Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In
1 2 3 4 5 7
Quote# 105374

[Cathy] Brennan puts her neck out and takes a lot of heat for being a vocal woman with an unpopular view that is held by many, many women. There is an obsession with Brennan in the pro-trans community, as though she invented the critique of gender and is the only person with the perspective she holds. This is not the case. As the trans community has demonstrated (http://feministninja.tumblr.com/post/48756677256/what-trans-activists-regularly-say-to-radfems) time and again (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPayTWlAQ0k), with Cathy being a prime example among many, expression of an unpopular opinion (within patriarchy, this is an opinion not sanctioned by males, including transwomen) makes a woman a target for aggression and abuse. The trans community has demonstrated this by threatening to kill, dismember, beat, and rape Cathy and countless other women who have spoken out against trans politics. I haven’t seen a single death or rape threat, ever, from a radical feminist to a pro-trans individual, and I have looked for them, while those coming from pro-trans people are literally innumerable to count. The accusations that we are hateful are projections. Those who threaten to rape and kill people are hateful (and probably male), not those who disagree with someone’s philosophy on life. As someone who knows Cathy a whole heck of a lot better than the writer of this original post, I attest that your “theory one” is incorrect. Her aim is to bring attention to the issue at hand. That’s a primary goal of activism. It’s not all about Cathy. The trans community has made it all about Cathy to deflect attention away from the content of what she is actually saying, a typical move made in patriarchal society when a woman speaks up at a volume unbecoming of “ladies.”

When Women Were Warriors, When Women Were Warriors 16 Comments [12/19/2014 4:40:16 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: What?
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 105368

["However, a cat is a natural carnivore"]

This line of argumentation is known as the "appeal to nature". It basically assumes that natural=good (and sometimes that unnatural=bad/inferior). Unfortunately, this argument cannot be applied consistently because there are many natural things which are bad (starvation, disease, etc).

So basically, as a rational argument anything that starts with "this is okay because it's natural" is pretty much a non-starter.

["and needs to eat meat."]

That's certainly debatable. There are nutritionally complete vegan cat foods as well as steps you can take to identify and avoid problems as you transition. Also, in the interests of harm reduction it's not necessarily a black and white thing. Even if you could substitute 25% of your meat-based cat for for an alternative that doesn't require other animals to suffer and be killed that would be an improvement over doing nothing.

["As a human, I can morally decide not to eat animal products."]

Don't you have a responsibility for your cat's actions and your own actions in the course of taking care of the cat?

["A lot of times I talk about this, I get people telling me I am not a "real" vegan because I feed my cat meat."]

Just to be clear, I am not saying that. Although, I would argue that it's not really consistent with "a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose" to reject out of hand an alternative that can reduce cruelty and exploitation.

Vulpyne, Reddit: /r/Vegan/ 19 Comments [12/19/2014 4:37:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 105367

If you feed your cat a vegan diet it may not be optimal and your cat may suffer and/or die as a result. If you feed your cat a non-vegan diet we know that many animals will be killed after living lives of terrible misery in order to be turned into cat food.

The worst case vegan cat scenario causes less harm to animals than the best case non-vegan scenario. If you are concerned about causing the least harm to animals then feeding your cat a vegan diet is the right choice.

lnfinity, Reddit: /r/Vegan/ 23 Comments [12/19/2014 4:37:38 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 105359

Who would Jesus waterboard?

Fischer argued on his radio program today that the Bible makes certain things permissible during times of war that would not be permissible during times of peace, adding that Jesus is a "warrior" who would probably approve of torture. "Christianity is not a pacifist religion," Fischer said. "The God that we serve is described in Exodus 15 as a 'man of war.' Now we often think of gentle Jesus, meek and mild, but let's not forget, according to Romans 19:13, when he comes back ... he will be riding a white horse and wearing his own robe, dipped in blood. That is a robe that is worn by a warrior who is inflicting casualties on the foe. So this is gentle Jesus, meek and mild; when we comes back, his robe is going to be dipped in blood because he too is a warrior":


Bryan Fischer, right wing watch 19 Comments [12/19/2014 4:19:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Mister Spak
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 105357

Women trying to get an abortion in Albury, New South Wales, have ended up self harming or even attempting suicide because of harassment from protesters outside the only clinic offering the procedure in the area, health workers have said.


A social worker, who did not want to be named because she has been frequently targeted by protesters, said women had been intimidated about attending the clinic for too long.

“Many women end up travelling to Melbourne or Sydney for the procedure because they can’t face the protesters,” she told Guardian Australia.

“Some teenage girls do self harm because they don’t feel safe going to the clinic here, or they’re worried they will be identified by the protesters and the whole city will know about it.

“They don’t have the resources to go to Melbourne or Sydney, their parents may not know, and they are so stressed and traumatised, they attempt suicide.”


One woman described how she panicked as the protesters began to approach. “I couldn’t take a step forward,” the woman, who did not want to be identified, said.

