1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | bottom
Quote# 139688

You dismiss people's religious beliefs rather cavalierly. I don't rely on faith healing, personally, but I have no problem with those who do. As I pointed out in another place, when parents are prosecuted for not seeking care, what's really happening is that the State is attempting to punish adults for having different values than the State. The State's value is "Physical life and health are the highest values, nothing else competes." But many people believe that there is something more important and valuable than physical life. If such a person enacts such a value in the life of his child, the State has a fit and says, "NO, you must enact MY value instead -- physical life is the most important thing!" So, either you have parents enacting their values in the child's life, or you have the State enacting its values in the child's life. I think the parents have a higher claim to be the ones to choose the value, rather than the State. And personally, I don't care if the parents' values are based on religion, philosophy, science, materialism, political idealism, or anything else. It's easy to look in from the outside and say, "Those poor children, they're at risk." But you don't know the richness of their inner experience, which their parents may be expert at imparting, because they have a purpose in life that's higher than simply continuing to exist.

If parents starved their child to death, that would be horrible. Only a miniscule percentages of parents are so malicious. There are SO many more likely threats to a child's life, I find it kind of silly to hyperventilate over this rare hypothetical. There are better targets for self-righteous rage. The vast majority of parents would give their own lives for their children, and they deserve the benefit of any doubt, as well as the assumption that they do, indeed, act in their children's best interests as they understand them. That might not be the way YOU understand them, but really? It's not even your business.


People act to preserve their children's well-being in different ways. Sometimes taking your child to the doctor is a harmful thing to do, such as in the Stiehler (sp?) case that's ongoing in Michigan right now. Without knowing exactly what was wrong with the 7-month-old in this case, without knowing how easy it was to KNOW that something was wrong, and without knowing the efficacy of various forms of treatment, it's impossible to judge whether the parents did "enough" to care for their child. A large part of the tyrrany of the medical establishment consists in its ability to hookwink everybody into thinking that it has the only solutions, or the only valid solutions. There is often a scientific reason to refuse medical treatment, not just a religious reason.

indentitee, r/libertarian 5 Comments [8/10/2018 11:20:47 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 139687

What if the parent neglected to remove the infant from the train tracks if it ended up there by no fault of the parent?


If the parent had the power to save the child's life, and instead he just casually watched his infant get hit by a train, we would universally condemn that, no matter what legal or criminal label you put on it.

IMO, such a parent shouldn't be prosecuted for negligence. Yes, it's a really bad thing to do. The problem is that once you establish that theory, that someone has a legal obligation to save someone else, then prosecutors turn the common-sense applications on their heads trying to get convictions. The next thing you know, parents are going to jail for not taking their children off the train tracks when the parent was tied up and unable to help, or because the parent was looking the other way and didn't know the train was coming and was deaf and couldn't hear the train, or because they were chasing their other kid who was running off in the other direction and the parent couldn't chase both kids. Stuff like that happens all the time, it's ridiculous. I think the bottom line is that the criminal apparatus should always assume that a parent acts in his child's best interest unless there is damning evidence to the contrary. The vast majority of parents won't intentionally let their children die. Those that do, deserve to have something horrible happen to them, like having their children die.

Haha. Seriously though, I don't think people in general should be prosecuted for failing to help someone. Parents are generally the people we should be LEAST worried about in this department, because they are naturally protective of their children. "Good Samaritan" laws have been repeatedly struck down in the context of requiring the police to help a citizen in need. Those are the situations I'd be far more concerned about. Although, I do agree, if a parent doesn't want to be responsible for his child, he ought to give the child to someone who is willing to care for it appropriately.



As I've said elsewhere, there are various ways of caring for a child. In this example, an infant died while the parents relied on faith healing. It seems to me that they DID seek treatment according to their religion. I can't think of a reason to prosecute them for acting according to their own values instead of the State's.

