company of a non-relative male. As much as I would never want to have to abide by that stiff rule, it is nonetheless the rules and if they are willingly and knowingly broken the perp should be accountable.

Another point is that I think Saudi laws/punishments are way to harsh, however it is refreshing to see a judicial system that recognizes % of fault and doesn't see thinks in complete 100% black or white terms. I would imagine that many here would love to see lawsuits for example where even if the rich bad guy gets penalized, so does the poor little guy who should've known better, should have had someone who knew better to review, and so on.

Some cases may be 100%-ers but I think they are the exceptions. Considering the punishment of her rapists, it seems her punishment is harsh but not unreasonable.

summerwind, DebatePolitics 13 Comments [4/28/2016 3:23:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 118560

Western liberal consumerist culture brainwashes girls into believing the greatest achievement for women is to become successful careerists just like men, and that raising a family and nurturing the next generation is oppression. Combine that with the hypergamous nature of females, and what you get is a generation with an unprecedented proportion of left-over women.

Jethreezy, Reddit r/aznidentity 13 Comments [4/28/2016 3:24:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 118554

Let's say the universe is that old, but the earth is older than that. The cave people during the fifth ‘a day’ in Genesis, that fifth ‘a day’ took around four and half billion years. Look at the cave people, God did not create them in his image. Being created in the image of God means that we must view ourselves as intrinsically valuable and richly invested with meaning, potentially and responsibilities. We are to be and to do on a finite scale, what God is and does on an infinite scale.

By virtue of being created in the image of God, human beings are capable of reflecting his character in their own life; animals possess none of these qualities. What distinguishes people from animals is the fact that human nature inherently has godlike possibilities.

Omniscience, omnipotence, or omnipresence, none of these other divine attributes have been ascribed to the human race as part of the image of God. We have been created to reflect God in our thinking and actions, but the physical sustained by God and dependent upon him for our existence in this world and in the world to come. Developing a godly character in this present life, this will be our personal identity in the world to come. It is the character or personality that we have developed in this life, that God preserves in his memory.

So these cave people, they would have to have everything we have, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mtLXpgjHL0&feature=related

These cave people would not have had a God conscious, like God has given to the human race a God consciousness, the conscious perception that we could say that there is a God somewhere and that ultimately the human race is accountable to that God.

Nothing made it out alive when the fifth 'a day' came to an end. In the sixth 'a day' God created blood life in the whales. Once something is created, all God has to do breath it into a body.

newnature, Religion and Ethics 11 Comments [4/28/2016 3:05:19 AM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: NearlySane
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 118569

Palestine, Amalek and Nazi Nation

During some points of the recent wave of terror which has plagued Israel, there were reports showing attacks against Jews every 10 minutes. The official PA schools run by Israel’s “moderate” peace partners openly support terror against Jews as does the Arab media. Arab mothers praise their children who kill Jews and glow with happiness when their martyred offspring die, as long as they kill a Jew along the way. This sweeping type of hatred against Jews is unprecedented in Jewish history. If anyone wants to get a better understanding of the rationale of the mitzvah in the Torah to wipe out Amalek – men women and children or the similar law that applies to the 7 nations, one need only look at the Arabs in Israel, where men, women and children are part of the armed terrorist struggle against the Jews. It is no surprise then that the Gematria – The mathematical sum of the letters that form the word “Phalastin” - “Palestine” and the sum of the word “Amalek” are equal to 240 (239 plus the kolel). The Nazi nation (haleum haNazi) is also equal to 239 (with the kolel).

7 Nations is a concept and not just about genetics

The Or Hachayim says that any nation that lives in the Land and that believes that we are thieves who stole their land, must be wiped out or expelled, because they will never settle for anything less than the expulsion or annihilation of the Jews- the people who they view as thieves – who stole “their land”. Indeed, it is us or them. There will never be peace and security until they are removed from Israel or until we lie down our arms and leave Israel.

Amalek is also a concept

Rabbi Yosef B. Soloveichik Z”L held that Amalek, as well, is not exclusively determined by genetics. He maintained that the German Nazis were halachically classified as Amalek. I know the Arabs have not succeeded in murdering 6million Jews, yet, G-d forbid. However, I also know that the so called “Palestinians” reached new heights when it comes to their level of Jew-hatred. I have yet to hear of Nazi grandmas who were happy to see their grandchildren perish in battle as long as they could aid in the murder of Jews. I have yet to hear of 11 year old German children who brandished weapons to hunt down Jews, or of 72 year-old German women who joined the hunt. These are not people you can reason with. These are not people who you could live side by side in peace with. No Jew will be able to cross a street or walk 4 meters in Israel without turning his back in fear of being attacked by Arabs. That is the reality whether we want to accept it or not.