“I panicked very badly; my anxiety was so heightened I hyperventilated. I was so distressed knowing they were going to race at me.”

She said the group surrounded her and blocked her entrance to the clinic, telling her she was making the wrong decision and holding up graphic images of dead babies.

“I finally responded that I had no choice, that my foetus was likely both deformed and brain damaged, and that if I continued with the pregnancy that I’d likely leave four children motherless,” she said. “I was told that I should choose death. This ... made me hysterical.”


[W]omen were being filmed by protesters and that their names were being recorded, shattering their privacy.


A study conducted by a fertility clinic in East Melbourne found 78% of their patients were more traumatised by anti-abortion protesters than getting a termination.

Anna von Marburg, the co-ordinator for Albury Helpers of God’s Precious Infants, did not directly answer questions from Guardian Australia about claims women were being driven to self harm or being psychologically traumatised.

But she said the group had displayed “exemplary behaviour and incredible courage in the face of very aggressive tactics by abortion advocates”.

“The abortion clinic, abortion activists, police and pedestrians have hundreds of hours of footage of the [group] and have never been able to show evidence of any harassment, blocking, or violence,” she said.

She also dismissed Mourik’s assessment that staff were stressed as a result of the protests.

“Society should feel stress and anxiety that doctors and nurses are using surgical means to solve a largely psychosocial problem,” Von Marburg, who also runs the local Catholic bookstore, said.

“We believe that we can offer a solution that does not involve the destruction of human life.”

When asked why her group could not compromise and carry out protests down the street from the clinic, Von Marburg replied: “Why doesn’t Occupy Wall Street move to Kansas?”

Helpers of God's Precious Infants, The Guardian 13 Comments [12/19/2014 4:18:39 AM]
Fundie Index: 11
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 105356

I am more than a presumably rational individual, I am a champion of atheism who gave arguments in favor of atheism so convincing that three of my friends gave up their religious belief due to my persuasive reasoning powers, and my father stopped going to church.

Upon concluding through a torturous and decades-long and remorseless process of logic that all my fellow atheists were horribly comically wrong about every basic point of philosophy, ethics and logic, and my hated enemies the Christians were right, I wondered how this could be. The data did not match the model.

Being a philosopher and not a poseur, I put the matter to an empirical test.

For the first time in my life, I prayed, and said. “Dear God. There is no logical way you could possibly exist, and even if you appeared before me in the flesh, I would call it an hallucination. So I can think of no possible way, no matter what the evidence and no matter how clear it was, that you could prove your existence to me. But the Christians claim you are benevolent, and that my failure to believe in you inevitably will damn me. If, as they claim, you care whether or not I am damned, and if, as they claim, you are all wise and all powerful, you can prove to me that you exist even though I am confident such a thing is logically impossible. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation in this matter, John C. Wright.” — and then my mind was at rest. I had done all I needed to do honestly to maintain my stature as someone, not who claimed to be logical, objective and openminded, but who was logical, objective, and openminded.

Three days later, with no warning, I had a heart attack, and was lying on the floor, screaming and dying.

-Then I was saved from certain death by faith-healing, after which–

-I felt the Holy Spirit enter my body, after which–

[description of ecstatic visions and personal encounter with Jesus edited for space]

I was converted.

So I was prepared to say adieu to logic and reason and just take things on faith, when I then found out that the only people who think you have to say adieu to logic and reason in order to take things on faith are crackpots both Christian and atheistic.

Every non-crackpot thinks faith is that on which you rely when unreasonable fears tempt you to disbelieve that to which your reason has consented. If your father says you can dive off the high dive with no risk of death, and he has never lied in the past, and your reason tells you to trust him, it is rational to take his word on faith and jump, and it is irrational to let your eyes overestimate the danger poised by the height.

I then discovered that the Christian world view makes sense of much that the atheistic or agnostic worldview cannot make sense of, and even on its own philosophical terms, is a more robust explanation of the cosmos and man’s place in it, answering many questions successfully that atheists both claim cannot be answered, and then, without admitting it, act in their lives as if the question were answered, such as how to account for the rational faculties of man, the universality of moral principles, the order of the cosmos, how best to live, etc.

Turning to my atheist friends, I then discovered none of them, not one, could give me even so reasonable an argument as I was expert in giving in favor of atheism.

They reasoned as follows: “God cannot possibly exist. Therefore any evidence that you encountered that God exists must be hallucination, mis-perception, faulty memory, self-deception, coincidence, or anything else no matter how farfetched and absurd. Since any evidence that you encountered that God exists must be hallucination, mis-perception, faulty memory, self-deception, coincidence, or anything else no matter how farfetched and absurd, therefore none of your evidence proves God exists.”

I found their perfect, childlike faith touching.

No matter what they saw, no matter what they heard, no matter how the world was against them, they would go to the lions rather than look at the evidence, lest their faith in their faithlessness be shaken.

