Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In
1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 40
Quote# 113469

If you recall, earlier this year, I did a series called 'Rebuttal to JVT,' and I mocked their promulgation of so called prophetic “blood moons,” the last of which was Monday morning on the 28th of September (2015). And what spectacular event fulfilled all the hoopla we've been hearing from prophecy experts for the last couple of years? Nothing, zip, zero, zilch. The Pope came to America and made a big Jesuit ass out of himself, addressing Congress for the first time ever and not once did he mention Jesus Christ! There is nothing in the prophets about the rank of Pope. Russia and China have vowed to fight ISIS, because they know Obongo is Commander in Chief of ISIS. There is nothing in the prophets allowing strangers, who are not our kin, to rule over us, unless the wrath of God is kindled and we get somebody like Barry Sotero as punishment. Maybe the Apocalypse has been canceled until the next blood moons in 2033. John Hagee, one of the most celebrated jewish stooges of the century, has milked this cash cow with his bestselling book rattling the cages of his followers, with the premise that “The coming four blood moons points to a world-shaking event that will happen between April 2014 and October 2015,” told reporters the day after the lunar lunacy, it meant, “an event of historical significance to the Jewish people is occurring or will occur.” Do you think he could be a little bit more generalized with egg on his face, in saving face? It's ironic that these prophecy teachers contend that it's the end of the world, when no such thing is taught in the Bible. Nothing in the prophets indicates the planet earth will cease to exist. Do you think he cares about God's Law for false prophets? And why are so many people fooled by fools? The blind lead the blind. The prophets were never respected because they went against the status quo. -

Pastor Mark Downey, Kinsman Redeemer Ministries 10 Comments [10/9/2015 5:55:59 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Lucifer's Penis
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113486

Obama is the beast of Revelation… with the pope… and the coming false Jesus personality.

Obama through the papal controlled CIA/Federal Govt/Pentagon… and Bush before him in the same cabal… destabilized the dictatorships of the Middle East.

Radical Islam rose slaughtering Christians throughout the Middle East.

The goal of Obama/pope/CIA/Federal Govt/Pentagon… is to raise up ISIS and radical Islam in the Middle East for the coming antichrist system that WILL invade Israel.

Russia is protecting itself against Islamic invasion… the same Islamic invasion that assuredly will overpower Israel at time of Great Tribulation.

The “cheering” for Obama/USA is in reality cheering for ISIS… which Obama/pope/cabal… are moving to take over and radicalize all nations around Israel.

I see no reason to declare Russia in error for protecting itself from ISIS and radical Islam takeover.

The pope/CIA/Obama… the cabal of evil… has already brought multitudes of radical Muslims into Europe.

The danger is from radical Muslims… and this is the push of the antichrist beast system globally.

This rise of radical Islam will produce genocide of Christians globally… who do not escape with the Church of Philadelphia mid-trib.

There are many Christians in Russia… who ISIS would slaughter.

ISIS is slaughtering Christians in the Middle East with funding/training/support through Obama and the pope.

I think there needs to be a recognition of how Obama and the pope are setting up the global Islamic caliphate they will rule as the beast system…

and a little more understanding of the danger of Islam to all saints globally…

as Obama and the pope.. the UN cabal… advance Islam to slaughter all Christians globally left behind and not taken with the Church of Philadelphia.

laura, Now The End Begins 17 Comments [10/9/2015 10:54:29 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113471

The difference between non-player characters (NPCs)in video games and animals in real life is a matter of degree rather than kind. NPCs and animals are both fundamentally agents that emerge from a complicated collection of simple physical operations, and the main distinction between NPCs and animals is one of cognitive and affective complexity. Thus, if we care a lot about animals, we may care a tiny bit about game NPCs, at least the more elaborate versions. I think even present-day NPCs collectively have some ethical significance, though they don't rank near the top of ethical issues in our current world. However, as the sophistication and number of NPCs grow, our ethical obligations toward video-game characters may become an urgent moral topic.


If video games can be seen as "real" in a similar way as our own world, what distinguishes video-game characters from real people and animals? I think it comes down to differences in complexity, especially with regard to specific algorithms that we associate with "sentience." As I've argued elsewhere, sentience is not a binary property but can be seen with varying degrees of clarity in a variety of systems. We can interpret video-game characters as having the barest rudiments of consciousness, such as when they reflect on their own state variables ("self-awareness"), report on state variables to make decisions in other parts of their program ("information broadcasting"), and select among possible actions to best achieve a goal ("imagination, planning, and decision making"). Granted, these procedures are vastly simpler than what happens in animals, but a faint outline is there. If human sentience is a boulder, present-day video-game characters might be a grain of sand.

Digital agents using biologically plausible cognitive algorithms seem most likely to warrant ethical consideration. This is especially true if they use reinforcement learning, have a way of representing positive and negative valence for different experiences, and broadcast this information in a manner that unifies different parts of their brains into a conscious collective. Yet, I find it plausible that other attributes of an organism matter at least a little bit as well, such as engaging in apparently goal-directed behavior, having a metric for "betterness vs. worseness" of its condition, and executing complex operations in response to environmental situations. Many NPCs in video games have some of these attributes, at least to a vanishing degree, even if most (thankfully) don't yet have frameworks for reinforcement learning or sophisticated emotion.


