Quote# 138064

Sven2547: What, specifically, about my comment is ignorant? Do you DENY that Al-Qaeda wants war between a united Islam and the "West"? Speaking as a non-religious person, I find it hilariously hypocritical when Christians insist on a 100% literal reading of the Koran, while refusing to hold the Bible to the same standard. The vast, vast majority of the world's Muslims don't abide by every jot and tittle of the Koran any more than the world's Christians abide the Bible.

Mo: Not a word about what I said. You have no clue what that even means, do you?

Sven2547: Not a word about what I said. They're old terms for the "kingdom (house) of Islam" and the "kingdom (house) of war". Note that this is not actually a tenet of the religion itself, but a classification used by some early Islamic scholars during a period of violence in the 8th Century AD.

Mo: Googled it, huh? And yet it's Muslims who use these divisions because they are the ones who are at war with us, all over the world. They've demonstrated it over and over and OVER again - in NYC, in Madrid, in London, in Boston - over and over and over again they prove it. It doesn't matter how many bodies are piled up by those correctly following the teachings of Islam, does it? You are still going to deny it and even claim it's the fault of evangelical Christians. Remarkable Tell me, 1) what was your impression of the Koran's view of unbelievers when you read it and 2) what was your impression of the Koran as you compared it with your reading of the Bible? You can't answer that because you've not done either, have you ? Goodbye.

Sven2547: My question to you is: what do you propose? Making Muslims second-class citizens? Blanket violence against all Muslims? What conclusion should be drawn from your argument, other than "be afraid"?

Mo: How about starting with speaking the facts about Islam? How about everyone actually READING the Koran so that they know what they are talking about? But they refuse. You can't address a problem until you admit there is one. And we're not even at that first stage yet. How much bloodshed by Muslims will it take before we wake up?

Sven2547: The Bible embraces violence and hatred every bit as much as the Koran, yet almost Christian I know is a nice person. It's hypocritical to make the opposite assumption about Muslims. Again I ask: what do you propose? What does "waking up" entail for you? What's your plan? What's your optimal outcome? Repeating over and over "Islam is evil! Muslims are bad people!" isn't a substitute for civil discourse or sane public policy.

Mo: "The Bible embraces violence and hatred every bit as much as the Koran" And that's as far as I read of your comment, and the last I will be engaging in conversation with you. This is a flat out lie. There are no open-ended commands in the OT or the NT for Jews or Christians to commit violence against unbelievers or against anyone. You cannot produce any because they do not exist. Therefore, there are no Jews or Christians committing such acts, on a regular basis, all over the world, in obedience to any such commands. Period.

Butterfly: You have got to be one of the most poorly informed christians I have ever happened upon. Please don't tell me you actually believe that the bible does not contain commands from god to commit atrocious acts of violence against others... The christian god not only commands it multiple times, he promises his followers women and young girls as spoils of war in return for committing genocide. So they not only were told to murder, they were promised the right to rape others as a reward. I'm not going to bother posting the actual scriptures because some of the other folks here have already done that. I will, however, encourage you to Google the Amelekites and do a general search on the topics of war, murder and genocide in the bible and see what you find. Then come back and see if you still (rather stupidly) believe that the biblical god does not ask his people to commit horrible acts of violence against others. Oh, and if you decide to come back here all ruffled and insist upon attacking me instead of addressing what was said in regard to the bible, you'll be ignored. Also, you'd better come prepared, because I was christian for a long time and I used to teach it. Bring it on, baby.

Mo: "I'm not going to bother posting the actual scriptures because some of the other folks here have already done that." You won't bother, because you know they don't exist. Others haven't, because they don't exist. There are no open-ended commands in the OT or the NT for Jews or Christians to commit violence against unbelievers or against anyone. None. Zero. You cannot produce any because they do not exist. That is why we do not see Jews or Christians committing such acts, on a regular basis, all over the world, in obedience to any such commands. Now, how about addressing ISLAM, the focus of this article?

ToTripoli: "You won't bother, because you know they don't exist. Others haven't, because they don't exist." So you are blatantly ignoring the verses in the comments above the one you quoted. Isn't that tantamount to bearing false witness? Or are you actually convinced that the following passages do not exist in the Bible?: Romans 1:32, Leviticus 20:9-10, Deuteronomy 21:20-21, Deuteronomy 22:22, Exodus 21:15, Luke 19:27, Exodus 22:20, Deuteronomy 13:6-10, 2 Chronicles 15:12-13, Deuteronomy 13:13-19, Deuteronomy 13:7-12, Deuteronomy 17:2-5, and Numbers 25:1-9. I am increasingly convinced that you have never read the Torah or the Bible, beyond a handful of verses. Oh, and as for Christians & Jews committing acts of terrorism? Look up "Christian Identity," "Lord's Resistance Army," "Anders Breivik," and "Bat Ayin Underground." (It should be noted that Jewish terrorism is far, far less common than terrorism committed in the name of Christianity.)

Mo: There are ZERO open ended commands for Jews or Christians to commit violence against unbelievers. That's why we're not seeing Jews or Christians AROUND THE WORLD ON A REGULAR BASIS committing any such acts IN OBEDIENCE TO ANY SUCH TEXTS. I hate to shout,but that may be the only way to get through to people like you. Such commands don't exist. You can't provide any. PERIOD. Now, instead of babbling about Christianity or Judaism, how about ISLAM, which is the purpose of this article, since MUSLIMS are the ones slaughtering people around the world in obedience to not only their texts, but their warlord prophet? How about that? Anything to say on Islam? Of course not. Just nonsense about Christianity and Judaism.

Mo, Patheos 6 Comments [6/14/2018 6:46:27 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Christopher

Quote# 138054

(=First of a two part post/rant about Glennon Doyle Melton, a Christian blogger/author who came out as a lesbian and married a woman=)

I mentioned in our podcast yesterday the tragic downfall of Glennon Doyle Melton. I would like to point out a few obvious home truths. Incidentally, of course it would be nice to think nuanced and fascinating thoughts, to grasp at difficult insights that have not been articulated by others, to, in short, be Novel. But this point in Christian history doesn’t seem to be calling for that sort of thinking. We seem to be needing to go back to the most basic point, the expression of the most essential truths. And the most essential of all of them is...

What is love?

This foundation of Christian doctrine has been so muddled and twisted, squandered really, by the modern Westerner, that we have to keep going back to the very beginning point of Christian Faith in order to answer this tragic confusion.

So Glennon, like so many, got married, had some children, and found herself in the usual way of coping with a too difficult life, a broken relationship with herself, and a cheating husband. In the midst of this, she turned out to be a top notch writer and so wrote her way through her difficulties and troubles. Here she has my complete sympathy. I am sitting here at this very minute in desperate pursuit of mental health through writing. Writing is my life line. If I don’t write every day, I become unhinged. And gosh, isn’t it nice if people read your writing? Everyone has been reading Glennon. That I haven’t is my own fault. I need to get out more and read more. I’ve read a few of her blog posts, though, and they are breezy, brilliant. The writing is what you Want when you click on the Internet.

But good writing does not a theologian nor a Christian make. Any one of us can put ourselves out there but the church–the people who know and love God and his Son Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit of whatever denomination and background–have a duty, an obligation, to articulate the gospel clearly and repudiate those who call themselves Christian but do not adhere to basic Christian doctrine. For the sake of Glennon herself, because she has claimed the name of Christ, I find I must say no to her new way of life.