John C. Wright, John C. Wright's Journal 57 Comments [12/18/2014 4:42:41 AM]
Fundie Index: 20
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 105355

governmental authorities should stop excessively taxing their citizens to fund programs that God has not authorized. It is a sign of apostasy when a government takes more in taxes than God has us tithe (e.g. 10%)

Jason Lisle, Jason Lisle's blog 40 Comments [12/18/2014 4:22:52 AM]
Fundie Index: 17
Submitted By: Tony
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 105340

The Islamic terrorist group, the Taliban, which claimed responsibility for shooting 14-year-old Malala Yousafzai in the head said in a statement recently released that they did not shoot her because she wanted education for girls and women, but because "of her pioneer role in preaching secularism and so called enlightened moderation."
To prove that their vicious ungodly act was in agreement with Islam, they used the story from the Quran found at Surah 18:74-81. This repulsive and foolish story is of the Islamic hero and "righteous servant of God," Khidr. As this nonsensical story goes, Khidr and Moses were traveling and encountered a young boy. Khidr murdered the innocent boy. He explained the reason for murdering him was because the boy had parents who were "believers" and the boy could possibly cause trouble for them when he got older. (This is actually in the "holy" scriptures of Islam! People actually believe and accept this tripe as being the word of God – very sad and dangerous.) The Taliban statement stated, "If anyone argues about her (Malala's) young age, then the story of Hazrat Khizar in the Quran (states that) while traveling with Prophet Musa (AS), (he) killed a child. Arguing about the reason of his killing, he said that the parents of this child were pious and in the future he (the child) would cause a bad name for them." (This is the same "revealed" religious line of thinking that was a key motivator for the Christian mom from Texas, Andrea Yates, who murdered her five children to save them from getting possessed by Satan.) [pullquote]Top Image Caption: The hero for enlightenment Malala Yousafzai after surgery to remove a bullet from her head after she was shot by the Taliban for bringing enlightenment to Pakistan.[/pullquote]
The Taliban statement also said that they do not believe in attacking women but that Islamic Shariah law demands that Malala be killed for her actions of trying to bring enlightenment to Pakistan. This part of their statement made clear that, "whom so ever leads a campaign against Islam and Shariah is ordered to be killed by Shariah."
What do you think would happen if these sincere Muslims who make-up the rank and file of the Taliban were educated to the fact that yes, God is great, but that also the greatest gift God has given us, other than life itself, is reason and that if we do not value and use our God-given reason in all aspects of our lives we are turning our backs to God? Personally, I strongly believe that the majority of them would at the very least start to question Islam and many of them would leave Islam behind for Deism. This holds true with Christians, Jews, Hindus and everyone who is currently in the rank and file of a "revealed"/hearsay unreasonable religion.

(no name given), God Discussion 21 Comments [12/18/2014 4:14:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 105338

Chief Tango sends us a link to the Washington Post which reports that Deborah Lee James, the Secretary of the Air Force, thinks shes ready to lift the ban on transgendered airmen;

“From my point of view, anyone who is capable of accomplishing the job should be able to serve,” James told USA Today’s Susan Page.

It’s a crying-ass shame that she doesn’t feel the same way about the A-10 Thunderbolt.

The Williams Institute, a think tank that studies the gay community, estimates that there are 15,500 transgender members of the military. Over the past two years, advocates say about two dozen people have been dismissed for being transgender. At the same time, many military members say they have noticed a greater openness within their ranks, with some transgender people serving with the knowledge of their peers, superiors and doctors.

Yep, at a time when the Defense Department is cut to the bone, let’s add some unforeseen expenses that it will cost pandering to yet another special group of Americans. But, as with the release of the “torture report” this week, you know this is a done deal before the elections in 2016 to buy some more votes. Since the beginning of this administration, despite the fact that the Department of Defense should be focused on fighting the myriad wars with which they are faced, the objective has been to destroy the only governmental institution that the American people could always count upon. Brick-by-brick.

Jonn Lilyea, This Ain't Hell 21 Comments [12/18/2014 4:12:22 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: tipsyGnostalgic
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 105334

A number of people have asked for my thoughts on Spurgeon's, "I do not know why ridicule is to be given up to Satan as a weapon to be used against us, and not to be employed as a weapon against him."

Those who have studied Spurgeon's amazing sermons will know that he often used sanctified humor and sarcasm to drive home powerful truths.

His suggestion that ridicule be used "against him" is probably used in the same way someone might ask, "Why should the devil have all the good music?" It is a general reference to the sinful world...those scripture says are blinded by the god of this world and are taken captive to do his will.

For example, I believe that atheism is "ridiculous" in the truest sense of the word. It should be ridiculed. This is because the belief that "there is no evidence for a god" is indeed intellectual suicide, a deliberate and willful ignorance of God-given common sense.