Especially in RPGs, some NPCs have explicit representations of their "welfare level" in the form of hit points (HP), and the NPCs implement at least crude rule-based actions aiming to preserve their HP. In some turn-based RPGs like Super Mario RPG or Pokémon, an NPC may even choose an action whose sole purpose is to bolster its defenses against damage in subsequent rounds of the battle. The extent of damage may affect action selection. For example, in Revenge of the Titans (source code), drones select a building to target based on a rating formula that incorporates HP damage:

rating = cost * (damage / newTarget.getMaxHitPoints()) * factor * distanceModifier;

Even NPCs without explicit HP levels have an implicit degree of welfare, such as a binary flag for whether they've been killed. NPCs that require multiple strikes to be slain -- for instance, a boss who needs to be struck with a sword three times to die -- carry HP state information not exposed to the user. They also display scripted aversive reactions in response to damage.

And maybe representations of valuation could be seen more abstractly than in an explicit number like HP. In animal brains, values seem to be encoded by firing patterns of output nodes of certain neural networks. Why couldn't we also say that the patterns of state variables in an NPC encode its valuation? Animal stimulus valuation exists because of the flow-on effects that such valuation operations have on other parts of the brain. So why not regard variables or algorithms that trigger flow-on effects in NPCs as being a kind of at least implicit valuation?

Brian Tomasik , Essays on Reducing Suffering 14 Comments [10/9/2015 5:56:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Ivurm
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113472

The cry of Obama and others is “tolerance,” and for Christians to “catch up” with the majority that embraces same-sex unions. But, really, Obama and other gay “marriage” supporters aren’t being tolerant. They are being very intolerant of those who dare to disagree with them. This is not real tolerance at all! It’s intolerance and sometimes hatred of anyone who stands on the authority of God’s Word and calls sin what it is. Of course, this is exactly what Christians should expect since we are fighting a spiritual battle:

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:12)

People are intolerant of Christians because “men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19). Christ Himself warned us that we would be hated because of Him:

If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. (John 15:18–19)

So it should come as no surprise to Christians that the world is utterly opposed to and intolerant of Christians, even while they proclaim a message of supposed tolerance.

As believers, we need to be salt and light in a culture that is dying. We live in a very post-Christian nation. America as a whole—as evidenced by our President’s statements—does not base its thinking on God’s Word but on man’s ideas. This has resulted in a nation where “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). And this nation desperately needs to hear the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the gospel that changes hearts and minds for now and eternity. I encourage you to be salt and light among your friends, family, coworkers, and even among those you don’t know, pointing them towards Jesus Christ and the hope He offers.

How far will President Obama continue to “move the line” regarding what is morally right and wrong? He denies the origin of marriage in Genesis, but what about clothing? There is a growing movement across this nation of groups of women demanding the right to take their tops off in public because men can take their shirts off. And why should the President not approve of that “liberty”? Would he say that the origin of clothing is found in Genesis, and thus say that such nudity is wrong?

Just like the teaching of marriage is found in Genesis, so is clothing. God gave clothes because of sin (Genesis 3:21). And if the only authority to determine the meaning of marriage is fallible humans like President Obama, then why shouldn’t polygamy also be legalized?* Ultimately, anything goes, and so why shouldn’t people be allow to take their clothes off in public and have multiple spouses?

As we read in the book of Judges, “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). It’s an apt verse to describe our increasingly secularized culture as well as the actions of President Obama.

President Obama needs to take heed of the warning God gives concerning those who do not walk in His light, but walk in their own light:

Who among you fears the Lord? Who obeys the voice of His Servant? Who walks in darkness and has no light? Let him trust in the name of the Lord and rely upon his God. Look, all you who kindle a fire, who encircle yourselves with sparks: Walk in the light of your fire and in the sparks you have kindled—This you shall have from My hand: You shall lie down in torment. (Isaiah 50:10–11)

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

*Read our article on polygamy and the Bible.

Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis 12 Comments [10/9/2015 6:03:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Chris
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113473

They had the equal right to go elsewhere and not trample on the equal rights of the bakery. I can tell by your whiney comment you are one of those who believe they are born that way, they are not, it is a result of a mental defect. Why else does one almost always take the male role and the other the female.

Oboehner, Christian News Network 13 Comments [10/9/2015 6:04:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113474

Local Officials Voting To Ask God To Bypass County 'In His Coming Wrath' Because, Gay Marriage

Now a member of the Blount County Board of Commissioners, Miller has a bit of a different stance on the First Amendment.

Tuesday evening, the Board will vote on her proposal urging God to bypass Blount County as he destroys America in response to same-sex marriage now being the law of the land.

Miller’s “Resolution Condemning Judicial Tyranny And Petitioning God’s Mercy” asks God to “pass us by in His Coming Wrath and not destroy our County as He did Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring cities.”

The resolution also says the county is “begging His favor in light of the fact that we have been forced to comply and recognize that the State of Tennessee, like so many other God-fearing States, MAY have fallen prey to a lawless judiciary in legalizing what God and the Bible expressly forbids."

