1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 40
Quote# 124706

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/04/23/469667/california-ex-gay-bill/

A California Senate committee today advanced SB 1172, a bill that would help protect citizens from harmful, ineffective ex-gay therapy. The law does not outright ban all ex-gay therapy, but it does prohibit anyone under the age of 18 from undergoing sexual orientation change efforts. It also requires that any prospective patient sign an informed consent form that includes the following disclaimer:

"Having a lesbian, gay, or bisexual sexual orientation is not a mental disorder. There is no scientific evidence that any types of therapies are effective in changing a person's sexual orientation. Sexual orientation change efforts can be harmful. The risks include, but are not limited to, depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior.

Medical and mental health associations that oppose the use of sexual orientation change efforts include the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy." [/qupte]




Against this, if a gay christian teen wants to pursue this, then that's their choice, not the governments. If California is ok with snake oils like healing crystals(as somebody already pointed out), then I see no reason to not allow people to pursue other kinds of snake oils(like pray the gay away).



[quote] but it's not their choice, it's a choice parents are making for them. that's why the law is specifically aimed at legal minors.


Like I said, if gay christian teenagers want to pursue pray-the-gay-away places let them. If the teenager makes the choice, why can't they pursue it


Because ex-gay-therapy does not work.

Because there is no way to prove that it is the teenager's choice and not their parents forcing them to do it.

Because it is inherrently harmful to the teenager's metal health.

If they want it, they can wait until their 18 to undertake it. There's a laundry list of treatments, "Treatments", procedures, and other such things you can't legally do as a teenager



You didn't read my post did you? I said the "therapy" was a snake oil. As for consent, how do I know that a teenager likes the a certain kind of music, or likes a certain kind of fashion and it isn't their parents forcing them? Simple, I ask them if that is what they want. If a kid can operate a machine that can kill multiple(a car), they can choose to go to a pray-the-gay-away place.



I'll be honest and say that I don't know how you would make sure its their choice.



Again, if it can be shown that the teen has chosen to go through with this therapy, they should be allowed to go through with it. If the state is so concerned with people doing things that harm them, why are people allowed to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or each cheese burgers?



Alcohol, cigarettes and cheese burgers are legal. Although in Norway these things are not legal for teens save your "cheese burger". Where did that come from?

Which part of harmful practice are you not getting? I am pretty sure they didn't sit down one day and said! "Lets ban this". There is research behind this and they conclude that this is not healthy practice. Google up on teen gay suicides to get a picture of what it is about. The teenage mind is a fragile thing that should not be messed with by religious nut jobs playing at being Sigmund Freud. They have no business telling kinds they are not normal for being what they are.


So then if this form of "therapy" is harmful, why allow anybody to take it? If it really is to help people, then why only prevent teens from taking it? Which goes back to my point about cigarettes, alcohol and cheese burgers. If the state is just trying to look out for the health of its citizens, then why are the other things I mentioned allowed to be consumed by the general public?



As has been pointed out, alcohol and tobacco are prohibited to minors. Should they not be?


My point was that if the therapy is harmful, then why is allowed when a person becomes a adult? If the state is trying to prevent people from harming themselves, shouldn't they care about adults as much as they do children(both are people and both are citizens)? And if they do try to pass a bill to ban this "therapy" for adults, then why not ban other things that harm adults like alcohol, cigarettes and cheese burgers?

Helmholtz Watson, The Escapist 11 Comments [2/20/2017 6:03:17 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 4678

I agree that Jesus showed how dear children are to Him. But God sent his wrath on children through out the bible... babies.. children, etc... I can't understand it.. but I don't have the ability to.. I am human He is God. I have to trust in the fact that I know He is sinless, and a Just God. So He knows better then I why what He did was right.

Mommy2KandM, Rapture Ready 6 Comments [10/1/2003 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 4682

I'm rather disturbed at how people blithely throw the term 'fair' around in the first place. It's not fair if God doesn't present the Gospel to children? Since when is God obligated to present the Gospel, or save anyone, to begin with????? It would be just as 'fair' if God threw us all into hell and ended it at that.

Chronus, Rapture Ready 8 Comments [10/1/2003 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 124711

Dempsey Obama was funding ISIS, I know that people who loved Obama were ISIS supporters, like him, that's why Trump won, because America is not evil and stupid like people like you. Hillary with Obama funding ISIS. Others that justify, hatred towards blacks (ignoring the reverse racism) etc... I can just easy tell you, you lost terrorists, now go back to your rabbit holes.?

Antun Šturlic, Youtube 9 Comments [2/21/2017 2:53:34 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 124707

Say you see a car in a parking lot, it is 95 degrees outside, the car is not running and there is a child or an animal inside of it. If you broke into the car to save the life of the animal or child, are you violating the owner's right to his property? Thoughts?


Children are one thing. I'd say it's fine to break into a car to aid one. The parents are acting criminally, your response to their negligence would be justified.

Animals have no rights and are only property. You may not break into someone's property to help them.


Other humans share the bulk of my genes, so there is an evolutionary advantage in not harming others. Survival of our genes is all that matters, everything we do or feel is in service to that prime directive. I'm not concerned with arguments of "sentience," one has rights simply by virtue of being human. Perhaps if some non-human was as advanced as humans we would be forced out of necessity to recognize legal rights, but I cannot recognize the ethical rights of non-humans.

