1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 40 | bottom
Quote# 138956

Here's the deal: The Western Left didn't want to face up to the fact that the voters were turning hard against their Globohomo agenda, so they concocted a huge bogeyman in Russian meddling in Western elections which brainwashed voters to abandon the Left.

ie, it's never the Left's fault.

Heartiste, Gab 9 Comments [7/17/2018 1:45:49 PM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 45614

Yeah, this rock is trashed. I can't wait for the sound of the trumpet. You can't go anywhere on the planet without running into some new age garbage or apostate warping of true Chistianity. This place is MESSED UP.

Time is a funny thing too though...even though each day brings us close to the Rapture, I can't help but wonder how bad the world is really going to get after we are gone. It's going to be an absolute dump truck. We won't have to see it again until we come back with Jesus and he slam dunks the anti-christ. I like to imagine what it will be like to see the clouds part on the back of my white horse as Jesus holds his head up high and appears to the world for the first time in over 2 millinia. I can't wait to see the look on their faces.

Not Perfect, But Forgiven, RaptureReady 36 Comments [8/23/2008 1:29:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 45679

Therefore, I don't have to prove that there is God. This is all about the spiritual aspect. We cannot prove this by Physics because God is spirit. Do you have a sense? Your a fool, demanding a physical proof for spiritual being.

eliam78, Youtube 25 Comments [8/23/2008 9:37:53 PM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: JustinHampel

Quote# 45487

[In reply to: what did you learn today?]

The most ludicrous thing I've heard today regarding spiritual matters is that "There is no hell."

I understand that alot of people block out certain details, when they don't want to have to face certain things, but really --- No hell? No consequences? Everyone automatically goes to Heaven? (What's the point of that?!?!?)

redglory, Yahoo Answers 34 Comments [8/23/2008 3:36:25 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Lola Flores

Quote# 45609

[There's only one "in bread" thing here and it's not this guy's morals.]

Evolution is a big JOKE! With evolution you don’t have in bread morals by nature of evolution it’s self. Just typical that the theory of contradicts itself.

12345, On Faith at washingtonpost.com 39 Comments [8/23/2008 7:57:27 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Robert

Quote# 136161

So much Fake News is being reported. They don’t even try to get it right, or correct it when they are wrong. They promote the Fake Book of a mentally deranged author, who knowingly writes false information. The Mainstream Media is crazed that WE won the election!

Donald Trump, Twitter 27 Comments [1/22/2018 12:06:57 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 138947

It hurts to be ignored. When you call somebody and they don't call you back, you want to break their pencil...lol. Seriously, you wish you could get them fired or put them in jail. I hate jerks. But I always find comfort in Scriptures such as Ecclesiastes 12:14 which says God will bring EVERY WORK into judgment. In Matthew 12:36 Jesus warned that God will judge men for their very words.

Certainly it's not my place to say what God will or won't do, but I DO KNOW that God does care, and he has set the Golden Rule as the benchmark for judgment Day... Matthew 7:12, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” God is going to judge you on the basis of how you would have wanted people to treat you. Anything that you do to someone else will be judged by your own principles. A man once said to me that we all live by our own book. What that interprets to is that everyone is selfishly and sinfully doing that which is right in their own eyes. Well, I choose to live by God's Book... the holy Bible. I treat others the way I want to be treated. Your book doesn't matter. God's Word is all that matters.

I have a tender-heart and get my feelings hurt easily. I'm not embarrassed to admit that. I've had people in life advise me to grow thicker skin. I've tried but it's not in my nature. I am a kind person.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Savior 17 Comments [7/17/2018 3:48:55 PM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 138710

the left won't drop immigration because without steady stream of ethnic minority voters they will be crushed

US is the proof of that. The left managed to win the demographic battle there - if the country hadn't gone from 90% to 65% white since 1965 it would a one party country with Republicans running pretty much every single legislature.

Nickrobi, /r/news 11 Comments [7/10/2018 12:06:36 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 138931

Warning To Pastors Re. Young’s Universalism

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

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

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

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

Paul Young’s History and Mine

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

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

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

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

When Are Enough Lies Enough?