It also notes their “a firm reliance upon the providence of Almighty God” as they “call upon all of the Officers of the State of Tennessee, the Governor, the Attorney General, and the members of the Tennessee Legislature, to join US, and utilize all authority within their power to protect Natural Marriage, from lawless court opinions, AND THE financial schemes of the enemies of righteousness wherever the source AND defend the Moral Standards of Tennessee.”

The “Moral Standards of Tennessee” are not written anywhere, nor could we find the phrase published anywhere except in relation to Miller’s proposal.

Karen Miller, The New Civil Rights Movement 17 Comments [10/9/2015 6:12:44 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Mister Spak
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113475

Do you fear God? I've heard some Bible teachers wrongly say that fearing God does not mean to be afraid of; but rather, to respect. No, to fear God literally means to FEAR GOD! We read in 2nd Corinthians 5:11, “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.” The “TERROR OF THE LORD” means exactly what it says. If a child disobeys their parents, they fear that sting of the belt from a spanking. Likewise, Hebrews 12:6-8 teaches that God chastises (disciplines) and scourges (whips) His children in love. Once you've been whooped by God, you don't want to go through it again. Ask Jonah! Ask David! Ask Samson!

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Precious 17 Comments [10/9/2015 6:13:27 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113477

For a woman to have long hair (obeying the “letter” of the law), but to then put it all up in a bun (disobeying the “spirit” of the law), is to disobey the reason for the law (to produce a certain “look”).

The same principle is seen in the wedding “veil” and “train.” The longer the veil and train, the more “glorious” it is, but the glory only comes through “seeing” the length and fullness if it. What would be the point of having a six foot train on the wedding dress, if it was all pinned up in the back? During the wedding, the train is allowed to fully flow behind the bride as she walks. The longer the train, the more glorious is the dress. But when it comes to the reception time, the train is often pinned up in the back. The train then loses it glory for the time, because of practicality. The bride has to be able to greet and talk to guests, without everyone walking all over her train.

Such is the case with long hair. There may be times when the long hair has to lose its glory for a short time — such as during food preparation. The long hair may be pulled back in a pony tail, or put up in a bun, so that the long hair does not brush through the food or even catch on fire when working around the stove. But that is for a short time, and then the hair is let back down for the glory to be seen.

If the length and the fullness of the hair is not “seen,” then it is not “glorious.” That means that putting the long hair up in a “bun” takes away the glory of it (no one is seeing the length of it; and it is surprising how much hair can be placed on the top of the head in a bun, and people not even be aware that that woman has long hair).

unknown, Liberty gospel tracts 21 Comments [10/9/2015 6:14:22 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: undie not fundie
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113478

But since the female is not the source, she is helpless and lost without the male. Likewise the male is alone and has no means of expression without the female (see 1 Cor 11:11). The two aspects are incomplete without one another.

Del Washburn, Angelfall 11 Comments [10/9/2015 6:33:25 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113485

But Mr. President, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. You are the leading jihadist of our day. By definition you are a traitor because you have harboured, aided and supported “non-terrorist” organizations that seek to destroy America. That makes you an enemy of the state by any standard. The fact that you are safe-guarded by your sycophants in the media and the Democratic Party is the only reason you continue to harm America with impunity.

Based on your past behaviour, your policies and you reckless treatment of U.S. interests and tradition there is no doubt in my mind that you would do anything you could – if opportunity presented itself – to remain in power and continue your crusade against American exceptionalism.


But mark my words, there is nothing crackpotish about recognizing your designs to undo America. That is why the best remedy is not “gun control” but “nut control” and the biggest nut of them all is you, Mr. President.

Only a megalomaniac such as yourself would continually flaunt your anti-American policies in the face of Americans at a time when healing and national unity should be front and centre. Only a man with a reprobate mind like yours would consider it appropriate to use these times to chastise his opponents. Frankly, I’m really surprised that the unstable nut jobs from the looney left haven’t made hay over the repeated “no gun zone” massacres under your administration. I mean its all too coincidental that these shooting have happened under your watch. It’s really not that hard to see how these massacres have actually embolden your tirade against American’s founding documents and traditions.

Yes, its time for “nut control” and that must begin with electing a new President. And one of his first acts should be your impeachment, Mr. Obama. Even if such an impeachment is after the fact, and even if its mostly symbolic. For the sake of history, you need to be impeached.

Tristan Emmanuel, Trump The Media 10 Comments [10/9/2015 10:54:22 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113479

Did you hear about the gay bakery in Greenwich Village – Sweetie Pies, Cupcakes and More — that refused to bake a wedding cake for a straight couple? Can you imagine?

When asked why they refused, the two gay bakers – Adam and Steve – said, “While we have nothing against straight people – some of our best friends are heteros – we don’t think straight people should fall into some ‘protected class.’ In other words, it’s our bakery and we can do whatever we want.”

City officials didn’t see it that way. They fined Adam and Steve over $100,000 because according to local law, a business open to the public must serve the public and can’t refuse service based on sexual orientation.

So whose side are you on? Do the gay bakers have a right to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple? It is their business, after all. Or was the government right in fining them?