What about those humans who possess inferior or defective genes



They have as much of a responsibility to ensure the survival of their genes. Not sure what you're asking.



What advantage is there in not harming a infertile cripple over not harming a dog? If a person is not intelligent enough to understand the concept of property then surely by your definition an act of aggression against them would not be morally wrong.





If the person is a threat, or acts criminally, then their life's value does diminish. If they are extremely mentally disabled, then they're basically the property of their family.

I don't see what impotency has to do with anything. We are a social species, and as such depend on others aid. Harming innocents hurts social cohesion and others would target us as a threat to overall safety.

so if you saw someone torturing a dog you wouldn't try to stop them?




Probably not. I would certainly speak up, but likely not use force. Of course it's also possible my emotions may outweigh my rational thought and I would use force, but I hope I wouldn't.




pizzlybear, reddit 7 Comments [2/21/2017 2:51:18 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 124701

A quick note on what we mean by "ultra-leftist."

An ultra-leftist is someone who clamors for things for which the material conditions don't exist yet. For example, with regards to the Syrian conflict, most MLs support the Syrian government against the "rebels" *even though* the Syrian government is a bourgeois nationalist government. Why? Because in a fight between the national bourgeoisie of a country and the imperialist bourgeoisie, the national bourgeoisie represents the progressive force. This of course does not hold if the conflict is between say the national bourgeoisie and the working class, in which case the workers would represent the progressive force and we'd switch our allegiance.

This is a basic application of dialectical materialism: the fact that what is reactionary in a particular situation can be a progressive force in another situation. Things aren't static and rigid but are continually changing. Capitalism was a progressive force against feudalism but is reactionary against socialism. The French Revolution was a progressive advance against feudalism even though it was a bourgeois revolution. This is the Marxist position.

The ultra-leftist position is: no, full communism in Syria! This ignores the existing material conditions in Syria, misunderstands the strength and position of the proletariat, and jumps to establish the ideal society by ignoring the messy present. This, of course, results from a gross misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of dialectics which make them hold to the position that nationalism or the bourgeoisie are always and always "bad."

This is what an "ultra-leftist" is. It's not someone who's the farthest left on the political spectrum (please) and it's not something to be proud of (at least if they understand the way Marxists use the term against them).

Socalist Musings, Facebook 10 Comments [2/20/2017 6:02:11 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Ivurm
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 124684

[What won't be socially acceptable in 50 years?]

Having a different opinion that of what ever special interest group is the flavor of the month.
Being a straight white male.
Disciplining your children so they don't grow up to entitled assholes
Enjoying a campfire.
Studying history.
Expecting people to take responsibility for their actions.

Matthew Robison, Facebook 21 Comments [2/19/2017 7:48:23 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 124690

Conservatives are frantically distancing themselves from Trump cheerleader, alt-right darling, and white “nationalist” Milo Yiannopoulos after remarks strongly advocating pedophilia have surfaced online during a 2015 interview with podcaster Joe Rogan.

“We get hung up on this sort of child abuse stuff,” Yiannopoulos is heard saying in a video, “to the point where we are heavily policing consensual adults.”

“In the homosexual world, particularly, some of those relationships between younger boys and older men — the sort of ‘coming of age’ relationship — those relationships in which those older men help those young boys discover who they are and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable, sort of rock, where they can’t speak to their parents,” he added.

The comments are, of course, completely unacceptable.

“It sounds like molestation to me,” said Rogan. “It sounds like Catholic priest molestation to me.”

“But you know what? I’m grateful for Father Michael. I wouldn’t give nearly such good head if it wasn’t for him,” Yiannopoulos replied, using a euphemism for male oral sex.

The story was broken by the far-right conservative media outlet The Blaze only 24 hours after it was announced that Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

Unfortunately for Milo, video exists and there will be little he can do to claim he didn’t openly and proudly defend child rape, molestation, and pedophilia.

Milo Yiannopoulos, Occupy Democrats 20 Comments [2/19/2017 11:51:11 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 102043

I don't mean to pick on Alex Jones, but he boasts of influencing 3,000,000 people every single day worldwide through his radio and internet show. I must speak up as a Christian!

Alex says that he has no problem with homosexuals. Well I do have a serious problem with homosexuals (improperly called “gays” by the sodomites themselves), because the Bible condemns such wickedness, as does nature (Romans 1:24-32). It's sickening, perverted and offensive to picture two men sodomizing each other in the anus. Homosexuality is LUST, not love. Christ-honoring, God-fearing, people-loving, sin-hating, faithful, Bible-believing Christians are sinfully being labeled by unsaved evil people as “EXTREMISTS” and “RADICAL FUNDAMENTALISTS.” Pastor Rick Warren has even public said that CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISM is the biggest threat of the 21st century (because we're the only ones Scriptural exposing his ecumenical bandwagon to Hell).

Alex openly supports Heavy-Metal Rock Music, which is very sexually immoral by very nature, and then he says he has no problem with homosexuals. At the same time Alex openly professes to be a Christian who loves God, saying that he is “spiritual” but not part of any organized religion (such as Baptist). As a born-again Christian and Independent Fundamental Baptist Preacher, I have to speak out against Alex's wrong attitude toward homosexuals. Alex openly admits that he is not perfect, and neither am I. I'm glad that Alex teaches forgiveness and loving one another, but he ought to speak out against homosexuality as a sin, which is what the holy Bible teaches. Being gay (homosexual) is a sin, a CHOICE, that God abhors. Alex says in one breath that his show is secular and not religious; but then in the next breath he teaches all sorts of spiritual views, many unbiblical, and that he has no problem with homosexuals (to the beat of Blue Oyster Cult, Van Halen, ACDC, Lenny Kravitz and Megadeth). Confused? Alex seems to be!