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

Some Final Concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote# 138954

(=A respone to a homosexual interpretation of the centurion and his servant=)

he account takes all the things stated by the comments into account, but all forget one thing..Jesus! Jesus knew what he was doing, not snookered by the elders or the centurion. He knew the Mosaic law about homosexuality he knew the authority behind it, his Father. so if what is being said he healed a gay man, this is incorrect. In each example during his 3 and a half year ministry Jesus never once was in accomplice in ones sins but told never to do it again. forgave them and directed them toward another path. Never to keep something sinful going. Jesus knew the heart of the centurion and if what is being said, Jesus would not have healed the 'pais', it would have been against everything he stood for, even the love his own Father is. Ones want love to continue to cover all sins, even while we keep doing them, but the time will come when God will not cover us with mercy and love but remove evil, wickedness and sin from this earth. That is love, not keep picking us up, but truly teaching us how to walk without falling. Not feeding us crumbs, but teaching us how to feed ourselves fully. This is true love!

Houseman, Patheos 7 Comments [7/17/2018 3:49:10 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 138945

All humanity is evil.

The only cure/ proper redemption for creativity and propriety in our universe long lost from OUR nature... is their enslavement, and complete submission.

Eugeniker, Sluthate 4 Comments [7/17/2018 8:43:29 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 45568

Consuming alcohol is not a sin in itself. It is not my opinion; Jesus himself has said very clearly that nothing that goes into our stomach can defile us, but what defiles us is that comes out of us. I think your sister is not old enough to taste liquor. Moreover, it is my strong opinion that women must not use alcohol. It is meant for men. If she likes, she may use drinks with less alcoholic content. Alcohol becomes a villain, when it starts controlling your life. It is likely that people who use alcohol can become addicted to it. So, when we deal with such things, we have to be very careful that it does not make any change to our character and it does not become a hindrance between our relationship with God. Tell her to be in control of herself, and to use it once she becomes a matured woman, if necessary.

tiger, yahoo answers 36 Comments [8/23/2008 9:02:37 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: senorchipotle

Quote# 45629

Atheism is properly defined as a denial of the existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that the true God does indeed exist. Atheism knows God exists; it is quite familiar with that fact, but it says "under no circumstance or situation will I admit to God's existence."

bigwhammyRocks, YouTube 36 Comments [8/23/2008 1:43:38 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Tom S. Fox

Quote# 138935

THE MOVIE, “THE SHACK”
How the Film Is Anti-Christian, Anti-Marriage, Anti-American

The film “The Shack” will soon appear in theaters nationwide and probably beyond. If it is as popular as the novel on which it is based it will be a blockbuster.
For those who do not know, this is the movie version of the fictional novel, The Shack. This novel has sold upwards of 20 million copies over the last several years. It was on the NY Times best seller list for many months. It made the author a billionaire. This is quite amazing when we consider that this was written by a writer claiming to be a Christian and intended for Christians to give a Christian explanation for why people suffer. Obviously the story has resonated with a multitude of people, whether Christians or not, who have wondered about the love of God, eternity, and why Jesus Christ came into the world.

The story is about Mac and many Christians like him who are struggling with serious life questions and uncertainty about their faith. They have been challenged by severe suffering beyond their control. They feel that God does not care about them and perhaps has even abandoned them. Many are angry at God. Like Mac they may come to a shack where they come face to face with God. The Shack provides an explanation for their pain and anger, and a way of escape—back to God.
But deeper, more gnawing questions often lie behind the surface struggles. If God is a good God why do so many people suffer? If God is a good God why are so many people—those who are non-Christians—destined for eternal suffering? Why should people suffer everlastingly for sin and for sins committed during a short life time? If God is love, why does he judge people and send them to hell? At one time or another all have thought about such heavy questions.
It is really these difficult questions that The Shack seeks to answer. But the answer is surprising. The answer is not to explain the Bible’s teaching on these matters but to provide a new understanding of who God is—a God who is all loving and whose love limits his judgment and justice. Paul Young says that Christians have misunderstood God, indeed, the whole Trinity.