In case you hadn’t heard about the Greenwich Village case, it’s because I made it up. But I suspect you knew that. And I understand that the Oregon case, which is in the news – where Christian bakers were fined $135,000 for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple – isn’t exactly the same.

In the Oregon case, the bakers claimed it was against their religious beliefs to bake the cake. To do so would violate their fundamental values.

The state didn’t see it that way, ruling that, “Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion.”

(Before you ask, Should a Jewish baker be forced to cater a Nazi wedding, let’s be clear: Nazis are not a protected class. In many states — Oregon being one — gays are. So no on the Nazi wedding.)

Melissa Klein, the owner along with her husband of the bakery that was penalized, Sweet Cakes, in Portland, said this on her Facebook page: “We are here to obey God not man, and we will not conform to this world. If we were to lose everything it would be totally worth it for our Lord who gave his one and only son, Jesus, for us! God will win this fight!”

Fair enough. If they’re willing to lose their business by not baking a wedding cake for a gay couple, maybe that’s how God wants it, though I have a tough time believing that God gave even a second of his precious time to the question of whether Christian bakers should make a wedding cake for a couple of gays.

bernard goldberg, bernard goldberg 17 Comments [10/9/2015 6:33:42 AM]
Fundie Index: -1
Submitted By: undie not fundie
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113480


Still, I’d prefer that instead of continuing to wage religious war over this, we call a truce.

What if we had a law said that bakers have no obligation to actually deliver the cake to the site of the wedding; that a florist does not have to attend the wedding to make sure the flowers are arranged properly; that a photographer does not have to take pictures at the actual wedding ceremony? What if the law said, in essence, that business owners, if their religion forbids it, don’t have to set foot inside a venue where a gay wedding takes place.

But, under this compromise, the same law would say that the baker does have to simply bake the cake for the gay couple, and the florist does simply have to sell them flowers, and the photographer does simply have to take pictures at his studio – because businesses that are open to the general public must serve the general public or pay a fine.

There was a comment posted on Snopes.com by someone called “Solandri” that asked for give on both sides. “This [Oregon] case should never have gotten this far. It should have been resolved privately with the company baking the cake but not decorating it, and the lesbian couple decorating it themselves or hiring someone else to decorate it. Coexistence only works if all parties try to figure out a way to coexist with minimal disruption to each other, instead of immediately trying to inflict the maximum possible harm upon each other just because they disagree.”

I understand that some people of faith don’t want any part of gay weddings – even if that part is a small one, such as only baking the cake (and not being required to so much as show up in the same zip code as the wedding). But I worry about the slippery slope.

If bakers can refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because doing so would violate their religious beliefs, why can’t they refuse to serve openly gay people – period?

Why can’t the florist refuse to sell flowers to gay people – who simply want flowers?

Why can’t these business owners of faith say that homosexuality, in their view, is a sin and they can’t do business with sinful people?

In the ruling against the Christian bakers, Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian said that, “This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”

He’s right.

Still, I don’t want to see those Christian bakers in Portland lose their business over this. But let’s not forget that they did make a decision to operate in a civil society. They did open their shop on Main Street. It’s one thing to say on Facebook, “We are here to obey God not man, and we will not conform to this world,” but if you really believe that, don’t open a bakery on a city street. Open it in your church.

Permit me a brief detour: In San Francisco the liberal establishment welcomes all immigrants, legal or otherwise. The mayor and city council have declared San Francisco a “Sanctuary City” and like the 300 or so other sanctuary cities in the United States, they don’t always co-operate with federal immigration officers on matters involving illegal aliens. In the wake of the tragic murder of that young woman in San Francisco, by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times and had many felony convictions, the city’s policy has left many decent people furious — though liberals, in general, still like the idea of sanctuary cities.

But should the city of San Francisco be the judge and jury on what laws it will embrace and which ones it won’t.

And should the Christian bakers in Portland, Oregon be the arbiter of what laws they will follow and which one’s they won’t.

The sanctimony of true believers is understandable. But at times it is also exhausting.

bernard goldberg, bernard goldberg 6 Comments [10/9/2015 8:22:52 AM]
Fundie Index: -6
Submitted By: undie not fundie
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113482

[What is your take on this scenario from real life:

Someone is staying in a friend's home. They have no reason to believe the friend is sexually interested in them. The friend gets chemically incapacitated to the point of passing out on the couch. The houseguest then has sex with the unconscious person, who doesn't say no.

Is it rape? Who is to blame?]

You'd have to be a complete bastard to do it, but IMO it's not rape. No more than my carrying an incapacitated freind home is kidnap. I've done some pretty stupid things while Brahms but I never suggested that anyone else was responsible. I accept that if I'm no longer able to take acre of myself I am at risk, I take that risk.

gasopode, The Straight Dope 24 Comments [10/9/2015 8:23:16 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113484

Yes, that’s right Mr. President, we do believe you would use any possible means to extend your presidency and obviously you would have to disarm the U.S. electorate to accomplish this feat. But the blatant lies and obfuscation about your long term agenda isn’t the issue in the immediate foreground – but I will address it in short order.