They must go or we must go

They must go or we must go. Currently it is only legal to speak of expulsion of Jews and surrendering more land in a futile exercise of appeasement that only makes the Arabs more brazen, and thirsty for Jewish blood. To propose the expulsion of Arabs is considered racist according to Israeli law and can land the one espousing such words in prison. That has to change and will change if we wish to retain our Jewish homeland and if we wish to live in peace, security and tranquility. There is no other alternative.

Israel will survive

It is likely that when Israel ultimately takes the type of action that it needs to take to finally quell Arab terror and to distance the hostile Arabs from Israel, that this will bring international condemnation and sanctions against Israel. Better sanctions and life for the Jews and the Jewish state, than accolades, Auschwitz and funerals and flower sympathy wreaths to be laid at a new Yad Vashem that will G-d forbid memorialize the Jewish state that was. Israel will survive, but Israel will need to wise up and legalize the only program that could yet save the state. Legalization of Kahane? Call it whatever you want or show me another alternative that is based on Torah and/or logic that could save Israel.

Binyamin Yisrael, JTF.org 8 Comments [4/28/2016 3:36:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: TimeToTurn
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 118526

An Oklahoma bill that could revoke the license of any doctor who performs an abortion has headed to the governor, with opponents saying the measure in unconstitutional and promising a legal battle against the cash-strapped state if it is approved.

In the Republican-dominated legislature, the state's House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a Senate bill late on Thursday. Governor Mary Fallin, a Republican, has not yet indicated whether she will sign it.

Under the bill, doctors who perform abortions would risk losing their medical licenses. Exemptions would be given for those who perform the procedure for reasons including protecting the mother or removing a miscarried fetus.

"This is our proper function, to protect life,” said Senator Nathan Dahm, the Republican who authored the bill.

A handful of representatives argued against the bill, saying it violated the Constitution by prohibiting a doctor from performing a medical procedure that was legal under law.

"Oklahoma politicians have made it their mission year after year to restrict women’s access vital health care services, yet this total ban on abortion is a new low," said Amanda Allen, senior state legislative counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The lobbying group and several other abortion rights organizations have promised court challenges if the bill is enacted.

Supporters of the bill said it will help protect the sanctity of life.

"If we take care of morality,” bill supporter David Brumbaugh, a Republican, said during deliberations, "God will take care of the economy."

Oklahoma House of Representatives, Reuters 33 Comments [4/26/2016 4:56:26 PM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: Ibuki Mioda
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 118527

The idea that a man is a pedophile if he sleeps with a 13 yo girl is based on the notion that he is is sleeping with "underage" girls because that's what the bad laws say.

The thing is - These laws are utterly insane.
Imagine if the age of consent was 30. Would you think a sex with a 29 year-old woman being banned would be crazy?

What if the age of consent was 80? Would you agree that having sex with a 79 year-old woman because she is too young being a crime is crazy?

Well, guess what - that's how a sane man feels in a modern Western world. If you thought that the ideas with 30 or 80 were crazy that's how we feel when we read your batshit ideas.

The idea of "pedophilia" over the age of 12 is the idea of completely insane people and insane laws that are implemented and upheld. It has nothing to do with actual physical and biological reality. It's based on a fundamentally flawed idea on sex being a traumatic, dangerous act and is puritan nonsense liberals are defending staunchly and thus proving the point many realize about them, which is that they're not progressive or actually liberal but small minded followers of what's most popular.

What must, of course, be noted is that liberals want to apply these insane laws only to whites. A liberal would have no problem with a black, Muslim or any other member of some of their sacred groups having sex with their 2 month old baby if they want it. That would be a no problem at all for a liberal. But this is because a liberal sees statutory rape, or any rape, as white men doing anything to get a woman. To a liberal brutally and forcefully fucking a white woman by a member of a sacred group isn't a crime but a white man asking a woman for coffee is a severe crime. When it comes to white women and the "rapes" liberals claim they might commit, statutory or otherwise, that's another story for another post.

caamib, Reddit - r/TrueCels 38 Comments [4/26/2016 4:56:44 PM]
Fundie Index: 18
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 118538

"Apparently, to some, it’s legitimate for states to try to promote “bathroom bills” and other anti-LGBT legislation, but it’s crossing a line for a corporation to take as stand against discrimination. Target, as the first national retailer to publicly weigh in on the LGBT subject publicly, is bearing the brunt of conservative anti-LGBT activism."