To call atheism "intellectual" (when the Bible calls the professing atheist nothing but a "fool") or to refer to Darwinian evolution as "scientific," is to heap fuel on their smoldering fires of conceit.

It is like saying a man is intelligent, who puts his precious life in jeopardy by injecting an illicit drug into his bloodstream. He is a fool of the worst kind, and you would do him a favor by saying such to his unthinking face. That may bring him to his senses.

Ray Comfort, Facebook 45 Comments [12/18/2014 4:09:29 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Chris
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 105333

While many American Jews have been big backers of public schools, our current system discriminates against traditionally religious Americans through what I call "the frum tax." (Frum is Yiddish for observant.)

Here's how the frum tax works: If you're secular and want to educate your children with your own values, it's free. But if you're frum, it costs tens of thousands of dollars to do the same thing. That's discrimination.


And no, the public schools are not "values-neutral." Public schools take strong stances on issues about which Americans differ. A version of American history built around the themes of race, class, and gender is not "neutral." There are many ways to teach our nation's history, such as focusing on the growth of capitalism, or on the contributions of great men. Jews from Orthodox sects that believe the Earth is less than 6,000 years old don't want to pay both for (public) schools that reject that view - and for (religious) schools that support it.

It's not the government's business to decide which historiographical or cosmological ideas are correct - and to confiscate money from citizens who have the "wrong" views in order to promulgate the "right" ones.


Three years ago, the school district of Ramapo, New York, elected a school board with a Hasidic majority. Ramapo includes cities such as Monsey and New Square that are heavily populated by Orthodox Jews. Since the state's educational structure massively discriminates against such voters - taking their money while barely helping their children's education - the board began to make cuts to security staff, sports teams, AP classes, and more.

The school board has been attacked for its "selfishness" and lack of community-mindedness. But if secular students in the district are now being treated unfairly, the frum majority living there has suffered too - and for a much longer time. Good for the Orthodox voters in the area for upholding America's founding principles of "No taxation without representation."

I hope frum people and their equivalents in other faiths will start following the Ramapo model. Join me in voting against any increased taxes for public schools, and in electing school board members who support spending only for the bare minimum (math, science, language arts, and social studies) - until the system stops discriminating against us. And since the idea of a "neutral" public school is a myth, we should pressure elected officials to choose textbooks spreading our beliefs, not those of our ideological opponents.

David Benkof, The Times of Israel 24 Comments [12/18/2014 4:08:57 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 105332

[This is part of a response to Rabbi Gil Steinlauf, senior rabbi of the largest Conservative synagogue in DC, who came out as gay and divorced his wife.]

Steps like yours no doubt feel like the right thing to do for gay men in loveless marriages. But you’re not just any gay man. You’re one of the most important Jewish leaders in your city. Part of your job is to help model a loving Jewish family.

Leave aside homosexuality. What does your announcement say to the many men in your synagogue who are more sexually attracted to younger women than to their wives? I doubt you’d approve of a congregant breaking up his family to chase after his 28-year-old secretary.

Oh, but you say being attracted to men is “who you are.” Well, for a lot of heterosexual males, being attracted to younger women is “who they are” too, but we don’t give them dispensation to seek – casualties be damned – self-actualization.

I’m not telling you this as an Orthodox Jew to a Conservative one – or as a celibate gay man to one who wants to explore same-sex relationships. I speak as a coreligionist who is concerned about the impact your decision will inevitably have on the people around you.

Yes, you came out yesterday. That doesn’t mean you can’t “go back in” today. If you don’t, I recommend that Adas Israel start looking for a new senior rabbi.

David Benkof, The Times of Israel 21 Comments [12/18/2014 4:08:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 105327

this week, while he awaited his fate at his crimes against humanity trial, Lively told Trunews that homosexuality should be considered “more offensive” than mass killings, because gay people caused the Great Flood that wiped out the human race.

“Homosexuality is not just another sin,” he said according to Right Wing Watch, “it is the sin that defines rebellion against God, the outer edge of rebellion against God and it is the harbinger of God’s wrath, that’s why the Scripture gives the warning, ‘as in the days of Noah.’”

Scott Lively, Addicting Info 52 Comments [12/17/2014 4:37:19 AM]
Fundie Index: 27
Submitted By: Skybison
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 105324

What “Americans” or “New Yorkers” are left are truly disappearing persons, persons who have lost their eyes. I see no glimmer of life in their eyes.

They are walking zombies whose souls are an empty shell of what once possessed a “Christian” spark. I’m talking about some vestige of the LIFE OF CHRIST either carried in the recesses of a person’s spirit or at least in the blood of inherited Christian genes.

It’s all gone now. I’m a novelty, a spectacle, and nothing more than a figure for a few snap shots.

What does remain in my Street Evangelism and endures is the image of the demon-annihilating Cross I hold high that crushes the adversaries of Christ: Jews who run our media, our academia, our public schools, our cultural discourse.