Let’s just quickly look at what she says about love, both for herself, and more troublingly, for her children. She writes, “I want you to grow so comfortable in your own being, your own skin, your own knowing – that you become more interested in your own joy and freedom and integrity than in what others think about you. That you remember that you only live once, that this is not a dress rehearsal and so you must BE who you are. I want you to refuse to betray yourself. Not just for you. For ALL OF US. Because what the world needs — in order to grow, in order to relax, in order to find peace, in order to become brave — is to watch one woman at a time live her truth without asking for permission or offering explanation.”

And about her children, “They have the love and support of their dad, me, their grandparents, their aunts and uncles, their church, their teachers, their friends’ families –all of whom have fallen as hard for Abby as they have. They’re lucky kids, to be surrounded by so much love. We have family dinners together – all six of us — and Abby cooks. (She is an AMAZING chef because Jesus loves me). We go to the kids’ school parties together. We are a modern, beautiful family. Our children are loved. So loved. And because of all of that love, they are brave.”

You can find the longer post on her Facebook page.

Let me begin by saying that throwing over your broken marriage to join with another woman isn’t actually brave any more. It’s one of the easiest choices on the table. It may not feel easy in the moment, but what you are doing is embracing a copy of yourself, and you are doing it with the culture’s complete approbation. Bravery is when you do something difficult that ought to be done but you don’t want to do it, but you do it against your desires, for the sake of another. The choice of Glennon to be with a woman is the choice to go with self expression and the love of the self over the love of another and of God.

And that’s the confusion, isn’t it? It’s everywhere. In Christianity you are called to die to yourself, to die to the very essential nature of who you are which has been so corrupted and marred by sin that it is irrevocably bound to eternal death. This is the state of the human person. Not a single human person escapes the sentence of death that came when we chose to love ourselves rather than the Other, that is God. And however painful it is to face, no one gets a pass on this sentence. We all go down the grave one by one, dust to dust, because we idolatrously chose to love ourselves rather than our Creator.

No amount of embracing the self will cure the ills of the soul. No Amount. There is nothing you can do to love yourself enough to rescue your soul from death. You can’t. There is no human solution to the death dealing cavern that separates us from God.

That is why God himself had to cross over that cavern by himself. He had to come and absorb our sin and our rejection of him in himself. That is the cross. He took our catastrophic and poisonous self love onto himself and died the death we should have died.

When we cling to him, the death we endure, though it feels very great, is actually very small. Still, it is not easy to say no to the self, to put to death that essential poisoned self. It can’t happen without God himself carrying you through to eternity.

And I really hate to say it, but this is going to have to be part one, because I have somewhere to be. But I will pick up right here tomorrow, and will probably have another part after that. I hope you who know and love Jesus will pray for Glennon and her children and her husband and her new person and plead with God to enlighten the eyes of her heart that she might finally see him for who he is. See you tomorrow!

Anne Kennedy, Patheos 1 Comments [6/14/2018 6:41:41 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 138024

(Commenting on story "Todd Starnes: A win for Masterpiece Cakeshop (Christians), but it ain’t over yet"):

When the alt-left is losing it's anti-christ campaign to promote sin and make it illegal to reject their sin, (out of desperation and hoping someone, anyone, is still open to their manipulation and lies), they try to co-opt the African-American experience (particularly slavery) attempting to draw parallels between their sins and the terrible abuse AA slaves suffered at the hands of VERY evil men and women (parallels that DO NOT exist btw) to garner sympathy for their sin in some sort of weird by proxy exchange of experience and sympathy. Note, the manipulators are usually NOT descendants of slaves nor even AA, but have the audacity to attempt to pimp the AA experience to further their own wicked agenda. It's VERY disrespectful. They overlook the fact that the two have NOTHING in common - behavior is sin, skin color is not sin. They essentially equate their sin to the color of AA's skin...smh. Also, notice that they only do that to AA, not Jewish people (May peace be in Israel. God bless Israel), Japanese people (prayers for them) nor any other people who have suffered such crimes against humanity. VERY DISRESPECTFUL.

Lady Checkmate, Disqus - News Network 5 Comments [6/11/2018 9:01:40 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 138036

The art of avoiding definitions: A review of ‘Trans*: A Quick and Quirky Account of Gender Variability’

“Let me define the terms, and I’ll win any debate,” a friend told me years ago, an insight I’ve seen confirmed many times in intellectual and political arenas.

But after reading Jack Halberstam’s new book, Trans*: A Quick and Quirky Account of Gender Variability, I would amend that observation: Debates also can be won by making sure a term is never clearly defined. The transgender movement has yet to offer coherent explanations of the concepts on which its policy proposals are based, yet support is nearly universal in left/liberal circles. Whether or not it was the author’s intention, Trans* feels like an attempt at an outline of such explanation, but I’m sorry to report that the book offers neither clarity nor coherence.

I say sorry, because I came to the book hoping to gain greater understanding of the claims of the transgender movement, which I have not found elsewhere. Halberstam — a professor in Department of English and Comparative Literature and the Institute for Research on Women, Gender, and Sexuality at Columbia University — has been writing about this subject for more than two decades and is one of the most prominent U.S. trans* intellectuals. The table of contents looked promising, but the book only deepened my belief that a radical feminist and ecological critique of the transgender movement’s ideology is necessary.

Rather than be defensive about the ambiguity of the transgender argument, Halberstam celebrates the lack of definition as a strength of the movement, an indication that trans* offers deep insights for everyone. If we shift our focus from “the housing of the body” and embrace “perpetual transition” then “we can commit to a horizon of possibility where the future is not male or female but transgender,” he writes. Instead of “male-ish” and “female-ish” bodies we can realize “the body is always under construction” and “consider whether the foundational binary of male-female may possibly have run its course.”

The very act of naming and categorizing imposes limits that constrain the imagination, according to Halberstam, hence the use of the asterisk:

“I have selected the term ‘trans*’ for this book precisely to open the term up to unfolding categories of being organized around but not confined to forms of gender variance. As we will see, the asterisk modifies the meaning of transitivity by refusing to situate transition in relation to a destination, a final form, a specific shape, or an established configuration of desire and identity. The asterisk holds off the certainty of diagnosis; it keeps at bay any sense of knowing in advance what the meaning of this or that gender variant form may be, and perhaps most importantly, it makes trans* people the authors of their own categorizations. As this book will show, trans* can be a name for expansive forms of difference, haptic [relating to the sense of touch] relations to knowing, uncertain modes of being, and the disaggregation of identity politics predicated upon the separating out of many kinds of experience that actually blend together, intersect, and mix. This terminology, trans*, stands at odds with the history of gender variance, which has been collapsed into concise definitions, sure medical pronouncements, and fierce exclusions.”

I quote at length to demonstrate that in using shorter excerpts from the book I am not cherry-picking a few particularly abstruse phrases to poke fun at a certain form of postmodern academic writing. My concern is not stylistic but about the arguments being presented. After reading that passage a couple of times, I think I can figure out what Halberstam’s trying to say. The problem is that it doesn’t say anything very helpful.