This opinion piece by Patricia Ramirez is about as ridiculous as Target's Kumbaya inclusiveness. She's dead wrong or possibly just a bad liar. Everyone and I do mean EVERYONE knows full well that bathroom bills aren't "anti-LGBT legislation", but (now necessary) intended safety mechanisms that while not 100% foolproof provide a modicum of safeguards for women and children in public.

Further, as a conservative, I'm unaware of ANY "anti-LGBT activism". If common sense practices are considered "anti-LGBT activism", Target that should change it's name to Pander, and the rest of the leftist loony liberals should look to themselves. Who would have thought 20-30 years ago that cities, counties and/or states would have to legislate ordinances and laws to protect women from others who legislate to give sexual predators carte blanche to pursue their crimes and obsessions in public restrooms? Ms. Ramirez, get over yourself - everything isn't about LGBT's or BLM or Occupy whatever.

Adele McConnell, Inquisitr 18 Comments [4/27/2016 3:14:24 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 118531






Henry Johnson and Joe Taylor, Omniology.com 11 Comments [4/27/2016 3:07:08 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Arceus
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 118499

The First Amendment isn't merely dead

It is outdated, irrelevant, and at this point, civilizationally destructive.


The challenge is how to protect some semblance of free speech while strictly limiting, if not banning outright, the exercise of all non-Christian religions in Christendom. This is theoretically possible, as history demonstrates. But as events are rapidly demonstrating, in the current circumstances the latter is going to take precedence over the former.

The age of fairplay and goodsportsmanship is over. You don't have to like it; I certainly don't. Unfortunately, we have no choice but to accept it. And if you can't bring yourself to do so now, don't worry, you will soon enough.

Vox Day, Vox Popoli 32 Comments [4/25/2016 2:15:32 PM]
Fundie Index: 22
Submitted By: David
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 118539

Blood, the blood that courses through one’s veins, represents the life force; the Noahide covenant, you may not spill human blood. And you may not eat animal flesh that has the lifeblood in it, because the blood is the life and that belongs to Yahweh, that’s holy. ?

So the life force is holy, and the life force is in the blood; Leviticus 17:11, repeats the blood prohibition, and then it offers a rationale. “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon the altar.”

Somatids are no longer a mystery. Somatids belong to God. Are your Somatids really yours, or does God something that belongs to him in you.

newnature, Religion and Ethics 22 Comments [4/27/2016 3:14:50 AM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: NearlySane
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 118523

Fascism-—all this “homosexual” marriage Maxist Gender theory-—founded by the pederasts in Germany in the 1800s——is to normalize Satanism/paganism and erase Christianity “for the children”.

Pictures are worth a million words to children and now the perverts are flooding even youtube videos for chldren with “kissing” homosexuals (For the “normal” familes who try to protect the minds of their children.)

Normalizing such vile, sexist evil paganism will destroy Reason and moral formation in young children). Homosexuality is always a”group” thing with children, (Elton John) and ALWAYS about the children; to corrupt their moral foundation, so Up is Down and Vice is Virtue, to erase Christianity (Free Will/Indivdiuality-—for group-think “socialism”(irrationality).

(Shame on all who thought this vile evil, Marxist movement (like Feminism) was for “love”). No—it is to collapse the Natural Family to destroy the moral formation of children which will collapse Western worldview-—for the pagan, satanic “slave” worldview.

It is all to control the culture and Language (Wittgenstein), so that little children embed the irrational, vile Satanic ethics of the Spartans-—or islam-—or Samurai===irrational, vile behaviors will be embedded into your children FOR LIFE ;which will affect how they “see” and “understand” the world-—a VERY SEXIST one.

savagesusie, Free republic 14 Comments [4/26/2016 4:19:08 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 118487

[ “bombing doesn’t kill an ideology, it feeds it” ]

The only way you kill an ideology is to kill all those who practice it, burn their literature, and tear down their idols.
Go be a hippie elsewhere OP.

[ I’m sorry, but I thought we in western civilization looked down upon genocide, not promoted it ]

I never advocated genocide.

But the OP is completely wrong about how you destroy an ideology. I was educating him as to the proper method.

That said, western society’s endless tolerance will be it’s downfall.