In other words, simply knowing that a child is in danger is not sufficient "damning evidence" for negligence. There are always a ton of details that modify every situation. That's why, as a general rule, I don't think anyone should be legally liable for not helping someone else. Obviously, the world would be a better place if we helped each other, and if you don't want to care for your child, give it to someone else to raise. But I can't see putting the State in a position to enforce this with guns

indentitee, r/libertarian 5 Comments [8/10/2018 11:20:42 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 139686

[ on liabiliy in faith healing cases where a child dies]

I would say they're not liable, because it's not like they were negligent, they were trying to heal their child but in a different way. The faith healing didn't harm their child directly, it was the lack of medical attention.

Plus, it's their right because we have freedom of religion

[deleted], r/libertarian 7 Comments [8/10/2018 9:31:17 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 139685

[ on faith healing]

/I tend to agree with you. I think the family unit should be basically allowed to operate, unless active harm is being done or unless one member asks for help.

The idea is that 99% of families will do their best to keep each other safe and healthy. That's human instinct. If you invite government in to nanny everyone with the "Norm," you have the potential to do more harm than good.

I think that people connected to the family (religious leaders, community leaders, relatives, etc) can keep an eye out to make sure, but sometimes a person dies. I don't agree with this idea that everything must be heavily medicated or treated. I agree that ADD medicine and depression medicine is a negative thing (as a whole) and I think that parents should have the right to choose what happens to their kids body.

If we really wanted "protect" every kid from his parents, we would take them from birth ala Brave New World and raise them in government centers where everyone is equal. That's not how it works in nature though. We should improve nature through technology through iteration, not by imposition or by declaration.


[deleted], r/libertarian 1 Comments [8/10/2018 9:30:51 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 139684

Who decides what is neglect and what isn't? Who decides which children should be taken away from their parents and which children shouldn't be taken away from their parents? I have an issue with declaring guilt before innocence. Furthermore, who pays for Child Protective Services? Should we be giving money to the government so they can sometimes wrongfully separate a child from his/her parent.

ondaren, r/libertarian 2 Comments [8/10/2018 9:30:28 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 139683

Liability when a child dies due to reliance on faith healing
I made a comment in /r/atheism thread the other day that i knew what draw a lot of fire, but i was disappointed that there was very little real discussion. I am curious what the libertarian thread thinks.

Basically there was a case where a young (7M) died because his parents depended on faith healing and didn't take him to the hospital.

First I certainly don't agree with what he did, i would have my kid there in a second. But actually i don't see anything illegal in what he did. For me how ones cares for their child is a parents right, the government should not interfere. This case looks very black and white. where the parents withheld even the most basic medical care but where would you draw the line?

Here are a few things that do occur or could occur.

schools being allowed to give students medicine (including birth control) without parental consent.

What if its consider cruel that i don't give my child add drugs or anti psychotic if he had some mental illness

deciding that my child should have this surgery or that surgery because its what's approved.

I just don't want the government deciding what happens to my children and i don't want the government telling other people how to do it, I'm an atheist and mostly libertarian but i could be wrong. So who i, or us, or the government to tell other people how to live even in extreme cases like this, where do we draw the line?

sislar, r/libertarian 4 Comments [8/10/2018 9:30:12 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 139682

[On whether or not it should be fully legal for parent do deny their children medical care for faith based reasons ]

For the record faith healing is a little silly even for an old hpippie like me. However....

Unless your willing for the "government" to get involved and regulate guns so the 60+ children who die each year from gun related deaths are saved then no, you can't regulate to save children from what some states have decided is reasonable.

It comes down to how badly you want the freedoms you already have. If you want them you have to take the good with the bad and that includes allowing parents to decide what is best for their children even if they end up dying from it.

salamanderwolf, r/DebateReligion 5 Comments [8/10/2018 9:29:06 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 139681

[On whether or not it should be fully legal for parent do deny their children medical care for faith based reasons ]

I don't think people realize how dangerous it is to start saying that the government should regulate religious freedom.

I believe that modern medicine has its place and can be very effective, but why should a parent be forced to involve their children in something they do not agree with? Why should parents not have a right to protect and care for their children in whatever way they see is best?

What if I disagreed with the type of medicine you used on your children? What if thousands or even millions of people disagreed with your idea of healthcare for your children? Does that mean that the government should step in and stop you from creating for your child the way you wish to?