To be fair, Halberstam is correct in pointing out that the instinct to categorize all the world’s life, human and otherwise — “the mania for the godlike function of naming” — went hand in hand with colonialism, part of the overreach of a certain mix of politics and science in attempting to control the world. But like it or not, humans make sense of the world by naming, which need not go forward with claims of imperial domination or divine insight. We define the terms we use in trying to explain the world so that we can meaningfully communicate about that world; when a term means nothing specific, or means everything, or means nothing and everything at the same time, it is of no value unless one wants to obfuscate.

But, if Halberstam is to be believed, this criticism is irrelevant, because transgenderism “has never been simply a new identity among many others competing for space under the rainbow umbrella. Rather, it constitutes radically new knowledge about the experience of being in a body and can be the basis for very different ways of seeing the world.” So, if I don’t get it, the problem apparently is the limits of my imagination — I don’t grasp the radically new knowledge — not because the explanation is lacking.

After reading the book, I continue to believe that the intellectual project of the transgender movement isn’t so much wrong as it is incoherent, and the political project is not liberatory but regressive. What this book “keeps at bay” is a reasonable, honest request: What does any of this mean?

In other writing — here in 2014 and again in 2016, along with a chapter in my 2017 book The End of Patriarchy: Radical Feminism for Men — I’ve asked how we should understand transgenderism if the movement’s claim is that a male human can actually be female (or vice versa) in biological terms. If transgender signals a dissatisfaction with the culturally constructed gender norms of patriarchy — which are rigid, repressive, and reactionary — I’ve suggested it would be more effective to embrace the longstanding radical feminist critique of patriarchy.

Rather than repeat those arguments here, I want to try another approach, stating simply that I have good reason to believe I’m real, that the human species of which I am a member is real, and that the ecosphere of which we are a part is real. That is, there is a material reality to the world within which I, and all other carbon-based life forms, operate. I cannot know everything there is to know about that material world, of course, but I can trust that it is real.

The cultural/political/economic systems that shape human societies make living in the real world complex and confusing, and the ways those systems distribute wealth and power are often morally unacceptable. But to challenge that injustice, it’s necessary to understand that real world and communicate my understanding to others in clear fashion.

In left/liberal circles, especially on college campuses, “trans*” increasingly is where the action is for those concerned with social justice. It offers — for everyone, whether transgender-identified or not — the appearance of serious intellectual work and progressive politics. Endorsing the transgender project is a way to signal one is on the cutting edge, and work like Halberstam’s is embraced in these circles, where support for the transgender movement is required to be truly intersectional.

My challenge to those whose goal is liberation is simple: How does this help us understand the real world we are trying to change? How does it help us understand patriarchy, the system of institutionalized male dominance out of which so much injustice emerges?

Halberstam likely would put me in the category of “transphobic feminism” for “refusing to seriously engage” with transfeminism, but I am not transphobic (if, by that term, we mean one who is afraid of, or hateful toward, people who identify as transgender). Nor do I refuse to seriously engage other views (unless we describe a critique of another intellectual position as de facto evidence of a lack of serious engagement). I am rooted in radical feminism, one of those “versions of feminism that still insist on the centrality of female-bodied women,” according to Halberstam.

On that point, Halberstam is accurate: radical feminists argue that patriarchy is rooted in men’s claim to own or control women’s reproductive power and sexuality. Radical feminists distinguish between sex (male XY and female XX, a matter of biology) and gender (masculinity and femininity, a matter of culture and power), which means that there is no way to understand the rigid gender norms of patriarchy without recognizing the relevance of the category of “female-bodied women.” It’s hard to imagine how the binary of male-female could “run its course” given the reality of sexual reproduction.

This is where an ecological perspective, alongside and consistent with a radical feminist critique, reminds us that the world is real and we are living beings, not machines. In discussing his own top surgery (the removal of breasts), Halberstam speaks of working with the doctor:

“Together we were building something in flesh, changing the architecture of my body forever. The procedure was not about building maleness into my body; it was about editing some part of the femaleness that currently defined me. I did not think I would awake as a new self, only that some of my bodily contours would shift in ways that gave me a different bodily abode.”

We all have a right to understand ourselves as we please, and so here’s my response: My body is not a house that was constructed by an architect but rather — like all other life on the planet — is a product of evolution. I resist the suggestion I can “build” myself and recognize that a sustainable human presence on the planet is more likely if we accept that we are part of a larger living world, which has been profoundly damaged when humans treat it as our property to dominate and control.

This is the irony of Halberstam’s book and the transgender project more generally. After labeling the project of categorizing/defining as imperialist and critiquing the “mania for the godlike function of naming,” he has no problem endorsing the “godlike function” of reshaping bodies as if they were construction materials. There’s a deepening ecological sensibility in progressive politics, an awareness of what happens when humans convince ourselves that we can remake the world and ignore the biophysical limits of the ecosphere. While compassionately recognizing the reasons people who identify as transgender may seek surgery and hormone/drug treatments, we shouldn’t suppress concerns about the movement’s embrace of extreme high-tech intervention into the body, including the surgical destruction of healthy tissue and long-term health issues due to cross-sex hormones and hormone-like drugs.

I have long tried to observe what in rhetoric is sometimes called “the principle of charity,” a commitment in debate to formulating an opponent’s argument in the strongest possible version so that one’s critique is on firm footing. I have tried to do that in this review, though I concede that I’m not always sure what Halberstam is arguing, and so I may not be doing his arguments justice. But that is one of my central points: When I read this book — and many other arguments from transgender people and their allies — I routinely find myself confused, unable to understand just what is being proposed. So, again, I’ll quote at length in the hopes of being fair in my assessment, this time the book’s closing paragraph:

“Trans* bodies, in their fragmented, unfinished, broken-beyond-repair forms, remind all of us that the body is always under construction. Whether trans* bodies are policed in bathrooms or seen as killers and loners, as thwarted, lonely, violent, or tormented, they are also a site for invention, imagination, fabulous projection. Trans* bodies represent the art of becoming, the necessity of imagining, and the fleshy insistence of transitivity.”

Once again, after reading that passage a couple of times, I think I understand, sort of, the point. But, once again, I don’t see how it advances our understanding of sex and gender, of patriarchy and power. I am not alone in this assessment; people I know, including some who are sympathetic to the transgender movement’s political project, have shared similar concerns, though they often mute themselves in public to avoid being labeled transphobic.

I’m not asking of the transgender movement some grand theory to explain all the complexity of sex and gender. I just need a clear and coherent place to start. Asking questions is not transphobic, nor is observing that such clarity and coherence are lacking.

ROBERT JENSEN, Feminist Current 7 Comments [6/12/2018 9:13:42 PM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 138041

And that's the funny thing: I am bipolar with schizophrenia on top. I have brain damage. I can't even drive. No person would use me, but God does. It's even funnier when Ron comes along, blind, in his wheelchair. I am getting better distribution when he comes with me, lately.

Things aren't what they were. Used to be I could do 100 in an hour, now I am "lucky" to do 30 in an hour, but I keep going. Glad God can use me.