And this is where the rub comes in.
It is well known that the novel became a focus of controversy. This controversy swirls around the author, William Paul Young, and whether he has tried to sell subliminally his beliefs as a universalist in his novel. There are many who believe that the novel has betrayed Christian belief, that it is heresy. There are others who think not.

So The Shack is hotly debated.
I became involved in the controversy because I have known the author, Paul Young, for over a couple decades. He and I founded a Christian forum in the late 1990’s and we entertained all sorts of questions about Christian belief. Then in 2004 Paul presented a 103-page paper in which he said that he was rejecting his “evangelical paradigm” and embracing universal reconciliation. This is the belief that God is so good and loving that he cannot judge anyone. So everyone will be saved either before or after dying. It means that unbelievers in hell and the Devil and his angels will be “corrected” or “purified” by their sufferings in hell. They will repent, believe the gospel about Jesus Christ, and enter into heaven. In the final end hell will cease to exist; there will be none left. God’s love triumphs over all.
Such universalism is not new. It was first expressed in the 3rd century by an early church leader and then was declared heretical in the 6th century. It came to America in the 1740’s and was quite successful during the next century. But evangelical Christians held the teaching up to the scrutiny of the Bible and always found it in error.

The month following Young’s presentation I presented a paper to oppose his and argued for the Christian understanding of the Bible. But Paul was not present. He stopped attending our forum and began writing his novel. After The Shack was first completed a couple of his pastor friends who opposed the blatant universalism in it have testified that they spent a whole year trying to remove the universalism. Then in 2007 the novel was published and became a bestseller. In 2010, I published my book, Burning Down the Shack, to expose its heresy in the light of the Bible.
The big question that remains is this: Were the editors able to remove all the universalist teaching in the novel and now in the film? Do the novel and the film promote universalism? The only way to prove the answer is to hold up the various statements in the novel and in the film to the scrutiny of the Bible and to compare them to the major teachings of universalism.

What do we discover? The Shack makes many questionable, even heretical statements. Here are a dozen or so examples from the book. Papa (depicting God the Father) says that the first aspect of his being is not that he is Almighty but that he limits himself. The Trinity of three persons became “fully human.” Jesus “has never drawn on his nature as God to do anything.” “God cannot act apart from love.” The whole Trinity was crucified. “God is not who you think I am.” God doesn’t punish sin but cures it. In a relationship with God there is no authority and no submission. God cannot send any of his children to an eternity of hell just because they sin against him. God will not “condemn most to an eternity of torment.” “Mercy triumphs over justice because of love.” God is “now fully reconciled to the world.” “In Jesus, I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me.”

Most of these statements are in the film. All of them are found in the expressed teaching of universalism (as even Wikipedia shows). And if this is so, then the implications are staggering.
Many other reviewers who know nothing of Young’s background also find this heresy in his novel and film. And through the ages Christians have provided better responses to the challenge of suffering without denying the faith.

Young is especially opposed to the institutions of marriage, the church, and the government. He has Papa call them a “diabolical scheme,” “a man-created trinity of terrors that ravages the earth and deceives those I care about. . . . It’s all false.”
In light of the preceding, Young’s novel is a subtle attempt to change the Biblical teaching about God, the Trinity, judgment, eternal destiny and hell, salvation, the Holy Spirit, and the institutions which God created that give order, meaning, permanence, and pleasure to culture and nations. The movie version is a subliminal selling of universalism.

It is not going too far to identify Young and other universalists as terrorists against the evangelical church, as anarchists against this country and every country and our culture with its affirmation of marriage, and as deceivers inspired by the Devil himself to undermine the truth of the Bible about the nature of God, the Trinity, the church, and who his children are. Jesus and the Apostles made similar judgments about false teachers in their day (see Matthew 7:13-16; Galatians 1:7-9; 2 Cor. 11:13-15; and the Book of Jude). We should do no less in our day for the greater glory of God and the truth that is in our Lord Jesus Chris

James De Young, Eric Barger 5 Comments [7/17/2018 6:30:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: CC

Quote# 45616

Comment on Article "Whopping Fish Declared New Species"