Just because you disagree with a parent's decision, that does not give you the right to intervene.

I agree that life is sacred and that parents cannot be allowed to kill their children, but if they attempt to heal their sick child in their own way, but the child dies regardless of the parent's car, there is no one at fault here. Unless the parent truly has malicious intent of course, and their intent is to be neglectful or to administer poison or something, but this is not usually the case.

And we can't just say that the parents were wrong because their care didn't result in a full recovery, otherwise we could place the same blame on every modern medical procedure that didn't ultimately result in a full recovery.

Doctor's patients die too. Drugs/medicine are often incorrectly prescribed. Surgeries often cause more damage than they solve.

Yes, modern medicine can be beneficial. But there are risks. Why should parents be forced to choose the risks of modern medicine over the risks of their own choice of healthcare

Because faith healing is not health care


And why should they be forced to subscribe to what YOU think is adequate care?

If an adult chooses to not treat their own illness and dies, fine. But the parent is responsible for the child. If their child is bleeding to death and the parents believe that praying is the best "healthcare" and the child dies, the parents should be prosecuted.


So should a doctor be prosecuted when a child dies in their care regardless of the treatment the doctor gave or prescribed?

No, because not believing/trusting medical treatment is no defense and just stupid. If a parent's view is the other way around and believes it is better to pray then seeking medical treatment because they think medicine is bad and just watches his child bleed to death, then that parent is an idiot and should be punished.

And that parent might be thinking the same thing about you while your child is being given the wrong prescription by some doctor that has wrongly diagnosed the problem.My point is that they have just as much of a right to cater for their child as you do for yours.
And besides, your argument only has validity if we assume that prayer and faith healing is completely ineffective, but in reality, that can't be the assumption. And just because you say so doesn't make that assumption true.


pthor14, r/DebateReligion 2 Comments [8/10/2018 9:28:28 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 139677

If we going to “unlearn the lies” then lets not start with a lie: People try to discredit the rapture theory by saying that Darby invented it. Whether this is through ignorance or to discredit it, it is simply untrue. You cannot say that “no one and I say no one” talked about the rapture prior to Edwards and Darby.

Look at a few scholars from the 1st century onwards who held the belief in a rapture:

The Pre- Trib Rapture view goes back to very early beginnings of Christianity and the church. Obviously writings of Paul also epistles of Barnabas, also Irenaeus (2nd century), Hippolytus, Justin Martyr (2nd century). Ephraem of Nisibis (the Syrian) (4th century). Others from 1686 Pierre Jurieu, John Asgill, Phillip Doddridge, James McKnight, Morgan Edwards and others.

Remember that the medieval church could not preach a doctrine of wrath been poured out on the very “kings” and rulers that paid their salaries. Hence one of the main reasons for an a-millennial view by the majority of denominational churches.

Rev 3:10 says specifically that the church of Philadelphia (missionary church) will not go through the tribulation. Also that some will go through unless they repent. How will they not go through if they repent?

Do not confuse the coming of Jesus for His saints (and the dead) in the rapture with the events that happen when he comes to judge the world and fight for Israel.


1 Th 4:16 and 1 Cor 15:51

BEFORE AFTER

He Comes for His own He comes with His own
He comes in the air He comes in the earth
Only His own will see Him All will see Him
Great Trib begins Millennium rule begins
Saints Ascend to heaven Saints come to earth
Earth not Judged Earth Judged
Imminent (anytime) Predictable – many prophecies , Psalms Daniels prophecies?

Paul Gallimore, Youtube 6 Comments [8/10/2018 9:24:35 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Christopher

Quote# 139679

Actual incel definitions vs what society wants incel definitions to be

A surge of new guests and members are exploring incels.me recently, and I would like to take the time to clarify some of the confusion that has been going around, particularly about our definitions and ideology. Here are some words that are twisted by anti-unattractive male activists.

Incel
(society definition)-Hateful, violent, misogynistic male terrorist that is unable to get laid due to females around him being able to perceive his misogyny, creepiness, low confidence and bad personality automatically. They believe they deserve 10/10 females and that all women should be enslaved and have their rights taken away.
Example: You see that 10/10 6'4 male model that has sex 5 times a week? He is an incel since he says stuff that I disagree with online.