I’ll die the death of Samson if I can bring a few thousand of them down with me.

Brother Nathanael Kapner, Real Jew News 38 Comments [12/17/2014 4:36:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 23
Submitted By: Wykked Wytch
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 105320

James Dobson recently sat down with Billy Hallowell, the Faith and culture editor at Glenn Beck's "The Blaze" website, to discuss Dobson's most recent book, "Your Legacy: The Greatest Gift."

During the discussion, Hallowell asked Dobson about the role that Christianity should play in society today, to which Dobson responded by warning that if the definition of marriage is changed, it will spell doom for our entire society.

"When you start to weaken" the institution of marriage and the family, Dobson warned, "it influences the entire culture and, in fact, the entire superstructure of culture can come crashing down. That's happened in Rome, it happened in Greece, it's happened throughout history and I don't think that America can survive in the form we have known ... if we allow the family to disintegrate. And that is, in fact, what's happening"

James Dobson, Right Wing Watch 38 Comments [12/17/2014 4:33:02 AM]
Fundie Index: 14
Submitted By: Scolipendra
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 105319

I am amazed by the number of liberals who understand how the natural environment is interconnected and that all events have innumerable repercussions, most of them impossible to predict, and who appear completely unable to understand that the same principles apply to the social environment. If the social environment is radically altered, as it will be with the acceptance of the idea that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, widespread and fundamental changes with unpredictable repercussions will follow, yet so many rush heedlessly ahead. As with emitting CO2 in the natural environment, often the act that will radically alter the environment appears harmless at first glance. But unlike the situation with CO2, no one in academia, Hollywood, or mainstream journalism will alert the public of the dangers, lest they be blackballed. 

Since humans evolved in small groups, the construction of large, self-sustaining societies that provided well for the welfare of the members has been difficult and has quite often led to failure. Any large society we construct will likely be quite fragile, like a house of cards. The adoption of same-sex marriage throughout a society would be akin to simultaneously pulling out a great many cards in this fragile structure. 
One of the key elements in this fragile structure is the duty to protect or care for other members of the society. This obligation originates with the duty that all men have had historically to protect all women in the society and the corresponding duty of women to nurture all men. This has always made men feel obligated to and connected to all the women in the society and the women to the men. Reducing traditional gender roles has eroded the strength of this feeling of duty, but it can still persist as long as men feel an attraction to women and women to men. However, with equating homosexuality with heterosexuality, the universality of opposite sex attraction is eliminated, this duty vanishes, and the society is atomized. 

Liberals often claim that preferences for gender roles and heterosexuality are socially constructed, when it appears clear that biological differences developed from millions of years of evolution across the great majority of species explain the gender roles and the predominance of heterosexuality, while the beliefs that the genders are the same and that homosexuality is the equal of heterosexuality are completely socially constructed, in a somewhat Orwellian fashion. This Orwellian crusade resembles the efforts of alchemists of a bygone era who tried to alter what they did not understand. These modern crusaders will likely be about as successful as alchemists, but with far more tragic consequences. This crusade also brings to mind Mao’s Cultural Revolution, where people were deemed to be equal in ability and suitability to tasks regardless of their actual situation, and retribution was swift toward anyone who questioned this.

Given that lesbianism is rising rapidly among the lower socioeconomic classes, it’s probable that life will soon become hellish for most non-elite men, who will be lonely and lost, and that the middle class will disappear among a rising tide of violence, crime, poverty, and homelessness. This will terminate the social contract for young men, as they will no longer be assured of love, marriage, and children even if they work hard and follow all the rules, and many of them are likely to feel isolated and become alienated. I wouldn’t be surprised if a great many become antisocial and even violent, and I suspect that more than a few will go on shooting sprees. 

Political/legal systems are mostly arbitrary, while the laws of nature are not, implying that a political system delegitimizes itself, not nature, when it arbitrarily imposes an unhealthy and unnatural form of equality.

John, Yahoo News 35 Comments [12/17/2014 4:32:46 AM]
Fundie Index: 12
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 105318

Do not see this movie. Like Harry Potter it is meant to appeal to kids and will only lead them astray using clever marketing techniques and product tie-ins. Furthermore, I find it unhealthy for our kids to go on thinking God created other planets and that they are alien robots inhabiting them. Once your kids see this movie they are going to want to play with Transformer toys, Legos, and all other sorts of toys that enable them to build robots like they saw in the movie. They will fantasize about other worlds that are not in the Biblical account of creation and believe that robots are created with life in the same way God made man. Our youth cannot help but be corrupted by such robot fantasies and it encourages them to grow up worshipping manmade technologies like robots. Obviously this has clear implications for other man-made creations, like stem cell research. We should not mess with Creation or with the story of it. If you want your kids to worship robotic life then take them to this movie. If you want them to know that God made man on the sixth day and stopped there—he didn’t make another planet filled with evil robots—then avoid this movie at all costs. Don’t be 'Decepticon'-ed by this movie.