Acts5:41, Rapture Ready 6 Comments [6/13/2018 5:40:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 138039

He Anoints Me to Be His Servant

He's Looking for People Who Will Stand on the Authority of His Word

From 1989 to 1992, about two and one-half years, the Lord took me through a season of discipleship. When I arrived in Charleston, South Carolina, the Lord met me again in my sleep to explain to me what was on His heart and what He was looking for from me in the upcoming season. I began to notice that the Lord shifted His focus in the visitations from teaching and instruction to commissioning and commanding me with mandates and divine assignments. I entered into a new level of servanthood with the Lord. Now my life and walk with Him were taking on a drastic turn as He began commissioning me to be His servant.

It was during this period that Jesus appeared to me to answer questions I had concerning the latter rain. Suddenly I was with Him in the air above a church. Jesus had on the most beautiful white robe that I had ever seen! Every time he appears to me His robe looks more glorious to me. As I stood beside Jesus, high above the church, I saw what appeared to be a huge, golden vessel in His hands that had beautiful, golden, latter-rain anointing oil in it. I knew He wanted to pour the full contents of this vessel out on His church but could not.

He said, "David, I brought you here to answer your questions concerning why you don't see My power in the church." Then He began pointing things out to me that were going on in His church that He wasn't pleased with. The first thing He showed me was that some of those in the pews, the youth and adults alike, were committing sexual sin and fornication; there was so much flesh in operation in His house. Secondly, He pointed out to me the choir, those who led praise and worship, and that they brought Christian rap into His house and started singing. He was so displeased by this! I saw it in the expression on His face when He pointed it out to me.

He Called Me Into Ministry and Urged Me to Be Faithful to Him

Then He instructed me to correct and rebuke those in His house. As I did this, He did something that was unusual. While dipping one of His fingers in the latter-rain, glory oil He looked at me and said, "Be faithful." Then He stretched out His finger over the church and allowed one drop to hit the whole church. When this drop fell from His finger it sprayed or sprinkled into drops of rain onto the people. When the drop hit the congregation, the whole crowd erupted in spontaneous praises. It was high praise and very beautiful to watch. The move of God caused by the drop died out. Jesus and I stood there, and I knew that He wanted to pour out the fullness of the latter-rain on His church but couldn't because it was short-circuited by sin, the flesh, and worldliness.

Jesus brought another problem He was displeased with to my attention. He showed me the pastor standing at His pulpit. The pastor saw all these wrong things going on in the congregation and in the choir but he wouldn't speak out against them. Jesus was very displeased with this Shepherd who allowed all these things to take place in the Lord's house. I saw the pastor of the church preaching while He was lying flat on his back. Jesus then showed me that a lot of His leaders and pastors were preaching His word, but they were doing it while lying down instead of standing up! He then instructed me to intercede for His pastors and leaders. Oh, I do intercede for them, because 1 love God's Shepherds so much. They go through a lot. Jesus put me back in my body, but I was still in a deep sleep when I heard a voice that said these words that shook me, "I need a man who will stand on the authority of My word!"

He Gave Me My First Assignment and Commissioned Me

It was the voice of Jesus. My whole being was shaking and trembling because I realized that He didn't say, "David, I need you to stand on the authority of my word!" Instead, He said he needed a man and He left the choice up to me. The Almighty Son of God was looking for a man to do this.

And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none (Ezekiel 22:30).

I decided I would be this man, knowing He wouldn't have brought this to my attention if He didn't want me to respond. I was completely shaken in my whole being from His words. They went through me like liquid fire. From that experience I received my commission from the Lord: to be a man who would stand on the authority of His word. Then suddenly I woke up. I was still shaking. It was very early in the morning around 4:00 am.

I felt currents of electricity going through my whole being! My body was trembling with currents of liquid fire that went through me from my head down all the way to my feet. My whole heart cried out in response to Him when He shared the need and His desire for a man who would stand on the Authority of His word! I said, "Lord, I'll be faithful in doing it." At this point, the Lord revealed to me that this rebuke was going to be the prerequisite of the latter-rain glory that He wants to pour out on His Church.

David Taylor, My Trip to Heaven: Face to Face with Jesus (book) 6 Comments [6/13/2018 3:46:24 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 138030

B.C. couple loses child custody after stuffed lion purportedly transmitting the word of God acted as their lawyer

A B.C. couple whose religious views are too extreme even for churches and pastors and put them at odds with family, doctors, social workers and anyone else trying to help them with their daughter, have lost their battle for custody of her.

The unusual child custody trial featured the couple speaking in tongues to a stuffed animal they said transmitted the word of God directly to them and refusing legal assistance because Jesus Christ — through the stuffed lion — was their lawyer, witness and judge.

In November, when the girl was one, the Provincial Court of British Columbia formally declared she was in need of protection and placed her in provincial custody, a decision the parents appealed to the B.C. Supreme Court. The parents claimed the judge violated their Charter rights, discriminated against them as Christians and made procedural errors.


“It appears that, due to their strong religious beliefs, they are intolerant of those who do not espouse identical views. This includes other Christians,” Justice Diane MacDonald wrote in her ruling, released this week.

After the woman found she was pregnant, she told a social worker her husband sometimes choked her to make her stop crying, had once tied her hands and covered her mouth with tape, which scared her, and occasionally beat her, court heard.

She told the worker her husband grew up in a cult and believes sexual relations between children should be encouraged and that they “role-play” sins where she plays the victim and he plays the perpetrator, court heard.


After the birth of their daughter, the parents refused all medical tests and procedures for her, including a hearing test, blood test, eye drops and a vitamin K shot. The mother also said she was unwilling to have her vaccinated.

Because of concerns over family violence and mental health, the ministry monitored the family. The couple refused to have parental capacity assessments, despite a court order.

A month after the girl’s birth, she was removed from the home and the parents continued to have supervised access.

The mother applied to change her daughter’s name to Jesus JoyoftheLord and her own first name to Risen Lord Jesus, her middle name to Refinersfire and her last name to Christ (with a hyphenation including her real name.)

When their child custody case came to court, the couple refused legal aid.

They said they had legal help, however, which came in the formed of a stuffed lion. During trial, the couple spoke to the lion in non-discernible words, presented as “speaking in tongues,” and said that through the lion they heard directly from God.

They said Jesus Christ was their “lawyer, witness and judge.”

When they cross-examined witnesses, they told each witness that their lawyer Jesus was asking the questions through them.

In the end, the judge did not find them to be credible and ruled in favour of the ministry and placed the baby in continuing care. The parents appealed that decision, claiming it infringed on their religious freedoms “as Christian parents.”

Unnamed couple, Vancouver Sun 12 Comments [6/11/2018 4:00:59 PM]
Fundie Index: 11

Quote# 137987

(=Two qoutes by the same person on the same thread=)

1. You're pretty late to the conservation. Of course SSM isn't discussed - because the Bible does not need to address something that doesn't exist. What I mean to say of course - is that marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore, SSM is not even mentioned because there is no need of it. It is a myth (granted - a myth that many cultures recognize, even judicially). The sexual union between same gender couples is never a marriage according to God - not by what Scripture defines marriage as at least. It is sin.

2. Letting people know that God abhors homosexuality is loving - it's calling them to repentance and that is also loving. It would not be loving to be silent and let them perish in their sin, or even worse - to call evil, good and affirm them in their sin.
By calling her to repentance (even more now - how I hope that the Lord softens her heart since she now revealed herself as a lesbian), I am loving her as I love myself - I spend a lot of time with my own sin in view - asking that God would cleanse me from all my transgressions - knowing that I am forgiven in Christ, yet not taking pleasure in my sin (when I realize that I am committing sin).
Please note though how Vicky has hardened her heart. Only a few months ago, she was in favor of homosexual marriage. Now, after not repenting, here she is not only championing the sin of others, but lost in the same sin herself.
Lord have mercy.