Let no professed Christian ever say that he or she has “NO PROBLEM” with homosexuals or homosexuality. We ought to have a problem with BOTH. We cannot be right with God and accept homosexuals.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Precious 34 Comments [7/12/2014 5:13:36 AM]
Fundie Index: 17
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 124658

In Defense of Feminism

Here I will defend feminism, but not for the typical reasons. In order to understand this post, you must understand these two previous posts of mine:

Human Evolution where I explain why women in feminist cultures are attracted to stupid immoral men.

The Rise and Fall of Christian Culture where I explain how American Christianity failed in the 1800s, meaning lost the ability to impose morality.

In the "Human Evolution" post I explained that women simply choose the type of man who is evolutionarily optimal in the current environment. Let me take this one step further. Probably the most important thing for a woman is which men she has sex with, because this will determine the future success of her genes. Because this is so important, one can reasonably assume that a significant part of a woman's brain is dedicated to this issue. This means that women can intuitively determine which men are genetically "good" much better than men can using analytical reasoning. In other words, men have no right to doubt women's mating choices in terms of genetic suitability. When a woman says that a man is "hot", she is unquestionably correct that he is a good genetic choice in her current environment. And when a woman says that a man is a (genetic) loser, she is also unquestionably correct in her current environment.

One of the worst things that can happen to a woman is mating with a genetically unsuitable man. A woman can only have a limited number of children, so who she chooses to be the father of those children is critical. Mating with an unsuitable man is almost like the loss of a child because that child's genetic future is bleak. The word to express this tragedy is "rape". Men badly misunderstand rape because we interpret it from a male perspective. We think that the critical element is violence. This is because for men, violence is a huge risk for our genetic future since many men are killed through violence. But for women, this simply isn't the case. Violence plays a much smaller role in the genetic success of women. So now let's consider a woman in modern culture. If a violent thug forces this woman to have sex with him, is this rape? No it isn't because the violent thug is well suited genetically for modern culture. So there is no issue of mating with a genetically unsuitable man. Now let's consider the case of this woman being seduced into sex by a nice guy who studied seduction techniques. This clearly is rape since nice guys are genetically unsuitable for modern culture. Whether the sex was violently forced or voluntary is irrelevant, all that matters is the quality of the man's genes. In modern culture, any sex with a nice guy is rape regardless of the circumstances because nice guys have unsuitable genes for modern culture.

Throughout history, women have depended on society to protect them including protecting them from rape. Men in society have always played a role in protecting women from mating with unsuitable men. But of course it is ultimately up to women to decide what types of men are unsuitable. In an effective patriarchal society where promiscuity is heavily punished, intelligent moral men are optimal and stupid immoral men are unsuitable. In such a society, women expect society to protect them from stupid immoral men. And similarly, in modern culture where stupid immoral men are optimal and intelligent moral men are unsuitable, women expect society to protect them from intelligent moral men. In both cases, the motive is exactly the same, to protect women from rape, namely sex with unsuitable men. This is why modern society is currently implementing all these strange sexual consent laws. These laws are very well designed to protect women from intelligent moral men.

At this point it should be clear why feminism makes sense for women in modern culture. All feminism is really about is allowing women in modern culture to mate with genetically good men and avoid mating with genetically bad men. Why should women be prevented from this? But now let's move away from women's perspective and consider what is best for humanity.

The optimal society is a moral patriarchal society. In such a society, promiscuity (outside of prostitution) is strictly limited. Women are expected to virgins at marriage. Adultery (sex with another man's wife) is severely punished with the guilty being removed from the gene pool one way or another. Seducing virgins is also punished. In such a society, moral men are the optimal mating choice for women. So women in this society will be attracted to moral men and will consider immoral men to be losers. There is absolutely no chance of feminism occurring in such a society because women there simply wouldn't want it.

Now let's consider what happens when such an optimal society starts to break down. What happens is that for some reason society loses its ability to enforce sexual morality. This means that promiscuity and adultery become a viable evolutionary strategy for men. Women realize this, and these immoral men become exciting for women. And so the evolutionary decay of the society begins.

Feminism is the natural expression of women's changing mating preference in a decaying society. But let's imagine that we could magically eliminate feminism. Would this be better for humanity? I believe that what this would look like is America almost permanently stuck in the 1950s. As I explained in "The Rise and Fall of Christian Culture", American culture began to break down in the 1800s when religion went from encouraging people to follow Jesus's moral teaching to simply having a personal relationship with Jesus. With such a change, it was inevitable that society would lose focus on the core issues of sexual morality, and lose the ability of effective enforcement. In the 1950s, America retained the facade of a moral culture, but underneath society was breaking down. Women clearly expressed sexual excitement for "bad boys" in movies. And I am certain that this must have corresponded to a rising adultery rate. Without feminism, the facade could have remained intact for centuries, with moral men continuing to find wives but these wives cheating on them and having illegitimate children with immoral men. The genetic breakdown of society would have been much slower, but the ultimate result would have been the same. So instead of taking decades for society to call apart, it would have taken centuries. Which is preferable? I think it is preferable for a morally broken society to fall apart as quickly as possible so that it can be replaced by something else. Feminism doesn't change the end result, it only speeds it up. And so I support feminism.