Jonathan, age 31, christian answers 47 Comments [12/17/2014 4:30:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 19
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 105314

There were many reasons why BJU seemed to fail its student victims so thoroughly, but the problem seemed to start with the state of counseling at the school, which wasn’t just limited to a student mental health center, but was an active part of daily life. Residence halls were overseen by “Dorm Counselors” who served as a first line of both help and discipline for students. Students who broke one of BJU’s long list of possible infractions were assigned weekly counseling sessions as punishment. And BJU’s ultimate disciplinary enforcer, longtime Dean of Students Jim Berg, was also active in both counseling individual students and heading up BJU’s academic counseling program.

But what BJU called counseling wasn’t exactly based on psychology’s best practices; instead the school relied on a sort of psychology-alternative known as biblical counseling, common in fundamentalist circles, which argues the Bible is sufficient treatment for almost all mental and emotional problems—and that the root of most people’s problems is sin. To become a biblical counselor didn’t require degrees or experience in psychology or training, but only a strong grounding in the Bible. Indeed, Berg’s only degrees were in Bible studies and theology, and his knowledge of counseling victims of sex abuse came from reading a few books and attending one conference—training he acknowledged to GRACE was “paltry among the research” that is available.

Unsurprisingly, the pattern of treatment that victims at Bob Jones experienced was poorly suited to their needs. When Berg was told of students who alleged abuse or rape, he usually met with them for only one to three sessions, and bragged to a colleague that “in five minutes I can tell you what is wrong with somebody,” and provide them with the proper sheet of scripture verses, “and say go study this and you will be all right.”

Berg often began to immediately ask them probing, accusative questions about their own “moral life”: whether they had been drinking or using drugs when assaulted, whether they were using them at present, whether they watched pornography or indulged in sexual fantasies—and, for women, whether they had experienced pleasure while being raped. One alleged victim says that when she told Berg about being raped by a coworker, he told her “there is a sin that happens behind every other sin,” and they had to figure out what hers was. Though Berg told GRACE he didn't recall this, in a training video he made that GRACE reviewed, he explains that he asks alleged victims these uncomfortable questions at the beginning of their counseling because “I have to find out where there is guilt that they have to deal with.”

While Berg suggested this was merely to separate victims’ potential guilt about related issues—if, say, they had been raped after they lied to their parents about where they were going that night—and not to make them feel they were to blame, that’s not necessarily the message those he counseled heard. As one rape victim who spoke to Berg explained to me last spring, “I already had a plate full of shame when I walked into Dr. Berg’s office, and he put more shame on that, more than I could bear.”

Jim Berg, The American Prospect 22 Comments [12/17/2014 4:29:05 AM]
Fundie Index: 15
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 105312

Faith and Science

Faith and logic are essential ingredients of real science and an informed understanding the world.

Faith, a Christian concept, accepts truth without requiring visible proof.

Logic guides the faculty of human reason to determine the truth. However, liberal logic may appear logical, but is actually nonsensical.

Science is based on observation in determining the truth. However, in recent years, science has become increasingly atheistic,[1] rejecting God and his works in explanations of the world and all of human experience. Instead readily embracing pseudo or junk science such as evolution, relativity, global warming and much of cosmology and geology based on a time frame which predates creation. Consequently the rigid logic of creation science is gaining in importance, enabling intelligent people to distinguish real science from atheistic secular junk science.

Andy Schlafly, Conservapedia 36 Comments [12/17/2014 4:23:12 AM]
Fundie Index: 15
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 105310

If I were an atheist, and wanted to land a right hook on the chin of Christianity, I would aim first at its disunity. If one took serious inventory of the differences between Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Reformists, Pentecostals and the endless myriad of non-denominational churches (some estimate such churches to be numbered in the 10,000 range worldwide) one would find more disagreement in thought and practice than in nearly any other “ism” on the planet (granted, its “Christianity” and not “Christianism,” but you get the point).

One will find that the average Christian who engages in debates with atheists will often lack concern for such things. Those on the outside can’t help but see the overwhelming disunity among Christians; but often, those on the inside never see it, or they see it but simply don’t care. Regardless, it is a serious problem. The early Christian apologists hung their hats on the fact that there was one unified Church; for Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch, Church unity was the ultimate apologetic trump card for Christianity among the pagan religions of the day. Today the situation is exactly reverse, Church disunity is the ultimate trump card for atheists against the faith.

Very simply put, Christ promised that He would build His Church and the gates of hell would never prevail against it. Christ also said, “A house divided cannot stand.” Popular modern day Christianity is the epitome of a house divided.