Cool Fact: According to their incel definition, it is just an anomaly that females are unable to detect bad personalities in tall/attractive males before entering abusive relationships with them. But lonely males on the internet that would actually make loyal partners are the problem.


Incel
(actual definition)-Any male who is unable to get laid due to his appearance and to a small degree, mental problems (autism, Aspergers, Actual Depression). Due to dating standards, genetics (mostly), and society, many males are unable to get laid due to their appearance. Problems like hair loss, short stature, poor eye shape, and overall facial structure are purely genetic, and have been proven to be the key factors in determining one's reproductive success. Males who are average/above average height with a decent face are not considered true incels since there will be females attracted purely to his appearance. Females cannot be considered incels due to how male biology functions. Due to their higher sex drive and other factors, males have a diverse amount of tastes in different types of women. Traits that would spell a death sentence for males will have hardly any negative effects on females. In a female viewpoint, they can consider themselves incel, but this is usually due to the fact that most men they see are invisible due to their height, face, or baldness; while tall and handsome men are the only men they desire. Since these tall handsome men are in high demand, they can by picky when choosing long term female partners and will discard so called femcels.
Example: You see that short, balding, unattractive male over there? He is an incel no matter what ideology he believes in.

Blackpill
(society definition)-"I will espouse misogyny and hatred towards all women"
Example: Hey, you are blackpilled? Why do you want to enslave all women to be your sex slaves????


Blackpill
(actual definition)-"I can identify the importance of genetically controlled physical features in males, which determines their overall happiness, dating lives, and treatment by society due to overwhelming data and past/current abuse due my appearance. If you are considered below average looking in the society you live in, your life will be considerably harder."
Example: Hey, you are blackpilled? I can see how your negative dating experience due to your short stature has impacted you life, I appreciate your viewpoint on the matter and wish you good luck.



Chad
(society definition)- Any male that is attractive to women due to his confidence, feminism and personality.
Example: I am what you incels consider a "chad". Women only go out with me because they see my meek and submissive personality as a chance to use my money and resources while giving me sex once every two months. Most of my past relationships resulted in my partner leaving me for a more attractive male, but since I am a self identified feminist I will get laid much more than any male model.

Chad
(actual definition)- Any male that is attractive to the majority of women due to his physical appearance. Males with a nice jaw, good eye area, and tall stature typically fall into this category. After years of crucial dating and socializing experience due to their enhanced genetics in their youth, they are usually very confident and outgoing, and will live happy lives. Due to the halo effect, Chads can get away with things usual males cannot in social scenarios. Also, most chads don't even need confidence to get relationships since women will go out of their way to lock them down for a relationship.
Example: I am what you incels consider a "chad". I am 6'4 with a handsome face, I can install tinder and get laid faster than you can possibly imagine. Tinder experiments have shown that I can say literally whatever the fuck I want and still have females be attracted to me.

Ap0calypse, incels.me 9 Comments [8/10/2018 8:35:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 139675

We were born in the worst fucking time period

We were born in a time where genetic engineering doesn't exist for humans, but eventually will start to pick up shortly following our deaths. We missed the chance to be 6 ft handsome geniuses by only a few hundred years. Fuck.

I honestly don't care if climate change and pollution kills our planet. The universe will die of heat death eventually anyway, and I doubt future civilizations can harness the energy of collapsed stars.

At least this time period has good copes. Can't wait till I can finish school and LDAR for the rest of my life. 200 years ago they just fucking conquered people for entertainment.

Ap0calypse, incels.me 6 Comments [8/10/2018 5:45:54 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 139674

If you think nature is right in any way or form, please kiss a shotgun barrel and pull the trigger

I hate these fucking idiots and their appeal to nature fallacies that are infesting this place lately.

If you dont absolutely hate nature or think its "richt" in any way, you arent blackpilled.