What about the poor suffering moral men in modern culture who can't get women? One can read the complaints of these men all over the internet. If you suggest options to these men like using a prostitute or looking abroad, they will tell you that they want validation. Any moral man who wants validation from a woman in modern culture is simply a moron who deserves to suffer and die without reproducing. Unlike feminists, he hasn't slightest understanding of evolution. The only sound evolutionary strategy for moral men is to join together to form moral patriarchal societies. Such societies are evolutionarily superior to modern culture. When modern culture has decayed sufficiently, a good moral patriarchal culture should attack modern culture and slaughter all of its men for the genetic good of humanity.

If a woman from the modern culture calls a moral man a loser, the correct response is "I would be a loser if I were a member of your culture, but I am not. My culture is superior to your culture and my culture will eventually destroy your culture." Intelligent moral men must reject modern culture and find an alternative. And from the perspective of an alternative culture, we can recognize feminism as a good thing that is helping to destroy our enemy, namely modern culture.

(Submitter's note: Emphasis added)

fschmidt, Mikraite 18 Comments [2/19/2017 3:53:31 AM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 124600

Who are we to question why God does things the way He does? I humbly submit that my human brain is no match for God's wisdom.

Alan Burns, Religion and Ethics 10 Comments [2/17/2017 5:24:28 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Nearly Sane
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 124601

Satan is not creative. His strategies and tactics are tediously predictable, once you recognize them. Of course, it’s not easy to stand firm when it seems like you’re about to be engulfed by a mountainous rushing wall of fire, but if you do stand firm the illusion vaporizes on contact and you realize it was a lie. Once you’ve stood up to that wall a few times it loses most of its effect on you.

No group is better at this satanic strategy than the “gay” political movement, which was an unstated reason why open homosexuals were never allowed into the intelligence agencies in the history of the nation, a policy upheld by the none other than the 9th Circuit US Appeals Court in the 1990 case, “High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office.” (Indicating just how dangerous to our nation the idea of homosexual spooks was even to the farthest left-wing judges in the country: J. Edgar Hoover was by no means an anomaly.) But then along came Bill Clinton who issued Executive Order 12968 on August 2, 1995, opening the intelligence agencies and top secret security clearance to the Machiavellian “gay” network.

That policy continued under W. Bush, and when Obama came into office the floodgates really flew open. My guess based solely on my knowledge of the “gay” movement and Obama’s personal priorities, is that the today’s alphabet soup of intelligence agencies could easily be condensed to just four letters: LGBT, since that’s almost certainly who’s driving the agenda evidenced in the ongoing treasonous sabotage of the Trump administration.

More critical to the process of creating the false reality by which the far left has steered American public policy for decades is the mainstream media. Again, an industry so heavily dominated by “gays” and homosexualists that there is no longer even a pretense of balance on stories related to LGBT issues. Pro-family views are openly equated with racism and denied inclusion in news reporting. That same subjectivity and arrogance drives their narrative on their entire slate of issues.

My greatest concern about the Trump administration is that secular-minded advisors will allow self-defeating politically-correct assumptions to convince them to leave the “gays” in the swamp, assuming that will win them points with the ultra-powerful LGBT lobby and the larger progressive community it dominates, as well as crossover libertarian and secularist constituencies.

My prayer is that President Trump will awaken to the correlation of anti-Trump radicalism on the left with the “gay” movement and realize that on virtually any issue one can name the most aggressive liars and agitators are homosexuals and their closest surrogates, and that these people absolutely, positively cannot be placated (just ask the Boy Scouts of America). In other words, there is a spiritual dimension to the culture war in which the key common denominator is LGBT affiliation.

I call on Mr. Trump to adopt my earlier recommendation to establish a “Separation of LGBT and State” as outlined here.

I further urge him to take the bold and courageous step of revoking Executive Order 12968 and restoring the ban on “gays” in the intelligence agencies as it existed until 1990.

Scott Lively, Right Wing Watch 12 Comments [2/17/2017 5:24:37 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 124688

ASHEVILLE - A move by a national doll manufacturer to add the first boy to its lineup has one local minister in a tizzy.

The Rev. Keith Ogden of Hill Street Baptist Church sent a message to more than 100 of his supporters and parishioners Wednesday titled, "KILLING THE MINDS OF MALE BABIES."

Ogden invoked Scripture as he criticized the American Girl company for its debut of Logan Everett, a drummer boy doll, who performs alongside Tenney Grant, a girl doll with a flair for country western music.

Logan is the lone boy among American Girl’s vast cast of characters, and the company sees him as both a way to please longtime fans as well as a new addition who will appeal to a broader audience.

"This is nothing more than a trick of the enemy to emasculate little boys and confuse their role to become men," the minister said in the e-mailed statement he sent at 9:45 a.m. Wednesday after watching a segment about American Girl on "Good Morning America."

Ogden has been influential in Asheville's community, often speaking publicly about race and policing, violence in low-income communities and his opposition to same-sex marriage.

In June he announced he would soon leave Buncombe County due to his wife's health concerns. He said Wednesday he still doesn't know when he will depart; he is trying to sell his house.

In the meantime, Ogden said he has no plans to stay quiet. As long as he is living in Western North Carolina, the preacher will speak up when he feels it is necessary. On Wednesday, his outrage was sparked by a child's toy.