There is no such thing as "a new species." Also,things do not evolve now, never do, and never will for that matter. Missing Links, are not reality. They will never be found because they do not exist. Evolutionists are always looking for excuses to avoid acknowledging that God is the Creator of heaven and earth, and everything in heaven and on the earth. They do this be saying stuff "evolved'' and other such things are obviously not true. No matter what they say, God is the Creator of all things and to him be the glory!

heavenwoman, Live Science 32 Comments [8/23/2008 1:48:33 PM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 45666

I think that bi people are most discusting people on earth. they are most hypersexual drug addict stupid muther f'ers out there. bi people sleep around with so many people its just sick. bi people think they are too good for everyone. im so sick of gay people with their gay pride. im so against gay marriage. it should not be allowed on this earth. god did not make it adam and steve. he made it adam and eve!!

true american, Topix 66 Comments [8/23/2008 4:47:28 PM]
Fundie Index: 9

Quote# 45595

Specifically, as these doctors were not willing to help the homosexual become pregnant (not just refusing to treat her in general), and modern research would justify them on this issue on multiple fronts.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/apr/040428c.html
Again, while I am against homosexuality primarily based on valid religious reasons, I'm not advocating homophobia like you were spewing earlier. I'm simply saying that these doctors shouldn't be forced by law to do something when that something has so much going against it. The fact that you can't understand the difference is due to your social stigma, not mine. I only made this post as a last attempt to get you to see reason here, but if your previous posts are any indication it's a wasted effort. Go ahead and get in the last word, because I'm not going to respond to you anymore.

Simulacrum, Naruto Forums 19 Comments [8/23/2008 4:48:03 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By:

Quote# 138932

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happened to Russia was leftism leading to more leftism.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote# 138934

Entropy is always increasing. A fully disordered society is illustrated by wild animals and primitive peoples such as the Tasmanian aboriginals, where all other creatures except for close kin are enemies, obstacles or sources of raw materials – Hobbes state of war. So if you look back in history, you can always see entropic processes, bringing us back towards that condition.

So, how come ordered societies exist, how come surviving and prosperous societies are generally at least somewhat orderly?

You cannot make something clean without making something else dirty, but you can make any amount of stuff dirty without making anything clean. Order for the ingroup always comes at the expense of someone else: Thus, for example, chastity and monogamy requires men hitting badly behaved women with a stick. (Dalrock banned me for pointing this out.) Thus, for example, in Africa we saw societies that herded cattle and planted crops had to enslave, or kill and eat, vagrants that were apt to hunt other people’s cattle and gather from other people’s gardens. The shift from hunting and gathering to herding and gardening involved extended cooperation – and a fair bit of brutality to hunters and gatherers.

As birds are born to fly, humans are born to cooperate. That is our key capability. Our telos is various forms of cooperation, as the heart’s telos is to circulate blood. The whites of our eyes are white, so that other people can see what we are looking at. We are vulnerable to choking, because our throat is optimized towards making a wider variety of distinct sounds than other animals. We have a more muscles in our face than other animals, so that we can unfalsifiably communicate our emotional state, just as every feature of a bird’s anatomy is optimized for low weight and high metabolic output. This cooperation manifested as tribes cooperating to kill other tribes and capture their women. Order consists of extended cooperation. Because entropy naturally tends to increase, because there are a near infinity of ways for society to be disordered, but only a small number of ways for it to be ordered, maintaining order requires a fair bit of ruthlessness towards disorderly people and towards outgroups whose cooperation is unlikely. Gays undermine male solidarity. David’s mighty men could cohere because David could love Jonathan. David could love Jonathan because gays were put to death. Peoples who have gay parades do not win wars.

The ten commandments consist of four commandments concerning man’s relationship to God, five commandments that had the effect of ensuring that congregation of the Lord operated on a cooperate cooperate basis, and the final commandment, the tenth commandment, prohibited coming up with clever rationales for undermining, subverting, and re-interpreting those five.