If you think incels actually deserve the suffering and support eugenics you are worse than vermin in my eyes and should die.
If you are incel yet altruistic and think about "gene pool", "future generations with less incels", "altruist role for the species" you are retarded and should be in special ED class due to iq below fridge temperature.

If ypu dont wish for sentient beings to completely detach from nature or for omnicide if the first is not possible, you are a bluepilled idiot with cuck mebtality that should just jump outta the window of a 90th floor.

You are no better than IT polyamorous cucks.

Zyros, incels.me 7 Comments [8/10/2018 5:45:49 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 139673

We are all SLAVES to beauty - What it's like to be around beauty & why you can't blame women for wanting Chads

I had an interaction with a 9/10 girl today and holy shit. I'm not someone who is prone to social anxiety. I'm very extroverted and gregarious. I deal with people every day and find most interactions mundane.

But there is absolutely NOTHING like physical beauty or that prepares you for it. Having a 9/10 even smile at you or chat with you triggers so many emotions. It's intoxicating, exhilarating, anxiety provoking. It shakes you up. You can't stop thinking about it after. You feel high. The endorphins feel like you just went for a run.

A 2-6/10 girl can't give me this. It's simply not possible. But when a girl for example has clear bright eyes, perfect symmetry and harmony, PCT, a flawless smile, and is fit - holy fuck it's like a completely different experience. I even feel like I could fall in love because that's what love is - a sustained endorphin high triggered by another person - and I'm pretty emotionally jaded at this point.

It's so rare I'd ever come across a girl like that I lost track of how powerful it is.

This is partly why I try to never blame women for wanting Chad instead of me. That's how women feel around Chad. That's why they message 100 times to your Chadfish account even after you stop replying. They want that high. Chads will tell you women "fall in love" with them constantly. I actually can't blame them.

I think we are ALL slaves to beauty. It's value is practically priceless.

For me, it's looksmax or death. And if I have to pay to fuck girls near that tier, so be it. I can't deny that this is what I'm wired to respond to. We were born into this.

RageAgainstTDL, incels.me 5 Comments [8/10/2018 5:45:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 139672

You have a wonderful way with words BeRational but that will have to change if you want to claim a place in Jesus Christ's salvation plan. By my understanding, all QM theories are the study of atomic shrapnel. They smash energy particles to smithereens which leave a trace of energy for the split second that they exist. The real force within an atom is contrived by the higgs field. An atomic black-hole, of sorts, that sucks in God's energy in a precise and meaningful way, all happening inside a newly forming star. But you have got to have the whole picture to have any confidence in the minor detail. Listen rather than stamp and shout and you might get the whole picture which is all centred around the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ and which is fully justifiable within the Holy Bible...and which leads us into scientific wonders that can only currently be dreamt about.

NicholasMarks, Religion and Ethics 6 Comments [8/10/2018 5:45:41 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: NearlySane

Arbitrary Scepticism Award

Quote# 139671

And this freedom is not magical, it is miraculous. Because miracles are real - magic is not.

Alan Burns, Religion and Ethics 4 Comments [8/10/2018 5:45:38 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: NearlySane

Quote# 139670


It's all so simple really. All mass is restructured energy. Spin up a huge cloud of the stuff and it all follows the same pattern and the amount of galaxies and stars in the universe tells us just how much of it there is....I call it superabundant but you can take every atom and break down all their component parts add up all the energy you find then add on another 93% and you will still be way out but under rather than over.

There were already many galaxy clouds, millions in fact, even trillions of them, all containiing vast amounts of this energy and just drifting around space, in a static universe. You can itemise how much potential energy was in each cloud by doing a similar exercise as before for the individual galaxy under scrutiny but that is up to you. Now all we needed was God's hadron collider...a natural event, many times larger than its namesake here on planet Earth and with much fiercer results and which will knock all your sciences calculations into touch...It presents a science that really only a wonderful God can handle and Jesus Christ is the most skilled being to handle the multiplicity of it all.

Thank you for the opportunity to express it again...I look forward to your rants but it won't change the science one iota.