"There are those in this world who want to alter God's creation of the male and female," he wrote. "The devil wants to kill, steal and destroy the minds of our children and grandchildren by perverting, distorting and twisting (the) truth of who God created them to be."

Later that morning Ogden told the Citizen-Times that he doesn't think that boys should play with dolls, that he thinks American Girl's move will confuse children.

"Now you are going to have little boys playing with baby dolls and that's not cool," he said. "We need to get back to our old values and morals."

Ogden said churches need to stand up and speak truth to power as the community wrestles with gender identity and changing values, especially as it relates to youth programming and activities. The Boy Scouts of America, last month, for example, announced that it will allow transgender children to enroll in scouting programs.

"It just doesn't make sense," Ogden said. "It's not natural for a boy to act like a girl. It's not natural for a girl to want to be a boy. ...You've got the government and people who placate this mess instead of telling little boys they can't change their biology."

American Girl, however, says it's just meeting customer demands and expanding its market.

"A boy character has been a top request from our fans for decades,'' said spokeswoman Stephanie Spanos, adding that along with two new historical characters the toy line this year will introduce more dolls with modern story lines than at any time in its 31-year history.

"We're hopeful Logan will appeal to both girls and boys," she said. "For boys, we know Logan can speak directly to them and give them something unique and special to call their own.''

The brown-haired, gray-eyed Logan doll is 18 inches tall, and has a set of drums to accompany Tenney.

Mattel, which owns American Girl, saw its sales surge last year following its introduction of a more diverse doll selection.

Its Barbie Fashionista line veers from the blond, thin Barbie-of-old to include three new body types along with an array of skin tones and hairstyles.

American Girl’s “TrulyMe’’ doll line offers more than 40 combinations of complexions, eye tints and hair colors. And in a bid to speak to and about children dealing with disabilities or chronic illnesses, American Girl’s doll accessories include a wheelchair and diabetes care kit.

The YWCA of Asheville, which works to empower women and eliminate racism, operates child care programs that serve more than 100 children from infants to school age throughout Buncombe County. Though it does not have any specific programming or initiatives that address gender roles or gender neutral clothing or toys, it said American Girl's move was in line with progress.

"At the YWCA, we encourage play that helps all children explore what it means to be human and to accept each other's differences," CEO Beth Maczka said. "We are happy to see dolls that celebrate diversity and represent different races, abilities, body types and genders."

Rev. Keith Ogden, WCNC 20 Comments [2/19/2017 11:48:03 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Thanos6
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 124604

In the 1977 Jewish hit movie GOODBYE GIRL, which stars Jewish actor Richard Dreyfuss (who plays Elliot Garfield in the movie), there is a scene with a 10-year old girl and Elliot Garfield laying clothed in a bed together. The mother is trying to wake up Elliot, saying, “You can't sleep with my daughter.” This unmistakably plants a pedophilia seed in the viewer's mind. What kind of sexually perverted movie writer... director... producer... would make such a film that jokes about a man having sex with a little girl? Elite Hollywood Jews, that's who! It's not surprising when you consider that the Jewish owned and controlled TV networks exploit underaged teen girls sexually for profit. Later in the film Elliot says to the girl's mother, “You do know that your daughter has a crush on me?” Adding this to the earlier sexually suggestive bed scene, plus the sexually explicit art hanging on the wall, creates a subliminal sexually suggestive situation.

In the film Dreyfuss plays a gay man (Richard III, a flaming homosexual, Duke of Boston) in one scene. He receives a job acting in a play as a gay man and detests the part at first, but then plays it well after adjustments are made to the script, which is creepy. Dreyfuss (Elliot) at one point in the movie says, “He wants to hump Leann” (referring to the homosexual play in which he is starring in the film). Hollywood is dirty-minded, filthy, and saturated with smut. I'm simply pointing out the truth. Most people don't care about God's opinion, but I do. I take God's side. Hollywood is a cesspool of iniquity.

Most people don't notice nor realize just how evil Hollywood is. Most people just focus on whatever is being filmed in the forefront, without looking at what's obviously displayed in the background. Case in point, as Richard Dreyfuss enters into Paul's apartment at the beginning of the movie, there are 2 pictures hanging on different walls unmistakably displaying a woman's vagina. These are not actual photos, but art paintings. Sex is a common theme in art and paintings, much of it subtly expressing sexual ideas and perversion. Most artists are Godless sickos, making all sorts of bizarre, offensive, and insane looking garbage. Even more insane is that elite nutcases pay millions of dollars for such trash. There is no artist's paintbrush and canvas that can outdo the beauty of God's creation.

In the same scene Paula (Marsha Mason) and Elliot (Richard Dreyfuss) agree to live together. Elliot is told that he can stay in the small room. As Elliot walks to the small room, he passes through 10-year-old Lucy's bedroom and you can see a poster on Lucy's bedroom wall of a woman's legs and subtly covered vagina. The woman's feet in the painting are pointing downward. The painting is black and white. The woman is white against a black background. There is a black bird flying over the woman's vagina, but the bird's wingspan forms an open vagina. This is unmistakably SEXUAL ART. The top of the woman is distorted so that most viewers wouldn't take notice of the photo as Elliot is walking by. If you look at what Hollywood puts into the background of many their films, you would be ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED at how sexually deviate and perverted these creeps are! This is THE GOODBYE GIRL film, rated PG; but it is a really horrible film when you hear all the cursing in God's name and sexually suggestive talk. It sounds like a decent film, but leave it to Hollywood to ruin everything.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Savior 18 Comments [2/17/2017 5:25:39 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 124635

Now both liberals and muslims both hate America but that is not a reason why you would love someone who wants to cut your head off. The liberal/leftie/feminist/communist lives in a world of feelings, not logic, or discriminating intelligence, and certainly not facts.