What is immediately problematic is your rhetoric. What America needs right now is not stricter “gun control” but stricter “nut control”. Unlike many Western countries, America’s policy towards the homeless, and those who are mentally unstable, is a sham. Unlike truly humane countries, America releases too many of these disturbed individuals back in to the populace with no nut registry, no background check of substance abuse and no safeguards in place for the innocent people that walk among them.


Of course, the political climate in Washington has its sights set on toppling the Second Amendment; not empowering the people to defend themselves. And this leads me back to the initial assertion that the President raised – the one about “crackpot theories.”

One can’t help but wonder, Mr. President, given what you have rammed through Congress or decreed by Executive Order over your tenure, if in fact your ultimate aim is to embrace your Anti-Christ destiny and seize power the way you seize every opportunity to use that bully-pulpit to berate Americans.

We know that there are “nut jobs” on the left with “crackpot theories”. They were the ones who accused the American government of orchestrating 9/11. Remember when Rosie unveiled her crackpot theories on Twitter and her personal blog? She blamed Bush and several high ranking administration people for pulling off the greatest act of terrorism on U.S. soil. Many of her looney actors and actress friends embraced the same “conspiracy” theories – I believe Matt Damon was one of them – without a shred of evidence and slandered the President. And of course the media stood by and said nothing to defend the President at that time. But then evidence is immaterial when your fuelled by seething hatred for George W. Bush.

Tristan Emmanuel, Trump The Media 6 Comments [10/9/2015 10:54:19 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 46590

Yup. But I would like to think that God's plan is a Republican win, now that we have Palin. Time will tell.

His Bride, Rapture Ready 45 Comments [9/3/2008 5:01:14 PM]
Fundie Index: 0
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113483

I’m going to start today by venting, and I will warn you in advance that this is going to be a sermon, but someone needs to speak the truth for a change:

Another week, another mass shooting, another press conference by the President lecturing us on the need for gun control, and now Hillary and Obama are in a race to see which of them can be the most extreme in trying to destroy the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Rinse and repeat.

But there is something missing from this discussion, and it’s a glaring omission that everyone knows deep down, but politicians are afraid to talk about.

I’m going to go ahead and talk about it, and I don’t care at all if some people don’t like it, the truth is important.

What is the root cause of all these evil acts? These people who go into classrooms and churches and murder innocent people? How did we get to this place?

These shootings are a symptom of deep and serious cultural decay in our society.

Let that sink in for a minute.

These acts of evil are a direct result of cultural rot, and it is cultural rot that we have brought upon ourselves, and then we act like we are confounded and perplexed by what is happening here.

Consider the following brew of decay, and you will realize exactly what is happening here:

We glorify sick and senseless acts of violence in virtually every element of our pop culture, and we have been doing that for at least a generation.
Our movies and TV shows feature a continuous stream of grotesque killing of every kind imaginable. And this is true of virtually every genre, from horror to drama to comedy.

We celebrate and document every kind of deviant behavior and we give out awards to producers who can push the envelope as far as possible. Rape, torture, murder, mass murder, all are cinematic achievements.

Our music does the same thing, we promote evil, we promote the degradation of women, we flaunt the laws of God and common decency and we promote it all and we flood our young people with it.

We have generations of young boys who were raised on video games where they compete with other young boys around the country and the world to see who can kill the most humans. We make it so fun, so realistic, so sensational.
We devalue human life, we have no regard for the sanctity of human life in any regard, from the unborn, to the old, and to every single person in between, we devalue it and act as if we have almost no regard for humanity.

Our families are a complete mess, and we have raised tens of millions of young boys who will never become real men because they have no values whatsoever, they have no truth in their lives, and they have no regard for common decency.

Oh, we make sure that we stop them from bullying at school, but we are completely fine with them watching people get murdered and raped on the internet after school, and we are willing to let them go to the basement and join a fantasy world where they pretend they are killing people for 2 hours after school.
And who is it that generally commits these evil acts of mass murder that are becoming routine? It’s almost always young men who have either no father figure in their lives, or a broken relationship with their father. Is this just a coincidence? Of course not.

Now, let’s get really politically incorrect here and talk specifically about this horror in Oregon. This killer’s father is now lecturing us on the need for gun control and he says he has no idea how or where his son got the guns.

Of course he doesn’t know. You know why he doesn’t know? Because he is not, and has never been in his son’s life. He’s a complete failure as a father, he should be embarrassed to even show his face in public. He’s the problem here.

He brags that he has never held a gun in his life and that he had no idea that his son had any guns. Why didn’t he know? Because he failed to raise his son. He should be ashamed of himself, and he owes us all an apology.

When he was asked what his relationship was with his son, he said he hadn’t seen him in a while because he lived with his mother. Case Closed.

This mess is not nearly as complicated as we pretend.

It’s the old computer axiom – garbage in, garbage out. We fill our culture with garbage, and we reap the result.

If anyone is at all serious about changing any of this, they must address the root problems, and those are cultural decay, the glorification of evil, the devaluation of human life, the breakdown of the family, and specifically the complete abdication of fathers.

Meanwhile, the shallow and simple minded liberals will continue to blame pieces of hardware for the problem, and they will long for the days before firearms were invented.