NicholasMarks, Religion and Ethics 7 Comments [8/10/2018 4:32:17 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: NearlySane

Quote# 139667

Guest Verified:
Even abortionists don't deny that they are killing a baby when they commit an abortion. Medical science has proven that irrefutably. Abortionists now merely argue that it's all right to kill a child if it is young enough.

Fandango:
“Even abortionists don’t deny that they are killing a baby when they commit an abortion.”
Strictly speaking that is untrue. They would definitely not use that terminology. They would say they were terminating a pregnancy or a fetus.

Guest Verified:
You must have missed the Planned Parenthood tapes, or the abortionist who said, "Of course it's a baby!" when talking about what he/she was aborting.

Fandango:
I probably missed a few, but they'd be the exceptions. Generally speaking they wouldn't refer to them as having personhood because lack of personhood is the cornerstone of their argument. They certainly don't see it as murder, which is technically correct because murder applies only to living people outside of the womb.

Guest Verified:
No it doesn't. Murder applies to living people, and babies in utero are living.

Fandango:
Well, no, otherwise people would go to jail for murder when an abortion took place.

Guest Verified:
Except they don't. Modern science proves that's a living being inside the womb. Abortionists know it. However, sin is prevailing so much that abortionists/murderers get away with murder all the time. Rarely is justice served anymore.

Fandango:
It isn’t really a science issue. Science doesn’t argue about the fact that it’s the termination of a living thing, they would tell you that the fetus has the potential to become a baby but isn’t one yet. And before that it is a zygote. Everyone’s in agreement on the science, just not the terminology.

Guest Verified:
Science proves it's a living baby. Abortionists know they are killing babies.

Guest Verified, Christian News Network 8 Comments [8/10/2018 4:31:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 139666

A 10-month old girl died of malnutrition and dehydration after her Christian parents allegedly refused to seek medical help for religious reasons, fear of child services and a lack of trust in medical services.

Seth Welch and Tatiana Fusari, both 27, have been charged with felony murder and first-degree child abuse in the death of their daughter, Mary.

Welch called the emergency services last week and the child was not breathing when deputies arrived at their home in Michigan's Solon Township, which sits to the north of Grand Rapids, the Kent County sheriff’s office said.

The child was found with sunken eyes and cheeks and a lack of pulse, and she was pronounced dead at the scene. An autopsy ruled the cause of death was malnutrition and dehydration due to neglect by adult caregivers.

The couple admitted their daughter had been skinny and underweight for at least a month, an affidavit alleged.

They did not seek medical help for religious reasons, fear of having Child Protective Services called and a lack of trust in medical services,” according to court records.

Footage taken in Kent County Court shows their shocked reaction as the judge tells them they could face life in prison without parole, if convicted of felony murder.

Welch’s jaw fell open and Fusari sobs as the judge reads out the charges.

The pair, have two older children together, aged two and four, are being held without bond and court records do not list lawyers who can speak on their behalf.

Child Protective Services have filed a neglect case against the parents involving their two eldest children.

Welch has posted about Child Protective Services, a distrust of doctors and religious beliefs on Facebook. He called doctors “priesthoods of the medical cult” and spoke in one video post about refusing to get his children vaccinated.

“The righteous shall live by faith. It’s God who is sovereign over disease and those sorts of things and, of course, ultimately deaths,” he said.

The couple return to court on 20 August and could face life in prison without parole if convicted of felony murder.

Seth Welch and Tatiana Fusari, The Independent 6 Comments [8/10/2018 4:30:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Citizen Justin

Quote# 139641

While I do feel it's wrong to have arranged marriages, especially with a 14 year old girl, it is part of their culture, been around for thousands of years and who are we to judge one culture, to make comparisons?

Naturally, almost all species (Including our own) have a system where as soon as the females are able to breed, they're turned into a broodmare. I don't agree with it, and I wouldn't pretend it's acceptable because we used to do it, but it is their culture, it's their way of life and it isn't our place to condemn their practices, although we can disagree with it.

Hyve, MMO Champion 10 Comments [8/9/2018 11:33:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 139658

The First morality test of Slavery – How did the slave come to be owned by their master?

Did they voluntarily give themselves as a slave in exchange for protection and economic security?

Were they born from slave parents?