Liberalism is a religion where the state assumes the role of God and when you believe in something as a religion no thinking is allowed or needed. Through brainwashing by the state/cultural Marxists they have been taught to not love their own kind but rather to love the other outsider different one more than themselves. They no longer love themselves, their country, their culture, their race, their family, or their religion. Now the white femininists are self genociding by having less than 1.2 children in Europe. This means extinction in 3 generations.

Quote-“ By destroying the nuclear family ideal feminism has unleashed the maternal instinct on the political realm where instead of protecting her biological children her new minority allies are her adopted brood.” End Quote This is also a part of it for women.

It is the inability to think and the total lack of information about islam that allows the liberal/lefties/feminist/communist to actually love someone who wants to kill them or destroy their way of life. And they think if you don’t love the muslim then you are the evil one and they must stop you.

It is not Stockholm syndrome because they have yet to be oppressed by the muslims. But that day will soon come.

Liberalism is a religion of suicide and they will take the rest of us down with them. Sun Tzu said: Those who do not know themselves nor their enemy will be defeated in battle. "The enemy will never attack where you are strongest...He will attack where you are weakest. If you do not know your weakest point, be certain, your enemy will."

Our weakest point is a total lack of leadership by our politicians and the suicidal stupidity of the left. Today’s politicians are followers and appeasers who have sold out to the muslims.

Anonymous Coward, Godlike Productions 11 Comments [2/18/2017 10:48:41 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 124634

The range of alternatives for how the universe either came about or eternally is was given. None are susceptible to scientific investigation and are therefore supernatural.

That seems to cover everything. Care to disagree without getting into the circularity of scientism?

Emergence - The Musical, Religion and Ethics 10 Comments [2/18/2017 10:48:32 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Nearly Sane
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 124641

Most men cannot fathom living a life without sex. But blessed are those few men, who perceive the worthwhile sacrifice of forfeiting marriage for the kingdom of God (such as the apostle Paul). A man who forgoes marriage can serve God day and night, without hindrance, as a faithful servant sold out to His precious Savior!

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Precious 16 Comments [2/18/2017 12:56:57 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 124645

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick joined Tony Perkins, president of the anti-LGBT hate group Family Research Council (FRC), twice in the past two weeks to promote SB6, the so-called “Texas Privacy Act,” a top legislative priority for Patrick during this session.

“Lt. Governor Dan Patrick of Texas is taking off the gloves with those pushing the false narrative that protecting women and children will hurt the Lone Star state economically,” Perkins told listeners while introducing Patrick on the Feb. 8 edition of his “Washington Watch Live” web-based radio show.

“Yes, we are taking off the gloves,” Patrick responded. “We’re not going to stand by and allow the LGBT community to take over some business groups in order to attack our very common sense legislation to keep men out of ladies’ rooms, allow businesses the free enterprise to make those decisions, allow their customers to make those decisions, and to keep boys and girls from showering together in the 10th, 11th and 12th grade.”

In the short segment, Patrick dismissed claims that, should the bill pass, it would prove economically detrimental to the state. Both he and Perkins claimed SB6 has overwhelming support because it protects women and keeps boys and girls from “showering together.”

A common falsehood perpetuated by anti-LGBT groups is that allowing trans people to use restrooms in accordance with their gender identities will allow sexual predators to “pretend” they’re trans to access women’s restrooms and locker rooms to prey on women and children.

More recently, Patrick appeared live in the studio alongside Perkins in “Privacy and Freedom: Good for Business,” a webcast streamed from the FRC studios on Feb. 15. Perkins first spoke with FRC senior fellow in legal studies Cathy Ruse who claimed sex ed classes teach “transgenderism as a healthy alternative lifestyle” and cause psychological damage to children.

Next on the show was North Carolina Lt. Gov. Dan Forest who joined via video to discuss his state’s 2016 law, HB2, which was passed in a hastily called session in response to the city of Charlotte’s February 2016 anti-discrimination ordinance, which included sexual orientation and gender identity.

HB2 nullified all LGBT anti-discrimination ordinances in the state. Trans people who have not taken legal and surgical steps to change their gender markers on state documents have no legal right to use public restrooms that correspond with their gender identities. The law also makes it more difficult to pursue any claim of discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, handicap or biological sex.

During Patrick’s time with Perkins, he reiterated some of his statements from the Feb. 8 “Washington Watch,” claiming that Texas’s SB6 protects women and children from sexual predators, prevents boys and girls from showering together, and that predictions of harmful economic fallout as a result of the bill’s passage are dubious. The only people, Patrick claimed, who don’t support SB6 are “Anglo elite liberals, and a lot of them control the print media.”

Perkins directed viewers to a particular page on the FRC website which includes a link to the action center of Dan Patrick’s website where people share their stories about why they believe that “no Texas law should allow men in women’s restrooms or women in men’s restrooms.”