The four commandments that facilitate cooperation are:
Exodus 20:

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

The rule on honoring thy parents and committing adultery secured ownership of family, thus cooperation within the family. The rules against killing, stealing, and false witness enabled economic cooperation on the basis of property rights and the market economy.

And the final commandment:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

prohibits people from concocting ingenious theories as to why someone else’s property or wife is rightfully their own – forbids the entire ideology and program of Social Justice.

Compliance to the four commandments concerning God made fellow members of the congregation readily identifiable, and by complying with these four commandments, for which compliance was as visible as possible, one gave other members of the congregation reason to believe one would comply with the other five commandments, for which compliance was less visible, and thus reason to believe that cooperation with people who complied with the first four would be reciprocated and rewarded by cooperation, resulting in cooperate/cooperate equilibrium.

Social Justice Warriors have turned the tenth commandment on its head, making envy and covetousness a sacrament. This explains their chronic failure to cooperate, explains why rallies to save the earth leave a snail trail of trash behind them. Social Justice declares that what people have is “privilege” and should be taken away from them. Which creates a society in which people have no reason to have wealth or family.

A religion is a synthetic tribe. If the priesthood has power and status, and also has open entry into the priesthood, one gets holiness spirals – as for example priestly celibacy. Cooperate cooperate equilibrium, giving every man his due, makes all good members of the religion equal in holiness though unequal in property and power, thus a holiness spiral is going to redefine holiness away from forms that promote cooperation. The tribal religion has to reward exceptional and unusual holiness with honor, but not power and wealth. Send saints to live in a hermitage with spartan living conditions on a remote island as far from the capital as possible, where they can demonstrate superior holiness without subverting and undermining social order. On the one hand, to encourage good behavior, the society must honor supererogatory holiness. On the other hand preaching superogatory holiness always threatens to redefine holiness in ways that undermine order, making holiness a force of disorder instead of order.

...

Starbucks hates its customers, and LucasFilm hates its customers, which subverts cooperation on the basis of exchange. While practicing supererogation should be honored, preaching it needs to be forcefully suppressed. People who preach supererogation should not be martyred, which might increase their status, but rather treated like a stray dog that chases chickens – punished in ways that lower their status.

...

If the Sovereign is forced to punish someone who preaches supererogatory holiness in a way that might potentially increase their status (and Charles the second was forced to burn one conspicuously and irritatingly holy nonconformist woman at the stake) the Sovereign should lock the body in a mortuary for three days, and on the third day ironically check the body to see if they have risen from the dead. But it is as dangerous to martyr those who preach supererogatory holiness, as it is to tolerate them. The Sovereign must always strike at primarily at their status, as Russia dealt with Pussy Riot and European University.

While entropy always increases, it is always possible to locally reduce entropy, usually at the expense of someone else less effective and successful at extended cooperation (as, for example, women, pussy riot, gays, or hunter gatherer outgroups).

The highest and best example of this is western civilization, which is anglo civilization, which is the restoration of Charles the Second. The restoration gave us science, technology, corporate capitalism, industrialization, and world empire, which represent the highest level of extended cooperation ever achieved.

The restoration cured the disorderly tendencies of the protestant holiness spiral by putting priests under bishops, and bishops under the King. Which was the imposition of order, at the expense of “non conformists” – whose very name implies their disorderly tendencies. “Non conformists” were priests, professors, judges, and suchlike who were disinclined to accept this hierarchy, on the grounds that the King at the top was conspicuously lacking in holiness. We need to do something similar with our university system, as well as radically reducing its size and the amount of time it sucks out of people’s lives – we need to do Charles the Second’s Bishops, and Henry the Eighth’s dissolution of the monasteries.

Universities have always had as their primary job inculcating people in the official religion, and giving people cultural and scientific knowledge has always been merely their secondary job. Lately, their secondary job has largely been abandoned. It used to be that giving people job skills was entirely irrelevant, since this was done by enforceable apprenticeship.