Paul Abeyta, Disqus 4 Comments [6/9/2018 2:46:48 PM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 138005

Ugandan Pastor Martin Ssempa is back on the warpath against gay rights. In a new video, he states that, after a sabbatical, he has returned to the fray to combat “the gay agenda” once again.

In an attempt to elicit disgust from church members, Ssempa is notorious for showing gay pornography in churches and declaring that gay men “eat the poo poo.”

Now he claims that he and anti-gay allies such as Ethics Minister Simon Lokodo and U.S. pastor Scott Lively are victims of a gay conspiracy.

It’s time to push back against gay rights, he says, because former U.S. President Barack Obama is out of office. Ssempa declares outrageously that Obama made “promotion of homosexuality” his No. 1 priority, which Ssempa says hampered efforts to fight poverty and AIDS.

In fact, Ssempa and other homophobes have been hindering the fight against AIDS for years, limiting LGBT people’s access to health information and health care by opposing programs that serve the LGBT community.

Similarly, as gay-rights activist the Rev. Albert Ogle explained in 2012, Ssempa blocked efforts to curb the HIV epidemic among LGBT Ugandans because he and other anti-gay crusaders persuaded health-care professionals that gays are deviants who should be locked up. Ogle’s attempts to provide Ugandan doctors and nurses with training about the needs and realities of minority sexuality were unsuccessful.

Ssempa claims that he is a victim because a 2013 court case and a related petition sought to persuade the International Criminal Court to prosecute Ssempa for crimes against humanity. That appeal to the ICC also sought prosecution of anti-gay Ugandan legislator David Bahati and anti-gay Ugandan publisher Giles Muhame.

Pastor Martin Ssempa, Erasing 76 Crimes 5 Comments [6/10/2018 3:03:38 PM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Yossarian Lives

Quote# 137948

We, like so many fans, were super excited for Avengers: Infinity War. The movies have been building up to it for nearly ten years or so. I guarantee lots of people saw this movie and its influence is huge. I’m all for good fun, but the end of the movie disturbed me. The fact that so many young people saw the end of this movie disturbs me.

Okay, so when Thanos comes on the scene he assumes the role of a death god…trying to bring balance to the universe. He is pure evil and his mercy is not mercy at all. It didn’t take long for the movie to parallel Thanos to the Judeo-Christian God. Thanos calls himself “I Am”. This is the name the Hebrew God (my God) goes by in the story of Moses and Jesus identifies Himself as part of the God-head when he says “I AM” in the garden before His crucifixion. So I was pretty ticked that this evil Thanos would be compared at all to my loving God who chose to die for the WHOLE world. The character of Thanos wants to destroy all and would never sacrifice Himself to save anyone, especially those who hate him. (Edit: This is my opinion from the latest movie. I haven’t read the comics. Thanks for the comment, though, Dear One.)

Yes, I know it’s a movie and fiction…but opinions are often formed by fiction. Media shapes us whether we think it does or not. We are willingly brainwashed daily…. every time we stare at a screen, hear a song, or look at a book. Well, I chose to not think too hard about Thanos’ being compared to GOD and I got back to watching the movie. After all, the Avengers have a lot of crazy spiritual stuff (Hello, Dr. Strange!). I’m not sure how much of it people pick up on. The attack on Jesus is subtle. But then the end of the movie happened…and I was floored.

Thanos wins. He gets the 6 infinity stones (Rabbit Trail: 6 the number of man) and with one snap of his fingers half the world’s population flakes away and disappears in a horrible way. Planes fall out of the sky and cars crash. It felt like I was seeing a messed up version of Left Behind. SpiderMan cries as his body starts to flake away. It was traumatic. The first thing I thought was, “Oh no they didn’t! They did not just take a hit on the rapture!”

Thankfully the rapture will be a happy event for all who experience it (me included unless I die first…really hoping to be raptured instead). It will happen so fast and it won’t look like our bodies are disintegrating. Christians will happily meet Jesus in the air and be given new bodies in the twinkling of an eye. Our God will be saving us from the wrath to come…not taking His wrath out on us. The world will experience crazy things during the Tribulation that follows, but God has been warning the world about this for thousands of years. Sadly, Satan has done everything he can to blind the world to the truth. Avengers reminded me of how brainwashed people will be. They will believe lies like “aliens did it” or “it was some new weapon”. The good news is that everyone who wants to be raptured can if they believe in Jesus. There is no reason to be left behind but unbelief. God is merciful and He wants everyone to be saved. He won’t force you though. If you’d rather have a world without God, well, that’s coming…stay behind. It’s not worth holding on to.

Okay, back to the movie. Maybe you’re thinking, “Amber, you’re taking this too far. It’s just a coincidence.” Well, now I point you to several secular entertainment and news sites that also saw the “rapture” connection in Avengers. I have no doubt that when the rapture happens, this movie scene will pop up in everyone’s mind. Anyways, read how the likes of USA Today and even Forbes describe the Avengers last scene.

” a Rapture-like event that turns half of the galaxy’s population into dust. “1

“a side order of the Rapture“2

“half the universe appears to perish in clouds of ash like some twisted, somber rapture.” 3

“Which other superheroes were raptured?” 4

“… Thanos pretty much instigated the rapture. That means cars crashing and planes dropping out of the sky. The sheer amount of destruction, both physical and emotional, that would happen after half a population disappears is incalculable…” 5


Yes, Forbes…it will be “incalculable”. There’s a good reason the Rapture is called the Blessed Hope for believers. The world is going to be one crazy mess when we leave…even worse than before. We’re leaving just in time. You see, we’ve been in the way…in the way of the New World Order…in the way of complete immorality. The Church has held back the worst of the worst. Soon the light of Christ (which is us, the Church) will be taken out of this world and the darkness WILL be “incalculable”. The devastation of the Rapture is just the beginning…7 years of Tribulation come as soon as the Antichrist signs the peace treaty with Israel.

Christians don’t want to experience the Tribulation. No matter what you believe (pre-trib, post-trib, pre-wrath etc), be honest…you don’t really want to be here when everything goes down. Most who get saved during the Tribulation will be martyred…if they’re not killed in an apocalyptic event…earthquakes, plagues, and the such. The Antichrist will hunt down Tribulation Saints. People will starve if they don’t take his mark (the mark of the beast).

My point is….the Rapture IS merciful. Do not fear for those raptured. We will be happy. Fear for yourself if you are left behind (and I pray you’re not). The Rapture won’t look anything like the Avengers’ rapture (except maybe in the devastation after), and Jesus is nothing like Thanos. Those who are raptured are the beloved of Jesus, all who have believed in Him and called on His name. You can be among Jesus’ beloved, the Bride of Christ.

Amber Dover, amberdover.com 12 Comments [6/7/2018 1:21:08 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 137993

Exactly. Remove the religious element altogether and homosexuality is still an abomination under “natural law” alone. Biologically it makes no sense. Physically it makes no sense. It is, by definition, abnormal — an aberration that many people find naturally repugnant. No one has to be taught to be nauseated by the sight of two homos tongue-wrestling, anymore than anyone has to be taught to cringe at the smell of feces. The repulsion is innate.