Many in the various Protestant faiths would openly and proudly proclaim that the apostolic faith ceased from the earth soon after the death of the Apostles and was miraculously revived when their particular establishment was created. For example, the Pentecostal movement could not be more proud of the fact that authentic, Spirit-filled Christianity was revived in a tiny mission on Azusa Street in Los Angeles at the turn of the 20th century. In other words, the gates of hell had apparently prevailed against Christ’s Church for nearly 1800 years. And the irony of ironies is that this authentic movement of the Holy Spirit—the same Spirit which united the Church at Pentecost as recorded in the book of Acts—resulted in literally 1000’s of schismatic splits within its first hundred years.

But the same could be said for Protestantism in general. According to the Protestant worldview, the early Roman Catholic Church was a fraudulent Church that had been corrupting the faith for who knows how long (the precise period in which the Church had been corrupted is a matter of opinion depending on which Protestant you happen to be talking to). The true faith was finally restored by Martin Luther and the Reformers in the 16th century, which makes the gates of hell victor over the Church for, potentially, more than a thousand years. Remarkable!

If I were an atheist there would be no need for me to attack Christianity head on with topics such as evolution, or what have you. Christianity has done a fine job of attacking itself for generations. I would feel under qualified to attack the faith when it had so many internal experts attacking it for me. My job would rest in simply reminding Christians of their schismatic track record in the West for the last 500 years and counting. If they cannot agree with each other, why should society at large agree with any of them on anything?

So, why am I still a Christian?

Indeed, if anyone should be convinced that Christianity is a sham it should be someone who is writing an article to give atheists tips for debating Christians. In truth, a few years ago I was on the edge in my relationship with modern, popular Christianity. I was ready to declare the whole thing a fraud. The fact that there was not a Church, in the sense described in Scripture and in the Nicene Creed, present in the world (or at least in my little world) was enough to finally push me to the brink after almost 20 years of participating in the independent, Evangelical movement. Then, during my studies in a private Evangelical seminary, I found the Church that was there and had been there since the day of Pentecost right in front of my nose. After some time of inquiry and prayerful soul searching, my wife and I were baptized into the Orthodox Church on Easter of 2010.

Someone once said that if counterfeit coins are discovered in circulation, it does not follow that authentic coins do not exist. The same is true with the myriad of churches within Christianity. Their incredible disunity is not, for me, a sign that the whole thing is a gigantic parlor trick played on society for two millennium. If I went shopping and while unpacking my groceries I discovered orange peels in every bag I would not resolve that because I did not find a full orange that an orange did not exist. It would be just the opposite. The abundance of evidence that an orange did exist would be found in the fact that it’s peels were everywhere. The true Church does exist, and the evidence is contained in the fact that there are so many copycats. But I digress.

I guess what I’m saying is, this argument will work on “almost” all Christians.

Good luck, and thanks for reading.

Eric Hyde, Eric hyde's Blog 29 Comments [12/17/2014 4:22:58 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 105308

Science is at war with religion. The conflict can be traced back to the Dark Ages, a period in which the church vigorously asserted dogma and persecuted anyone who questioned its authority, including scientific pioneers such as Galileo, Copernicus, and Bruno. Fortunately the Enlightenment came along in the eighteenth century and validated methods of acquiring knowledge through evidence and testing. These methods freed scientists to pursue truth without fear of recrimination from the church. Thus the scientific revolution was born. Yet the war between religion and science continues to this day.

If you believe this rendition of history, there’s a good chance you’ve been reading a public school textbook or the New Atheists. The idea that science and religion are at odds is a popular myth in our culture, perpetuated by news headlines like “God vs. Science” in Time magazine. Of the perceived conflict, Christopher Hitchens writes, “All attempts to reconcile faith with science and reason are consigned to failure and ridicule.” Richard Dawkins writes, “I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise… It subverts science and saps the intellect.”

Although it is widely believed that science and Christianity are at odds, the opposite is actually true. There is no inherent conflict between Christianity and science. We don’t mean to suggest that religious antagonism to science has never existed. It has and does. But the history of science shows that such claims of antagonism are often exaggerated or unsubstantiated. “Once upon a time, back in the second half of the nineteenth century,” says Alister McGrath, “it was certainly possible to believe that science and religion were permanently at war… This is now seen as a hopelessly outmoded historical stereotype that scholarship has totally discredited.”

The scientific enterprise as a sustained and organized movement emerged in Christian Europe. During the sixteenth century, people from every culture studied the natural world, and yet modern science emerged in Europe, a civilization primarily shaped by the Judeo-Christian world- view. Why? Because Christianity provided the philosophical foundation as well as the spiritual and practical motivation for doing science. The Christian worldview — with its insistence on the orderliness of the universe, its emphasis on human reason, and its teaching that God is glorified as we seek to understand his creation — laid the foundation for the modern scientific revolution.