We shall restore the enforceable apprenticeship system and divest universities of the task of giving people job skills, in the process divesting them of the power to accredit people to jobs. We shall give considerably higher, but still secondary, priority to the task of giving people cultural and scientific knowledge, and change the official religion to make it saner, by erasing all doctrines that are potentially falsifiable by the realities of this world. Members of the elite will still be required to adhere to the official religion, as they are now, but the task of checking adherence will not be outsourced to the universities. Instead, people in state jobs and quasi statal jobs will be required to recite a catechism and take an oath.

Contrary to the myth about the plymouth rock puritans, that early puritans supposedly filled the North American continent, where we have genealogies, puritans are descended from those who left restoration England to establish their own dissident theocracy, not from the pre english civil war wave of migrants fleeing Charles the first, but from the post civil war wave of “noncomformist” migrants fleeing the restoration, fleeing Charles the Second and subsequent Kings. The first wave, the pre civil war wave, left very few direct descendants.

Restoration England was successful at elite eugenic reproduction, because women were kept under control, and cured the disorderly propensities of the protestant reformation by keeping “non conformists” under control, thereby enabling the extended cooperation that made science and industry possible. Immediately after the restoration, we see Ayn Rand’s heroic archetype appear, the scientist engineer CEO, mobilizing other people’s capital and other people’s labor to advance technology and make that technology widely available. Often these were people who before the restoration had competed for superior holiness, (analogous to Musk’s subsidized and money burning tesla, solar panels, and solar batteries), but after the restoration competed for creating technology to produce value (analogous to Musk’s reusable booster rocket.) This form of order was made possible at the expense of “non conformists”, such as the excessively holy woman that Charles the Second burned at the stake.

In order for society to have cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, the science, industry, and technology that we see promoted by the corporate form, in order to promote cooperation with cooperators, the sovereign must promote defection on defectors. One such defector being a holy woman conspicuously holier than Charles the Second. Charles the second successfully redirected status competition from unproductive channels into productive channels, as for example members of the Royal Society gaining status by discovering truth and speaking truth, while previously puritans had gained power and status by having a Christianity that was purer than the other man’s Christianity. You will notice that Putin dealt with Pussy Riot’s weaponized supererogatory holiness preaching in a way that deliberately maximized disorder – maximized outgroup disorder in order to sustain ingroup order. That is the way to do it.

The restoration created a society that had the greatest cooperate/cooperate equilibrium ever, where people were able to engage in positive sum cooperation, which was made possible by severely negative sum uncooperation – you cannot get more negative sum than burning an excessively holy woman at the stake. If Charles the Second had not burned a holy woman at the stake for excessive, conspicuous, and obnoxiously superior holiness, he would have had the William Wilberforce problem.

Humans are inherently tribal. We have ethnicities and religions, all of which are in substantial part the same phenomenon. A millet is a smaller tribe (religion) within the empire that the empire recognizes and grants some limited self rule and autonomy.

Two tribes cannot co-exist in overlapping territory, except they create little zones for themselves, for example the black table in school cafe. One tribe will always rule, and another will always be ruled. Segregation and Jim Crow was an effort to give blacks autonomy and self rule, make them into a millet, conditional on the black rulers assimilating to white middle class values and behavior. Integration proved to be black dominion. When the blacks were allowed to the front of the bus, they inevitably wound up forcing white people off the buses.

This tribalism is the problem with libertarianism – if you allow liberty, people will use it to synthesize smaller ingroups within the larger group in order to dominate the detribalized majority. William Wilberforce and his “elect” destroyed what the restoration had accomplished, undermining the small scale cooperation between men and women to have children, and the cooperation between elites and individual members of the elite to maintain an empire that kept large scale economic cooperation over the oceans. His successors transliterated the religion of the elect from the next world to this world, creating modern progressivism. Since the transliterated tenets, such as equality, are transparently false to this world, this required them to reject truth telling and truth speaking, resulting in peer review and the replication crisis that has destroyed science.

The earthly telos of holiness is to promote the broadest possible cooperate/cooperate equilibrium. Holiness competition results in people finding grounds to declare other people unholy, thus Starbucks and LucasFilms declare their customers unholy, thus holiness competition destroys the earthly telos of holiness. Therefore we cannot allow excessively holy people to gain power in the state religion. Instead, need to send Social Justice Warriors away from the universities off to a hermitage in a remote island and honor their superior holiness from a safe distance. If someone wants to demonstrate superior holiness, it should be costly for himself, rather profitable for himself, and costly for everyone around him. Superior holiness and performing superogatory acts has to be made unprofitable.