IronJack, Free Republic 12 Comments [6/9/2018 2:51:25 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 138006

Not a single argument of the from the ones that are obviously brought by side of the state to the political justification of the ethnic settling politics has been examined as being actually justifying and convincing, which is something that should already be known if you read the second part. Politically conclusive are - aside from the lastly named argument of profane profit greed - only the above discuted ideological and strategical motives. All these motives have despite their partially substantial political differences one thing in common: The spiritual direction aims as its final consequence always against the Germans, their culture, their right to have their own country, the from them inhabited settlement area, their biological gene pool, their political playing space. The settling of other people nations in Germany is because of this always a machination for the same goal, to damage the natives one way or another and to cut their influence in their own country. Its because such a goal was set that the definition of "Umvolkung" was defined. What we experience in Germany for decades, is with that said in the end nothing but a classical, aggressively native aimed "Umvolkung" politics, even if the state actor is in this case not foreign, but their own. In the end it doesn't matter for the people whether or not the settling-political aggression originally came from what was originally a foreign country or the own. In the end the people of the nation are equally and powerlessly delivered on the side of the historical losers to the state settled colonists in what was once their own country.

Original German:
Nicht ein einziges der von staatlicher Seite üblicherweise vorgebrachten Argumente zur politischen Rechtfertigung der ethnischen Siedlungspolitik hat sich als tatsächlich begründet und überzeugend herausgestellt, wie sich bereits im zweiten Teil dieser Serie erkennen ließ. Politisch schlüssig sind – neben dem zuletzt genannten Argument profaner Profitgier – allein die oben diskutierten ideologischen und strategischen Motive. All diesen Motiven ist trotz ihrer teils erheblichen politischen Unterschiede eines gemeinsam: Die geistige Stoßrichtung richtet sich in letzter Konsequenz immer gegen die Deutschen, ihre Kultur, ihr Recht auf ein eigenes Land, den von ihnen bewohnten zusammenhängenden Siedlungsraum, ihre biologisches Gen-Pool, ihren machtpolitischen Spielraum. Die Ansiedlung anderer Völkerschaften in Deutschland ist daher grundsätzlich immer ein Mittel zum selben Zweck, den Einheimischen in der ein oder anderen Form zu schaden und ihren politischen Einfluss im eigenen Land zu beschneiden. Genau durch eine solche Zielsetzung wird der Begriff der Umvolkung definiert. Was wir in Deutschland seit Jahrzehnten erleben, ist somit tatsächlich nichts anderes als eine klassische, aggressiv gegen die einheimische Bevölkerung gerichtete Umvolkungspolitik, auch wenn der staatliche Akteur in diesem Fall kein fremder Staat ist, sondern der eigene. Im Ergebnis macht es für ein von Umvolkung betroffenes Volk keinen Unterschied, ob die siedlungspolitische Aggression ursprünglich von einem fremden Staat oder ihrem eigenen Staat ausging. Am Ende stehen die Menschen dieses Volkes gleichermaßen als politisch einflusslose Minderheit im ehemals eigenen Land, den staatlich angesiedelten Kolonisten machtlos ausgeliefert, auf der historischen Verliererseite.

C. Jahn, PI News 4 Comments [6/10/2018 3:05:03 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: hydrolythe

Quote# 126276

Dad raped teenage daughter to 'prove sex was better with men' after she told him she was gay

The 54-year-old reacted with "uncontrolled anger” by brutally attacking the 16-year-old who had confided in him that she was "struggling with her identity"

A twisted father raped his own teenage daughter in a bid to "show her" that sex with men was better after she told him she was gay.

The 54-year-old reacted with "uncontrolled anger” by brutally attacking the 16-year-old who had confided in him that she was "struggling with her identity".

The father, who cannot be named to protect the identities of his victims, also raped his other daughter during two decades of sexual abuse.

He has now been jailed for 21 years after being found guilty of three rapes during the 1980s and 90s.

Judge Andrew Lockhart QC told the brute: “The court heard from both of these two women. They have both been severely psychologically damaged by your behaviour.

“Listening to [one of the victim’s] evidence of her feeling of guilt at leaving her sister to face you was the most harrowing of evidence.”

The father had pleaded not guilty at Warwick Crown Court to nine charges of indecent assault, one of indecency with a child and three of rape.

He was convicted of all charges after a trial.

Unknown father, Mirror 37 Comments [4/13/2017 1:49:20 AM]
Fundie Index: 22
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 136329

The judge’s theatricals were supported by a weeping, ululating Greek Chorus of women that Nassar had molested. They’d spent four days sobbing their way through victim impact statements in the courtroom.

Once again for emphasis: Larry Nassar is a disgusting pervert, if we’re still allowed to say “pervert,” and I’d have sent him down for five to ten with a clear conscience. I just don’t agree that what he did was as sensationally horrible as the court, and my New York Post, were making it out to be.

I know I’m a geezer and out of touch, but in my generation, unless you were spectacularly ugly, you didn’t make it through childhood and adolescence without an occasional pervert coming on at you. It’s not an uncommon thing in the world, and I’m dubious about the claims of permanent mental distress.

That Greek chorus in the courtroom keening about their victimhood looked pretty healthy, when they removed their hankies from their eyes long enough for you to get a look at them.

But of course we are in a feminist moment, and keening about victimhood is what every red-blooded American girl is encouraged to do nowadays. I note that not only the judge but also the prosecuting attorneys were females; so was the judge in last month’s federal case.

Judge Aquilina of course did not bar males from the courtroom entirely, but you got the impression that she would have done so if she thought she could get away with it.

The judgette wrapped up her gloat-a-thon by jeering at Larry Nassar that, quote, “I’ve just signed your death warrant.” By that point I was mentally composing a petition to repeal the Nineteenth Amendment.

John Derbyshire, VDARE 18 Comments [1/29/2018 2:10:39 AM]
Fundie Index: 17

What Do You Mean, It's Not Heinous? Award

Quote# 137918

Folks, there is a horrible group called Human Rights Campaign (HRC), whose mission is to:

“We are fighting harder than ever before to defend the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people. Join us.”

SOURCE: https://www.hrc.org

The ungodly HRC group openly praise and promote the American Baptist Churches USA denomination for their support of sodomites!

“Gay Pride” is of the Devil. It is no different than “Adultery Pride” or “Drunkenness Pride” or “Bearing False Witness Against Thy Neighbour Pride!” On the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) website they shamefully sell T-shirts and ballcaps with the following horrible antichrist messages...

“United Against Hate”

“Make America LGBTQ Again”

“Louisianans For Equality”

“No Hate In My State”

“Make America Gay Again”

“Cheers Queers”

What demonic lying propaganda! Folks, these wicked people don't know what love is! They are mistaking sinful compromise for “love.” Satan is the author of confusion! Folks, the American Baptist Convention (now ABCUSA) supports this evil!!! What do you think God feels about this? I can tell you confidently that God HATES EVIL (Psalms 97:10). Isaiah 5:20, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

And to think, the American Baptist Convention supports this filthy wickedness!!!