God’s Universe

Most scientific pioneers were theists, including prominent figures such as Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543), Robert Boyle (1627–1691), Isaac Newton (1642–1727), Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), Louis Pasteur (1822–1895), Francis Bacon (1561–1626), and Max Planck (1858–1947). Many of these pioneers intently pursued science because of their belief in the Christian God. Bacon believed the natural world was full of mysteries God meant for us to explore. Kepler wrote, “The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order which has been imposed on it by God, and which he revealed to us in the language of mathematics.” Newton believed his scientific discoveries offered convincing evidence for the existence and creativity of God. His favorite argument for design related to the solar system: “This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”

Christopher Hitchens discounts the religious convictions of these scientific pioneers, claiming that belief in God was the only option for a scientist of the time. But this puts Hitchens in a curious dilemma. If religious believers get no credit for their positive contributions to society (e.g., shaping modern science) because “everyone was religious,” then why should their mistakes, like atrocities committed in the name of God, discredit them? This is a double standard. One cannot deny religious believers credit on the basis of “everyone was religious” and also assign blame on the same foundation. To make the case that “religion poisons everything,” Hitchens has to ignore evidence to the contrary. And he is more than willing to do so.

Dawkins accepts that some early scientific pioneers may have been Christians, but he believes Christian scientists are now a rarity: “Great scientists who profess religion become harder to find through the twentieth century.” However, in the same year that Dawkins published The God Delusion (2006), three leading scientists released books favorable to theism. Harvard astronomer Owen Gingerich released God’s Universe, arguing that an individual can be both a scientist and a believer in intelligent design. Internationally renowned physicist Paul Davies published Goldilocks Enigma, in which he argued that intelligent life is the reason our universe exists. Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project, published The Language of God, in which he presents scientific and philosophical evidence for God. Incidentally, President Barack Obama appointed Francis Collins as the director of the National Institutes for Health, one of the world’s foremost medical research centers.

Naming scientists whose Christian worldview motivated their work doesn’t settle the issue of how science and religion relate. Entire books have been written on how science and religion intersect. But we do hope you see that many early scientific pioneers, as well as cutting-edge scientists today, derived their motivation for scientific research from the belief that God created the world for us to investigate and enjoy. These scientists did not view Christianity as incompatible with science.

Hemant menta, Patheos 26 Comments [12/17/2014 4:08:29 AM]
Fundie Index: -7
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 105307

Argument # 29: Atheists don’t claim that God doesn’t exist. They lack belief in God. The burden of proof for God is on the Theist, not the Atheist.

This is a technicality that Atheists use to try to put the burden on the other side. They claim that since “A-theism” means “without a belief in God”, they are not claiming anything and therefore do not have to prove anything. Thus, they claim, the burden of proof is on the Theist, who claims that God exists.

However, this makes little difference either way because their core philosophy toward God is still the same. Deep down, they believe that there is no God, and they know it. The reason why they emphasize this is to try to put themselves in an unattackable position. It’s a semantic ploy. To try to be consistent with it, they will say “There is no evidence for God” rather than “God doesn't exist”, but sometimes they slip up.

They can’t really prove that God doesn’t exist because you can’t prove a negative. Regardless, the Atheist obviously believes deep down that there isn't a God or deity anyway, which is prevalent in their attempts to debunk and refute every single argument for the existence of God. Therefore this trivial debate about the implications of the word “Atheism” seems pointless in substance.

For some critiques of Atheist arguments, see these links:

"How to respond to a Supercilious Atheist": http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/how_to_respond_to_a_supercilio.html

"The Irrational Atheists", has a free ebook you can download: http://www.irrationalatheist.com

(No name given), Debunking Skeptics 29 Comments [12/17/2014 4:08:22 AM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: Louis "Lou" C. Fer
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 105305

White” Girls are “good to go” by 13, easy, with exceptions for those not yet “bleeding.” Some of the sub-Saharan’s may skew younger, as may some other particular breeds, but the age we’re taught to prefer in modern society, early 20’s, is about ten years late.

tteclod, Chateau Heartiste 35 Comments [12/17/2014 4:08:05 AM]
Fundie Index: 19
Submitted By: TB
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 105304

They had it right in the old days – women were married off at 13/14, in fact in Roman times it was customary for men in their mid 40’s to take wives in their mid teens (the lucky bastards) in order to ensure children and that the wives could look after their husbands in old age. Modern society expects a man like me to marry a modern mid 30’s woman with her shrivelled ovaries instead of a dewy, juicy teen and the thought of it makes me almost nauseous.

Sparks, Chateau Heartiste 40 Comments [12/17/2014 4:07:49 AM]
Fundie Index: 15
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 105294

"Your idea of "starting somewhere" assumes that discriminating against disabled people and committing the widespread murder of selected groups is going to change the world for the better, or at least be a good start."

First of all, it's only murder if it's against the law so saying that under a legal eugenics program I'm murdering people doesn't make a lot of sense, so either you're trying to appeal to emotions or I'm being overly analytical.

Diogenes, Personality Cafe 40 Comments [12/16/2014 4:24:02 AM]
Fundie Index: 16
WTF?! || meh
1 2 3 4 5 7