Jim, Jim's Blog 7 Comments [7/17/2018 6:30:26 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 45654

A real man rejects feminism.
A metro-sexual supports it in everyway.
Which man do women want in their life?

A man or a fag?

Can't have both.

How about this?
We'll have something called a relationship and you be the woman and I'll be the man?
RADICAL

raider67, Who are you calling a metrosexual? Is it time to return to when 'men were men'? 50 Comments [8/23/2008 8:37:27 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: megan

Quote# 45612

{during a lengthy debate during which he found a dozen ways to say "its okay for god to torture people in hell because he's God"}
We're talking about God's law and from the POV of a god, arguably the worst thing you could possibly do is not believe in them. Of course not believing in God is a crime to him.

Let's review. On Earth, being punished for what you believe. Bad.

After Earth being punished for what you believed (note that it's too late now, your life is over), not bad.

Why? Entirely different playing field with entirely different rules.

Slade867, gamefaqs 20 Comments [8/23/2008 8:49:07 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Wackadoodle

Quote# 45667

Global warming is a lie from the pits of hell.

satan want man to beleive that mankind has caused all these blatant signs of the times.

This way, humans will not be alert to the signs that Jesus warned us about and thus will not be about the business of being ready.

Yeshuasavedme, Rapture Ready 25 Comments [8/23/2008 9:36:17 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: KatAutumn

Quote# 138929

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

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

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

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

Quote# 138955

Universalism: Its Distortions and Dangers

There has been in recent years a resurgence of universalism as a theological option among Christians. Perhaps it is the pluralism of our day, the rise of postmodernism with its debunking of truth, the speed of communication via the internet, the challenges of living Christianly in an increasingly polarized world, and general biblical illiteracy in the West that have contributed to the new appeal of universalism.


Definitions and Historical Overview

Universalism is the belief that all people, and even fallen angels and Satan himself, will be reconciled to God. While the wicked of this life go to a place of torment, such as hell, they do not go there “forever.” In due time the “fires” of hell will purify all the wickedness away and all will eventually go to heaven, to spend “eternity” in the presence of God.

This is the usual Christian form of universalism which maintains restoration after future punishment. Another form of Christian universalism asserts that restoration takes place immediately after death. The idea of restoration only after punishment was declared by the Universalist movement in America to be the “orthodox” view in 1878, at Winchester, N.H. “Penitence, forgiveness, and regeneration” are all involved. There is also a pagan form of universalism that teaches that all will ultimately be happy since all are, by nature, the creatures and children of God.

The chief argument of universalism is the emotive appeal to God’s mercy and love. As the argument goes: How can a loving God torment people forever in hell, the lake of fire, for failing to believe during a lifetime of a relatively few number of years? There is also an appeal to Scripture, but in the end Scripture takes second place to the appeal to a sense of fairness and justice in God’s dealing with people.

Followers of universalism go back at least to the third century when Clement of Alexandria and, especially, Origen (d. 254), a leading biblical scholar of the 3rd century, espoused such a belief. The Scriptural arguments rest on three points: (1) the purpose of God to restore all things to their original excellence (Acts 3:21; Origen called this apokatastasis; (2) the means of restoration through Christ (Rom. 5:18; Heb. 2:9); and (3) the nature of restoration as the union of every person with God (1 Cor. 15:24-28). The Christian church answers that the texts which speak about “all” refer not to all but to everyone who is in Christ; and that this interpretation is the only one compatible with the Bible’s teaching on the “diverse destinies of the righteous and the wicked (Matt. 25:46; John 3:16; 5:29; Rom. 2:8-10; 9:22-23).”

James De Young , Burning Down The Shack 9 Comments [7/17/2018 1:45:34 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: CC

Quote# 138817

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


Mark of Zorro, Japan Reference forums 4 Comments [7/16/2018 2:35:06 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 40 | top