But the simple truth is, as long as we place no value on human life, as long as we glorify senseless violence and evil, we will get the exact same result.

Bobby Jindal, Bobby Jindal For President 12 Comments [10/9/2015 10:54:12 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Kevin Klawitter
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113410

you CANNOT escape your genetic DESTINY

I firmly believe that your life with women is determined from the moment you'r conceived. I mean there are guys who do NO gym, who are misogynists, job less, smoke weed and they pull hot girls, regularly.. why? genetics. Genetic destiny. It is all taken care of by nature. Only 10% or even less of the men are meant for breeding, the rest are for structural support, that is natures intention. The things is, this was always the case, but no one ever knew it so CLEARLY like we do today, thanks to science, media, and general awakening of the masses.

Because even though the betas are not meant to breed, we still have the same inbuilt fundamental desire to procreate... So life becomes a hell. Its like being a fish that's allergic to water. You have to constantly watch attractive woman, and even women BELOW your league, ALL walking by ignoring you in favour of the Alpha, while you rip your hair out over it. You hit the GYM HARD, while Alpha eats pizza. Girls look at your gymcel body and think "ewww what a try hard" while they look at the chad and think "i love him, he just does what he wants, not even concerned about the whole bodybuilding thing". But in reality it is all in the face, in the pheromones, in the frame, in the depth of the voice, in the facial stubble.

That's what girls are SOLD on. When the imagine romantic partners, THAT is what they imagine being ravished by. You can even be an AVERAGE guy, 6 even a 7 out of ten and STILL be completely over looked. In this day and age, there is no such thing as good enough for women. Women are getting more and more choice and validation and its either CHAD or NOTHING. It is FUTILE to looks max, if you are not ATLEAST a 7 out of 10. futile.

Not only that but when you finally get a strong physique like me, and you realize girls STILL dont like you while they will fuck the high T, skinny weed smoker. That's when you start to resent all your own hardwork. Its like dammmm man, DAYUM, I did 3 years of gym, got fucking abs, just to for this? hahaha. Im hysterical... This is genetic destiny buddy boys.

By the way, MONEY and STATUS are MINIMAL in their affect, romance is ALL about looks, always. And in particular the FACE is what matters. I'm 23 now, i've approached over 9000 women in all sorts of ways in the last 3 years. Justin Wayne bootcamp, Zan perrion coaching, Arash Dibazar, I heard them ALL. I know the dynamics of game in and out. I've had sex with atleast 2 7+ white hot girls and like 2 more 6/10 white girls. But man the amount of effort I put in is out of this world. I applaud myself for the solid effort. But to me this journey is not worth it. And guess what? I started out as a 6 and it was this hard for me to get some. I can't imagine life for a sub 6, you guys are royally FUCKED, it is literally IMPOSSIBLE. Go to thailand, become escortcel, amass wealth, or do something productive like helping children in Africa. Hey man atleast they will LOVE you for helping them, atleast they will appreciate. Do not waste time entertaining the idea that you can somehow make it.

Elliot Rodger was deluded, he didn't even TRY to make it work. But in the end I have to agree with him, it is indeed utterly hopeless and utterly unfair to beta males. Nature is a bitch.

Blackpiller2, Sluthate.com 58 Comments [10/6/2015 2:33:52 PM]
Fundie Index: 21
Submitted By: Ivurm
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113467

I would like to see more guns in the hands of honest citizens! When good guys are armed the bad guys will be a little slower to act out their hostility. When a shooting took place in a Mississippi school a few years ago, the assistant principle ran to his car, grabbed his gun (good thing the gun-grabbers didn’t get there first) and stopped a massacre. He should be commended, not criticized!

Now, a question for the gun-grabbers: Would it not have been desirable for one of the teachers in Oregon to pull his or her gun and drop the killer before so many innocent victims were killed? I wait for an answer.

All sane, sensible people would agree that fewer deaths would be preferable, but no one says the gun-grabbers are sane, sensible people. At least, I don’t. They are fallacious, frivolous, fruity, foggy, fluttery, flimflamming, feverish, frightful, frenzied, fraudulent, foolish fascists. For those educated in public schools, I am saying that gun-grabbers are irresponsible, dishonest fanatics.

If common sense is ever resuscitated, guns will be prevalent in the schools and those determined to do harm to innocent ones will be blown away before they blow away helpless people. Start awarding gun permits to teachers and school officials before more innocent kids are killed! We need more guns in schools and society, not fewer!

Don Boys, BarbWire 40 Comments [10/8/2015 6:10:13 PM]
Fundie Index: 13
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113454

Women who wear pants do not love their neighbour, because they are selfishly causing men to struggle with lust (and thus causing marriage problems for other women).

David J. Stewart, JESUS IS PRECIOUS 41 Comments [10/8/2015 3:50:35 AM]
Fundie Index: 17
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 112990

Dean Saxton's shirt says:


Dean Saxton, Open Air Preaching with Brother Dean 62 Comments [9/21/2015 3:06:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 31
Submitted By: Chris
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 108154


You're over the hill by your late 20s, especially if you look your age. You're now THE oldest guy who still goes to nightclubs. You can't get girls in their LOOKS, FERTILITY and YOUTH PRIME anymore. And even if you can snag the odd one, you have nothing in common with them.