The slogans that HRC are promoting are a pack of satanic lies. For example: “Make America LGBTQ Again” and “Make America Gay Again” are totally untrue, because America NEVER was a nation of fags and queers (using their own terminology). The slogan “No Hate In My State” is also a big lie, because obeying God is not “hate.” It is homosexual supporters who HATE CHRISTIANS with a passion, which is why they are selling and promoting this evil. They hate God!!! Proverbs 29:27, “An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked.” To the wicked person, a saint who hates sin is accused of being a hateful person; but God Himself hates sin. You cannot love God without hating sin, because sin separates us from God.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Savior 23 Comments [6/6/2018 1:04:42 PM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 137990

How about applying this crap to the indoctrination ,brainwashing of our kids through the media, schools etc.

How can helping someone who says they might be confused, or is saying they think they are a homo hurtful?

It is frigging obvious that in order to have a baby for the human species to carry on then you have to be attracted, or have sex with the opposite sex, not the same sex. Telling someone it is alright to like the same sex is hurtful to them.

manc, Free Republic 4 Comments [6/9/2018 2:49:41 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 137981

"Rod Serling":
The principal foe of old-school liberalism was that nebulous, capitalist entity known as The Man: government-slash-business-slash-Wall Street. Its ideology was the simple communism taught by its Soviet handlers.

Today's liberals, far less educated, have more foes than neurons: themselves, if they're white; traditional marriage; Christians; the USA and Europe; common sense and truth; race harmony; strong economy...Its profit chart is a red line zigzagging relentlessly in a downward direction.

The once closeted embarrassment of homosexuality is the new civil rights darling, lionized by TV and media as normal. Transgenderism was a secret vice; today it's forced on the kindergarten set. Debate was welcome; now it's a threat to be shut down at any cost, including violence, a tempest most dangerous for that liberal house of cards.

What went wrong? Simply put--Strong Delusion, as promised by the Book they dismiss as mere literature. Beatniks of old must see them as vulgar and mean-spirited, petty and vindictive, dull and predictable. They've even got rabid against their mentors of old, the Russians.

What awaits our leftist lemmings? Exactly what they crave; a globalist regime where fairness and virtue find no respite from the brutal enforcers of that coming conqueror, tasked with elimination of all who reject a certain three-digit number. But for those not afflicted with said Delusion, a second chance awaits--in The Twilight Zone.

Mick Williams, Disqus - Faith & Religion 6 Comments [6/9/2018 2:39:45 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 137569

On a recent visit to perform in New York City, Taylor Swift commented, “Everybody here was someone else before,” Swift sings, before giving a shout-out to the city’s many gay-friendly neighborhoods (“You can want who you want/ Boys and boys and girls and girls”). Whether experienced New Yorkers like it or not, this is what the city represents to the rest of the country... SODOM AND GOMORRAH!!!

Clearly, Taylor Swift has no regard for God's commandments, Who prohibits all forms of sexual immorality (Colossians 3:5-6), which definitely includes homosexuality, adultery and bestiality. But the Holy Bible also condemns the sinful passions (lusts) which lead unto sin and death. In Colossians 3:5 we read the words, “evil concupiscence,” which means, “lust for that which is forbidden.” Also, we read the words, “inordinate affection,” which means “desires beyond normal limits.” That is, any sex outside of a legally-binding marriage commitment is sinful. Lust for sex outside of a marriage commitment is sinful. “Lascivious” in the Bible means “feeling morbid sexual desire.” Lasciviousness is an unhealthy spiritual and mental state of one's heart, which precedes committing sexual immorality. My point here is that Taylor Swift's raunchy music videos SEXUALIZE teenagers, which inspires unholy sexual desires in them, compelling their soul and body to engage in premarital sex, with multiple partners, and forgo any type of proper courtship which leads to holy matrimony.

Americans are as naive fatted lambs being led to the slaughter!

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Precious 16 Comments [3/31/2018 3:04:01 PM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 137964

(=Another review for another homophobic fanfic of "The Loud House"=)

"They didn't choose this. They can't help it, they were born this way."

Simon Levay would beg to differ. Next time, please check your facts.

"Was the gay rights movement of the '60s for nothing?"

Pretty much. 'Gay rights' are a hoax. Not just Bible verses, but I've already given you people a list of things to look up yourselves to better understand the position that the author and I have taken: Christopher Doyle, ex-homosexuals in general, 4 myths about homosexuality debunked by natsumihanaki20 over on DeviantArt...I mean, you DO know how to use a search engine, right? Or a library?

*sigh* Michael Savage was right: Liberalism IS a mental illness.

Other than that, I'm going to end it right here. You detractors can debate this all you want, but the author has just as much right to share this story with the world as does anyone else. There are indeed a lot of grammar errors and plenty of poor sentence and paragraph structure, and maybe the Bible lessons DO seem rather overdone; "rubbed in our faces" and such. Fine, I get it. But all I'm saying is that if you don't like it, you can always find another story to read. Simple as that. I mean, nobody's FORCING you to read this one, correct?

You can't make us change our minds any more than we can make you change yours. Stalemate.

Thank you for understanding, and have a nice day. (walks away and gently closes the door behind)


Sorry about that, author. You might consider putting a warning notice at the beginning of one of the chapters. You could write something along the lines of: "This story/chapter contains strong anti-homosexuality sentiments (not to be confused with homophobia). If you don't like that, please don't read." Or in the main story description, if you can fit it in.

Mr. Noname, Fanfiction.net 10 Comments [6/7/2018 1:00:54 PM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 137901

Seeing a women poured into tight pants at the grocery store is just as tempting and dangerous as seeing pornography on the internet. Men are under attack. Many preachers recognize the dangers of pornography, but fail to see the danger of sensually unclothed women at the shopping mall or church. Sexual lust is caused by sight for men. Thus, it is extremely important for women to hide their breast cleavage, thighs and sexy shape. Many women laugh at what I say, who are the same women that fornicate, have abortions, divorce and then wonder why their life is so messed-up. It's not that hard to figure out! Even if women dress properly, men will always still struggle with lust. It's part of our human sin-nature. However, when women deliberately dress slutty, wear tight blouses, drawing attention to their body instead of their heart, it is wickedness in God's sight. The Lord will judge every woman in eternity according to how she dressed and behaved on earth. Do you really think God doesn't care about how you dress?

Indecency is in the shopping mall. Victoria's Secret is no longer a secret! Porn is on every magazine! Porn is in all the professional sporting events. The cheerleaders lift their legs, open their skirts, showing their crotches and thighs. God only knows all the women raped, little girls molested, the broken marriages and wives beaten, all because of sluts like Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders, Madonna, Julia Roberts, Sandra Bullock, Marilyn Monroe and all the other whores and devils on two legs. Jesus said in Matthew 12:36 that men will be held accountable for even their idle words. How much more shall God hold women accountable for intentionally causing men to lust and commit sin!!!

Pornography is coming into our homes through television, advertisements, movies, music videos and magazines. It's also coming through the phones in the form of filthy communications, so people can fill their ears and hearts with unholy thoughts and filthy words. People dial 1-900 numbers to talk dirty with some 300 pound pervert on the other end of the line. Sexting has become popular amongst teens, sending filthy text messages to each other. And now “selfies,” teens taking cellphone photos of themselves naked and sending them to friends, has become very popular. What do you think God thinks about this? You know what God thinks! Porn is in the newspapers. It's in the commercials. It's in business windows. It's everywhere!!! You can't name one thing that pornography hasn't gotten a hold of these days. America is filled with every vile abomination!!! Judgment day is coming for America and the wicked world!!!