Patrick has promulgated the dangers of allowing trans people to use restrooms in accordance with their gender identities since his vocal support of the dismantling of the non-discrimination equal rights ordinance in Houston (HERO) in 2015. Patrick appeared on radio and TV urging voters to reject the city’s equal rights ordinance. HERO was overwhelmingly defeated in November 2015, largely on the basis of anti-trans fear mongering.

The Texas bill comes on the heels of Patrick’s battle against 2016 guidelines issued by the Obama administration in which trans students in public schools should not be marginalized to separate bathroom or locker room facilities or forced to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identities. Schools who discriminate against trans students could face federal lawsuits or a loss of federal funding.

In response to these guidelines, Texas attorney general Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against the federal government in late May of 2016. A week later, Patrick announced that he would be directing all state school superintendents not to follow the guidelines and — in fact — to actively defy them.

Patrick’s crusade against allowing trans people to use public facilities in accordance with their gender identities and his association with hate group members continues. Patrick will also be speaking — along with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Perkins — at an FRC co-sponsored event in Austin, Texas on March 7, “Pastor’s Briefing at the Capitol,” billed as a “special briefing for pastors across Texas to hear urgent updates on legislation protecting women and children, religious freedom, and the future of our state.”

Tony Perkins, Dan Patrick and Ken Paxton, Southern Poverty Law Center 10 Comments [2/18/2017 12:57:27 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 124650

There is no proof that Muhammad rape Ayesha, yes he married her which was common practice among arabs at the time but he did not rape her?

Faris Khan, youtube 16 Comments [2/18/2017 8:35:14 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: PETF
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 124657

Whether one calls the negative anti-morals of modern culture morality is just a semantic question. I do call this negative morality because I don't know how else to describe it. Of course patriarchy is required in any positive moral system.

fschmidt, Mikraite 12 Comments [2/19/2017 3:53:28 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 124705


Should homosexuality be considered a criminal offense/act? Also, what's your view on Morality?

Ok Escapist community, this is a two part question, the first on justification for cultural imperialism and the second on the different views of morality.

First issue:
Now I just finished reading an article on Malawi law that bands homosexuals and one particular section of the article made me feel uneasy. It stated that,

"On Tuesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the US would use foreign aid to encourage countries to decriminalise homosexuality. UK Prime Minister David Cameron expressed a similar view in October, saying that gay rights were a human right."

The article later went on to state that "Homosexual acts are illegal in most African countries, where they are often viewed as un-Christian and un-Islamic" and the President of Malawi, Bingu wa Mutharika, called homosexuality "evil and very bad before the eyes of God".

I don't know how to feel about the whole situation, because while I don't think it should considered a criminal act, I am also uncomfortable with the reactions I see from the Western political leaders, the reason being is that their attempts to manipulate the laws in Malawai on homosexuality come off as a subtle form of cultural imperialism. What I mean is do Western Nations have the right to manipulate the laws of other countries if they go against the social norms of Western culture? Is it wrong for western nations to try to manipulate others so that they agree with the social norms of western culture?

Here a few other articles about other African countries against homosexuality and how the West is responding:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15558769

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15992099

Second Issue:
When I read the article on Malawai, it made me think of another question on morality, does Moral Universalism exist, or does Moral Relativism exist? I bring this up because, I don't think homosexuality should be outlawed and that it is wrong to do otherwise, and I think that if I was to believe in Moral Universalism, then I would also feel that it is wrong for those African countries to have such a law. However, if I subscribe to the idea that Moral Relativism exist, then while I might not agree with such laws, I guess I would feel that those laws were just a reflection of the morals of the various African cultures and not automatically "wrong". Tbh, I'm not sure how I would feel about the African laws if I followed the idea of Moral Nihilism.Articles such as these give me the impression that Western leaders believe in the idea of Moral Universalism, but what about you? People of Escapist, do you believe in Moral Universalism, Moral Relativism, or Moral Nihilism?

NOTE: For the poll answers, CI stands for Cultural Imperialism, MU stands for Moral Universalism, MR stands for Moral Relativism, an MN stands for Moral Nihilism.




People in at least one african nation are in danger of being fucking executed for being gay.

I have very little problem with the idea of cultural imperialism for the purposes of preventing the institutionalized murder of thousands.


and /thread at the first post. It probably is morally questionable to deny these countries aid based on their stance on Gay rights. However, on the other hand it is very definitely morally wrong to persecute (or worse) an entire sub-culture of your own society just for being different to you; and when we fund governments, by extension we are funding their beliefs and their actions. So if we are committed to Gay rights we can't associate ourselves with people who actively oppress Homosexuals.



would you feel the same way if the African countries were banning bestiality or pedophilia and the West was denying them aid because of the creation of such laws? Wouldn't people who are attracted to children or animals also be an "entire sub-culture of your own society"? Wouldn't those laws be a form of persecution?



Helmholtz Watson, The Escapist 9 Comments [2/20/2017 6:03:04 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 124629

Can't tell you how good I felt when Jesus touched my child.