By 30, you should be settling down and ready to have kids. If you have a kid at 30, you'll be in your 40s when it's 10. You won't even be able to play sports with the kid soon after that.

All of your sexual adventures and sowing of your wild oats should be out of your system by now.

But as an INCEL, you're teens and 20s were crap. The PEAK of your YOUTH was spent getting rejected by girls, playing videogames and scraping pass grades in school, only just. So, you didn't even enjoy your youth. Now that you're older, more bitter, slightly balding on the temples, your skin has lost its youthful suppleness, and now you're developing nasolabial folds, what good is to come?

By 30, you've come to realize that your life is now split between working and commuting (70%) and being exhausted from working (30%). If the "good times" weren't even good, why do you think the 30s will be any good? Being an incel in your 20s looks like you were unlucky to a woman. Being an incel in your 30s is a sign that something is wrong.

No one - who doesn't share some of your DNA - loves you. All that's ahead is work, and bills. So what does an incel have to look forward to after 35? Balding? Prostate cancer? Dying alone and getting eaten by his cats?

I'm not 35, but I'm heading there soon enough. Time flies. Now, the only reason why I am "still trying" even though I'm LATE, is because I'm not brave enough to "check out" / visit god / come eat Sue. E. Side. So I'm only making an effort coz I'm trapped here.

How can you even fucking stand to get out of bed, being 38, and INCEL? Having to work just to keep a roof over your head, so you can work, so you can keep a roof over your head, so you can work....?

LOL@being 44 years old and incel. Biology's Chinese water torture.

There's a divorced programmer where I work. He's about 55yo, bald, 0/10. He's divorced, meaning he lucked out in the early feminism era, but after the divorce, feminism being in full swing, he remained INCEL. This guy programs at home as well as work. We can see that he checks in programming code in New Years Eve evening. While reasonably goodlooking men are boning chicks, he's writing routines so that the cash balance of one account can be concatenated with some other fucking value.

Even if you reach 36 and snag a 32 year old woman, she'll look awful. People look revolting as they age. I honestly have no idea how anyone can fuck a woman over the age of 40. With her wrinkles and vagina that looks like corned beef. Think of how many cocks passed through there in her 20s while you were playing videogames in yours. Now you get her when she looks haggered. Well done. If we're programmed to be attracted to signs of youth and fertility, how do men become aroused for 45 year old women who are about as fertile as a shoe? No wonder old men need viagra. Women start to look subhuman after 35. I'd rather thrust into a DVD drive. Compare pics of non Hollywood celeb women at 16 and age 48. The difference is night and day.

At least if you meet a girl in her 20s, you can gradually accustom to her face disintegrating. But meeting her at 43, after her cock caroussel marathon? Lucky me.

If only I knew how I'd feel now. That's the thing about aging. No matter how wise you become, it's always TOO LATE. You can't go back.

I just can't take aging.


FACEandLMS, Love-shy.com 50 Comments [4/29/2015 3:00:03 AM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: The Reptilian Jew
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113455

Dress her like a girl. Let her have long hair. Let her wear lace and ribbons. Do not let her wear that which pertaineth to a man. Deuteronomy 22:5 says, "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." The parent who wants to make a young lady of a daughter should see to it that she does not wear revealing clothes, but that she dresses modestly. I Timothy 2:9 and 10 says, "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety: not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works."

This must be started early in the life of a girl. If she never wears pants for the first time, she will always wear skirts. If she never wears mini-skirts for the first time, she will always wear skirts of a modest length. In these days of hot pants, mini-skirts, and pant suits, may God give us some old-fashioned mothers and dads who well rear some sweet, feminine ladies for our boys and dress them accordingly.

jack hyles, JESUS IS SAVIOR 41 Comments [10/8/2015 3:54:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 15
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 73773

Phosphate has 4 oxygen atoms bound to a central phosphorus atom, and is present in all living cells. When two phosphates combine and lose a water molecule, they form pyrophosphate.

But they still are not sure, why ? The answer can only come from the creator.

Here are the points that correlate with the creator whom they fail to acknowledge:

" Phosphate has 4 oxygen atoms bound to a central phosphorus atom "

The Correlations:

Since Oxygen is Invisible to the human eye, it Correlates to Yahweh who is SPIRIT and the Source of all things, organic and inorganic.

In that there are 4 Oxygen Atoms, they correlate to the 4 letters forming the name Yahweh ( Y H W H / Y H V H )

So these 4 is centered around the one God of the Universe, Yahweh.

Juice002, Y! answers 153 Comments [6/13/2010 5:00:24 PM]
Fundie Index: 234
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113415

[Intro to a website claiming to refute the Skeptic's Annotated Bible]

By chance I stumbled upon the Skeptics Annotated Bible. Obviously a lot of work has gone into this. And the website is done quite well. But I have to disagree with the premises as expounded in the preface. The first is:

"Yet few of those who believe in the Bible have actually read it."