Strange, we didn’t tolerate the nazi or commie mindset, yet now even conservatives are staunchly opposed to even questioning beliefs that might maybe just possibly pose a threat to our security and liberty.

If bombing people makes them violent radicals (this is fundamental islam; radical islam is to actually be peace loving and not want to marry toddlers but that’s neither here nor there) then I would say westerners should all be anti-islam radicals.

If their belief set is already so extreme, that a couple of attacks in defense drive them into the arms of jihadi groups, maybe the the line between peaceful moderate and violent radical is pretty thin to begin with.

The kid in chattanooga was a peaceful moderate, until he wasn’t.
Nadal Hasan was a peaceful moderate, until he wasn’t.
Syed Farook was a peaceful moderate, until he wasn’t.

All of these people were raised in America, all had an education and good paying jobs. They were the epitome of the American dream.
And they killed Americans because their philosophy calls for them to do so.
It calls all muslims to do so, but most ignore it, until they don’t.

bill-11b, tumblr 18 Comments [4/25/2016 2:09:06 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: randy
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 118500

In the Arctic, we know that the polar bear species thrives. In the 1960s, polar bear numbers were down, but then stabilized, and now in fact the population enjoys great healthy growth! It's time to retire the polar bear as a global warming mascot.

On Monday May 2nd head to theatres to see "Climate Hustle" - a historic one-night movie event that will open America's eyes to the truth behind the global warming "consensus." Click http://www.climatehustlemovie.com/ to find theaters and preorder tickets. It's time to expose the climate hustle once and for all.

"Anthropomorphism" is attributing human traits to objects and animals. Polar bears are majestic creatures, but there is nothing gentle & cuddly about them. They're created to be predators. Ferociously so. Just ask our cute, cuddly seal pups if "anthropomorphism" is your thing.

On Monday, May 2nd, join me in cinemas nationwide for a special one-night presentation of the groundbreaking film “Climate Hustle.” This informative (and even humorous!) film tears the cover off global warming hype, reveals the science that Al Gore and the UN don't want you to see, and profiles renowned scientists who have re-examined evidence and become cautious - even skeptical - of climate alarmism. Following the feature, audiences will be treated to an exclusive panel discussion moderated by Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center, where I'm joined by respected climatologist Dr. David Legates, Marc Moreno, and a video appearance by Bill Nye the so-called "Science Guy.” Don't miss this special theatrical event on May 2nd. Visit www.ClimateHustle.com for information about tickets and locations.

The people using the polar bear species to hustle us are the same bunch who want to stymie America's pursuit of responsible natural resource development.

Ready to trust real science? Ready to put an end to the climate hustle? Watch the movie May 2nd to help accomplish that. Thank you!

For more on polar bears: https://polarbearscience.com/…/ten-dire-polar-bear-predict…/

Climate Hustle: Are polar bears disappearing?

Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin's Facebook page 22 Comments [4/25/2016 2:16:29 PM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: Chris
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 118430

Here is made up stuff. All you have to do is proof that the second Adam's blood didn't drip on the Ark Moses had built.

Matt. 27:51, the earthquake that fractured the rock opened a fissure that ran down through 20 foot of solid rock into a cave and cracked the stone lid on top of a black stone volt where the Ark of the Covenant lie hidden inside, pushing the lid aside. John 19:34, the blood that poured from the side of Jesus, ran down through that crevice and dripped onto the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant that was hidden by God and the prophet Jeremiah, right under where they crucified Jesus, 620 years earlier when the Babylonians destroyed Salomon’s temple. ?

The Greek word used for “the cross” on which Jesus was put to death is “stauros,” which denotes an upright pale or stake. It never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always of one piece alone. There is nothing in the Greek of the New Testament even to imply two pieces of timber. The blood of Jesus would do no good for the Israelites dripping on “stauros,” because the second Adam’s blood was the basis by which Yahweh would now have just cause to remit or to clear the accounts of those with faith in time past, those who had trusted Yahweh’s word to them and who obeyed what Yahweh told them to do. ?

According to Israel’s New Covenant, when would Yahweh finish what forgiveness alone would not accomplish where Israel’s sins were concerned? When would the forgiveness come? At what time would Yahweh completely clear the slate for Israel nationally-those believers who had been baptized according to John the Baptizer’s program? The blood of the second Adam would make it possible,

newnature, Religion and Ethics 18 Comments [4/24/2016 2:55:18 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: NearlySane
WTF?! || meh
1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 40