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Savior 28 Comments [4/19/2018 8:42:08 PM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 137935


In 1520, Saint Martin Luther published his magnum opus entitled On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. His main theme was that the Papacy was Mystery Babylon which had taken the Church captive. St. Martin saw himself as a last days Nehemiah raised up to rebuild the spiritual Temple after the previous 1,000 years desolation.

That book caused consternation at the Vatican, and Saint Martin was ordered to disavow it . . . or face a fiery death . . . like the 3 Hebrew teenagers in King Nebuchadnezzar's fiery furnace (Daniel 3:11).

Even though he wrote a brilliant rebuttal to Sir Thomas More's The Defence of the Seven Sacraments, the Saint did not know that 450 years previously, Satan had established another Babylon . . . not on the Tiber . . . but on the THAMES!

The Bayeux Tapestry is on display at the Musée de la Tapisserie de Bayeux in Normandy.

It contains the only account of the most momentous event in European history since the conquest of Roma by Emperor Jesus Constantine in 313.

It is a miracle that the tapestry has survived at all. Millions of Britons have viewed and admired the tapestry, but failed to comprehend its hidden meaning. The person who designed the tapestry had a very thorough knowledge of the Latin Vulgate Version. The most likely culprit was Bishop Odo of Bayeux—half-brother of William the Conqueror.

The tapestry depicts the epic 1066 Battle of Hastings between King Harold of England and the invader William of Normandy. At stake was the very fate of the nation for centuries to come.

Patrick Scrivener , Reformation 6 Comments [6/7/2018 1:17:28 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Jacob Harrison

Quote# 137943

Rhesus Peanut Buttercup:
I wonder what sin you think a transgender person is guilty of, since they aren't even doing anything.

Amos Moses:
IDOLATRY ........ it is all plain out and out NARCISSISM .............

Rhesus Peanut Buttercup:
Your statement makes no sense, idolatry is worshipping an object and narcissism is self-love. A transgender believes themselves to be the opposite gender than what they are. So neither of the words you use can apply.

Amos Moses:
" idolatry is worshipping an object and narcissism is self-love"
they are not mutually exclusive ...... and the OBJECT is SELF ........ ummmmm ..... DUH .......

Rhesus Peanut Buttercup:
But not love of self. It’s identity.

Amos Moses:
NOPE ....... love of self is NARCISSISM ..... denial of self towards another is love ..... love is not self centered ...... homosexualism and transgenderism is about destructive self love ..... it is conceit ..... it is not self worth ...... it is NARCISSISM ......

Rhesus Peanut Buttercup:
You should really invest in a dictionary. I don’t believe you know what half the words you are using even mean.

Amos Moses:
you do not understand the BIBLICAL definition ... and this is a CHRISTIAN site ..... maybe YOU should read up ........

Rhesus Peanut Buttercup:
There is no such thing as a Biblical definition, there is only a definition. I would like you to tell me what homosexuality, which is simply the attraction to another person of the same sex, could possibly have to do with narcissism. It would be like me telling you that you don't actually love your wife, you actually only love yourself.

Amos Moses:
"There is no such thing as a Biblical definition"
there CERTAINLY is .... this is a christian forum ..... about topics of interest to CHRISTIANS ..... for CHRISTIANS to discuss ..... you are welcome to be here ..... BUT ..... YOU CAME HERE ..... we did not go looking for YOU ...... and if you want to participate ..... then the DEFINITIONS are ours ........ NOT YOURS .......... and if you do not like it ..... TOO BAD .......
"It would be like me telling you that you don't actually love your wife, you actually only love yourself."
and that happens ..... EVERYDAY ..... so what ..........

Amos Moses, Christian News Network 8 Comments [6/7/2018 1:18:54 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 137974

"the evidence is EMPIRICAL"

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Same goes for the use of ellipses, by the way.

"Take a number of homosexuals, both sexes, put the males on one island,
put the females on another island ........give them anything they want
or desire ..... deprive them of nothing ALLOW THEM TO EXPRESS THIER
DESIRE FOR ONE ANOTHER ..... unrestricted and outside of anyones
judgement ............ but they cannot leave and they cannot have the
opposite sex ...... come back in 60 years ...... nothing will be left
........ society DIES .........."
Heterosexuals of just one sex would not last longer either.
Also, I "love" the assumption here that the ONLY way to contribute to society is reproduction...

"Heterosexuals of just one sex would not last longer either."

Heteros .... DO NOT DESIRE THEIR OWN SEX ....... the object is to GIVE THEM THEIR DESIRES ..... and most homosexuals will tell you that the opposite is ABHORRENT to them .......

"Also, I "love" the assumption here that the ONLY way to contribute to society is reproduction..."

it is not an assumption ...... if you FAIL to make new members to replace the ones that die ..... THERE IS NO SOCIETY ............

1. Homosexuals do not want their own society without the other sex, they want to be an accepted part of society and be allowed to love who they love.

2. Way to miss the point I wrote IN ALL CAPS!
Of course reproduction needs to happen for society to survive. However, it should be self-evident that this is not all there is to society. Furthermore, humanity's population is very, very, very far from the point where a few people not reproducing would risk extinction for the species.
What about a couple who are childless (possible even without a choice on that matter due to infertility), but adopt an orphan and raise the child as if it was their own? Have they not contributed to society?

"they want to be an accepted part of society and be allowed to love who
they love."

it is not love ..... it is NARCISSISM ..... love does no harm to another ..... EVERYTHING the homosexual does harms themselves, their"partners", their families, and society in general ....... what they want is irrelevant ....... what they do is relevant ......... and what they want DESTROYS society .......

Amos Moses, Christian News Network 13 Comments [6/8/2018 6:40:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 137905

[Comment under "Pathetic Attempt! Do you not know we are GODS!?!?!?! YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE!!!"]

Note: RWDS means "Right-Wing Death Squad"

Shit like this makes me want to go full RWDS on these fucking pieces of human filth. The left claims to be the side of reasonable viewpoints and peace, but they sure are pretty god damn violent and irrational with all the fear mongering and vitriol.

Nothing has radicalized me more in my lifetime than seeing the left in its full, fascist glory.

They need to be dealt with.

A_FERTILE_YOUNG_BUCK, Reddit - r/The_Donald 19 Comments [6/6/2018 10:13:44 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: JeanP

Quote# 112249

Given the sniveling slovenly unabashed liberals running our Pubic Screwool systems these days, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if they espoused the idea of putting the names of dead felons shot by LEO’s instead of the names of Fallen Veterans, and the Cross? I’m sure they wouldn’t utter a peep if a pentagram or a crescent moon was used instead, and the US Flag? They’ll gloat, drool and grin when one is burned, spat on, or stepped on, but do the same to a “Foo-foo flag” (rainblow) and they’ll be screeching and bawling for you to be arrested and “reeducated” a la Nazi Germany, USSR, or North Korea.

A Proud Infidel, This Ain't Hell 22 Comments [8/26/2015 3:04:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 17
Submitted By: tipsyGnostalgic