As no proof is cited of this, and the author only quotes from his personal experience, I feel free to do the same. I grew up in a Dutch Christian family, where we actually read through the Bible year after year. Every time after a meal, three times a day, we would read a portion of the Bible, continuing where we had left before. And now, in my family, I do the same. Everyone in my church did this, as did everyone at the Christian school I attended. Currently I'm living in New Zealand and at the Church we attend people read through the entire Bible as well. My denomination is Scottish, and everyone from our churches in Scotland does the same. So it's actually not uncommon among Christians to read through the entire Bible.

The author makes another claim, namely that the clergy quote very selectively. My experience absolutely cannot support that claim, as many Bible passages the author finds troublesome in one way or another, are quoted or refered to at various times. I have to admit that this is in Churches were people are expected to know the Bible very well. In Churches where that isn't the case, quoting might be more selective, and that is quite understandable. If you are curious to know William Shakespeare, are you going to read his all his works? Or just the most well-known?

But to support my case even further consider these three things:
Many commentaries have been produced in the past, some especially targeted at laymen.
In the churches I know, pastors frequently use the Wednesday evening service to preach from a single book or a prolonged story in its entirety. They usually treat more popular items like Jacob or Joseph, Ruth or Esther, Elia or Elias, but they don't skip. They treat every single detail.
Some preachers are known for preaching through the entire Bible, every Sunday continuing where they left off. Their main reason was just to avoid being selective about the Bible, the very thing the author accuses them of. Take Luther and Calvin:
The Reformation: A Return to the Primacy of Preaching:
For 36 years then, Luther expounded the Bible in Wittenburg, first in the little chapel, and then in the great city church. He preached often: at least two times on Sunday, and usually three times a week, in the morning. And his method was to preach systematically through the Bible.
Calvin Courier Newsletter Fall 1997, Number 20:
He followed lectio continuo, preaching from the Bible one book after another, chapter by chapter, verse by verse.
Given the limited time and attention span it is understandable that most pastors don't preach through the entire Bible anymore. But I still find it regrettable. Pastors should do this more, just to avoid bias. The entire Bible is the Word of God, not just the parts that happen to be the most well-known. There might also be another reason why pastors avoid certain parts: new translations are so vivid and written in such plain newspaper-like language, that they are no longer suitable to be read in Churches where children are present. This is unlike the original Hebrew and translations like the King James, where restraint is always exercised in describing horrid situations.

The second premise I disagree with is:

But if so little of the Bible is actually used, then why isn't the rest deleted? Why aren't the repetitious passages -- which are often contradictory as well -- combined into single, consistent ones?
We currently have had two thousands years of the Bible as it is accepted by Christians. The author probably realises he isn't the first to see "contradictions". In my possession is a Dutch book, written by Johannes Polyander. I'm not aware of any English translation, but translated the title is "Apparent contradictions in the Bible explained" and was written in 1621. No doubt it is easy to find such books in the entire 2000 year history of the New Testament Church. A recent list of books that treat apparent contradictions can be found at Bible Contradictions and Other Bible difficulties

The author's `solution', deleting parts of the Bible, is wrong. As the author notes a few paragraphs below:

But to the Bible-believer the entire Bible is inspired, and has God as its author. To him each passage contains a message from God that must not be altered or deleted.
He has at least read those portions of the bible correctly! Let me quote this passage (Rev. 22:19):

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
So I agree with him that this is not the solution. And I will set out to show that it is not a necessary solution.

Having said this, I do not believe the approach of the SAB author to reading the Bible is a-priori invalid. As a protestant I firmly believe that everyone is allowed to read the Bible. One is encouraged to examine the Bible (Acts 17:11):

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
And you certainly don't have to be an expert in Hebrew or Greek as some people seem to have said. That's why a reliable translation has been valued always so much by protestants, up to this day. I even urge Christians to study contradictions raised by the SAB, for example at school. It might be very good for them to encounter things they cannot (easily) refute. Humility is good!

I intent to discuss all issues raised by the SAB. The SAB even encourages this ‘dialogue’ (asking for reciprocal links). I will do this by study each book in the Bible, picking a random one each time and going over the things SAB comments upon. As I'm embarking on this quest, I expect to be able to refute many of them. The ones I can't I leave to God. Faith in the Bible doesn't stand or fall with me being able to refute every apparent contradiction. As the apostle said (2 Peter 3:16):

As also in all his (Saint Paul's) epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
I just don't believe that what I don't understand is not true. I don't understand Quantum Gravity, is it therefore untrue?

It's not my goal to convince SAB followers or other atheists. It doesn't work that way. But my goal is to help those who sincerely study the Bible, and have questions about issues raised by the SAB. It's my prayer that God will bless my endeavours.

Berend D. Boer,  Skeptic's Annotated Bible answered 22 Comments [10/7/2015 2:12:14 AM]
Fundie Index: -12
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113437

Whether you realize it or not, men look at certain portions of the body; and it doesn’t matter whether you think that is good, bad, or otherwise, they are going to do it. And if you wear clothing that attracts attention to that, you are just helping them in their sin. That’s why a dress, unless it’s too tight, is better than pants; because a dress does not draw the attention to that part of the body that people look at and lust after.

bruce, Mom of 9's Place 46 Comments [10/7/2015 5:53:16 PM]
Fundie Index: 15
WTF?! || meh
1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 40