Rev. Dr. Kwasi I. Kena, Discipleship Ministries 15 Comments [2/18/2017 8:32:56 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Denizen
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 124622

this is what Jesus told me about why he persecutes
Jesus tells-8-1-2007-I spike your dick, like electricity going on and around to make you angry, shake you to undecided to make you fall all day saith the LOrd, I want you to fall, to embarrass you, then my heart will change, you are a dog to me, I love hurting you deep in your heart saith the LOrd, to hurt your pride and anger to make you want to leave me all day, that is killing all day long, this is how I do it, read again, ha ha says Jesus, serve me or hell, your choice, I will do you the same way, or perish what I was told on 8-2-2007-comeon back, I have casted you out and made you want to commit suicide...God told me something like, "I tortured you because you prophesied and I wanted to make you fall to embarras you, and make you sin in front of those you witnessed to, for no reason"........here what I jsut heard, "im making you perish". and I saw Jesus in visions and am wounded right now, and he said things like, "abate". that means bring me to nothing. here is what God is saying right now, "Im making you an example of my sufferrings, this is why, cause, I could, do, it, thru you, and knew you would not fall"...............I guess that means the Father did this to the Son, and I surely dont beleive that, so I dont know what it means, maybe his sufferrings is torturing me till I run out of his precence to sin, or a more pleasureable experience......as I work for God, he strikes me, teases, winks, like a eye winking to tease, entering into my heart and bringing in wrath, like striking a little gold fish in an aquarium filled with barracudas, keeps striking, and wont stop or for long, spiking with electricity my penus, carressing it, and one time in vision, I saw maybe the Lord, and like alittle head appeared on his arm, and it was like doing oral sex, and I could feel it............God, you word says, you are love, and you dont want me to perish, but, look what you are doing to your slave, dog...pray for me, if I was doing to to my wife if I had one, I like a fool stayed single, and God mocked me for that, and showed me crossing paths with girlfiriends former while saved, and I beleive they all would have married me.......God let me know that I stayed single and he did this to me anyway, and now im old, and even told me it was planned.......I told the Lord, "you will stop"......my guess is, when this page has been seen one time to many, and God tells me it embarrasses him, and me, then, but I also know, people see and read and think, are you Lord going to do this to me", and God told me or, here,he just spoke, "I will do that to everybody", "this is killing all day long", ------ok------I dont blame people for saying no to the call of Jesus-----the only reason to serve God is to stay out of hell, then, all this comes on you, ------who can be saved-----im prophet ministryofdreams, good luck no matter what choice you make--------heres what God is saying right now, "you prophesy, and that is God speaking thru, and I make it hard for you, immpossible"........I just saw Jesus in a vision and he said, 'remember that", and I saw this page........I guess in the Jud, God will show me this and say, depart, but, look at this page, and in real life it is much worse then this, Im being struck all day for the most part......Its hard for me to lay down for long without one of these strikes getting thru.....I just saw Jesus and he said, "close down the website", and here is what I think, "i came out of the world and sufferred and sacrificed and was obediant, and then you throw me away like this and I close down the website................no way------pray for me, and send me your prayer requests. maybe tonight when i sleep God will let me hear my family screaming and see thier faces glowing red hot cause of being in hell, and even showed me my sister that is mildly mentally handicapped screaming-----I remember once in a dream, there was a being, and it had on its hand like a freddy krueger knife glove..........gonna let him get me later Lord, since you have to torture, me, a nobody, whats the matter, dont you have something better to do Lord Jesus Christ??????? now, what will you tell people that read this------

robert hickman, Ministry of Dreams 7 Comments [2/18/2017 8:55:02 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Denizen
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 124594

5 Stages of Inceldom

1 Denial
"I'm not incel! I'm just not great with ladies. Few more weeks at the gym and another self help book and I'll be drowning in poon!"

2 Anger
"These whores need to pay for rejecting me. Chad shouldn't get every woman damn it."

3 Bargaining
"Cmon girls, what if I pay for your dinners and movies, then will you look at me at least?"

4 Depression
Where most of the people in this sub seem to be, contemplating suicide, laying down and rotting, etc

5 Acceptance
The ultimate form of an incel. The final destination. This is when you get Wizard Powers. This is the only way we can end our misery outside of suicide and getting a woman.

H77b, /r/incels 16 Comments [2/18/2017 8:53:40 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 124569

Incel ranking system

Official Incel ranking system organized from least normie to most normie

-Note: Females cannot be incel, they can be Volcel though.

-TKHHHV: Talkless Kissless Hugless HandHoldless Virgin. This incel has never even talked to a female, nonetheless done anything else with one. This was the least normie type I could find.

-KHHHV: Kissless Hugless HandHoldless Virgin. This incel has talked to females before but, has not kissed, hugged, held hands with, or has had sex with a female.

-KHHV: Kissless HandHoldless Virgin. This incel has talked to females before, and had hugged at least one before but, has not kissed, held hands with, or had sex with a female.

-KHV: Kissless Hugless Virgin. This incel has talked and held hands with a female before but, has not kissed, hugged, or had sex with one.

-KV: Kissless Virgin. This incel has talked, held hands, and hugged a female before but, has not kissed or had sex with one.

-Virgin. This incel has done everything with a female but has not had sex with one.

-Volcel. This isn't an incel, but a voluntary celibate. This person chooses not to have sex when they have opportunities to.

-Prostitute Virgin. This incel has only had sex with a prostitute before and has not had sex with a regular female.

-Normie. Has done everything with a female including has had sex with them. Seen as scum to us incels because sometimes they try and take their anger out on us, unsuccessfully.

-Chad. Fucks multiple women each second, has pumped and dumped every female you've ever known. The epitome of masculinity, everyone should strive to be a Chad but, only the top 20% make it.

If I forgot any ranks, let me know and I'll add it to the list.

TopKekketus, /r/incels 50 Comments [2/16/2017 7:58:40 AM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep
WTF?! || meh
1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 40