Were they sold as a slave by their father?

Did they voluntarily sell themselves to pay off debtors?

Were they forced into servitude by governing authorities either because of debts they owed or because of a crime they committed?

Were they captured as a prisoner of a just war?

Were they kidnapped and forced to be a slave?

Biblically speaking, if a person were to answer yes to any of the first six questions, then the way that they became a slave was not wrong. If however the person was kidnapped and forced into slavery, then this type of slavery would be immoral and wrong.

The Second morality test of Slavery – How is the slave being treated by their master?

Are food, clothing and shelter being provided to the slave?

Is the slave being treated justly and fairly?

Is the slave being given proper rest?

Is the slave not being physically abused?

If the answer to all these questions is yes regarding the treatment of slaves in a particular situation then this instance of slavery would be moral – Biblically speaking.

biblicalgenderroles, Biblical Gender Roles 16 Comments [8/9/2018 10:46:42 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 139656

Most people have no idea just how ethical God is, and how much He does care, and the extent to which He thinks about other's well-being. I love listening to the Bible on DVD. When I bought the Bible on DVD, read aloud by Alexander Scourby, I began to hear and learn things that I had never noticed by reading the King James Bible. There's just something special about HEARING the Bible being read aloud. Does not Romans 10:17 say that faith cometh by HEARING!!! Yes, indeed it does! If you don't already have the King James Bible on DVD, please get it and listen to the Bible being read regularly. You will be blessed so much as I have.

A Christian woman who cares about morality will wear modest clothing. Women who dress like prostitutes in mini-skirts, halter-tops, open-blouses and tight clothing... don't care about causing lust, ruining families, displeasing God, nor being judged in eternity for their wickedness. They don't have any faith in God. They don't fear God, just as Romans 3:18 says most people don't. They don't care because they don't believe. If we have faith that there's a real God in Heaven, Who is keeping track of every decision that we make, and we'll have to give account one day for those decisions, then we're going to care about the things which we say and do (Romans 14:10-12).

It is so important that you care because everything else depends on it... how you treat yourself, your family, your neighbors, et cetera. A woman dresses modestly because she CARES. A mother doesn't abort her baby because she CARES. No caring woman kills her own flesh and blood. CARING is everything in life. A small handful of Washington D.C. politicians actually do the honest thing because they CARES (Dr. Ron Paul is one of them). Ron Paul CARES!

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Savior 11 Comments [8/9/2018 10:46:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 139646

We have to set up a new tradition and a new vision for East Asia and the world.

A Unified Korea has to work with the US right-wing, Russia, Mongolia and perhaps the uncucked elements of Japan to throw off the yoke of imperialist Chinese, Babylonian cabalist/Z-ists, freemasonry. To defeat Islam and liberalism. And reset the financial system. Ultimately to liberate humanity.

You clearly know who the enemies are and what is the positive vs negative side.

None of this shit more than 3000 years ago matters RIGHT NOW. It’s clearly in genetics as of this moment and genetics don’t lie. We have to focus on the future of our genetic progeny so we don’t face death and destruction right now

Yemaek, Korean Sentry 6 Comments [8/9/2018 7:57:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 139644

[ on a 14 year old child being forced to marry an 35 year old adult]

To put things in perspective - arranged marriages are worldwide the standard compared to the "free marriage" we nowadays have in western countries.
At least the Chinese, Japanese, Indians, whole Africa have arranged marriages. That's more than half of the world population already.

Even in Finland you don't need to look far back in time when arranged marriages were the standard. That was the thing not longer than about 100 years ago. Marriages were arranged, we still have a remnant of that tradition where the bride's father pays for the costs of weddings.

And when we look at the age of the brides - in Finland (evangelic lutheran church) kids get Confirmation (I hope you know the meaning) at the age of 14 to 15. When you are "Confirmed" you are legally ready for being wedded. 100 years ago it was a standard that marriages were arranged and men married 14-16 year old girls.

That's completely normal.

PS. I vouch for arranged marriages, those marriages statistically work a lot better than these modern "free marriages". A lot less divorcing and happier couples. Your family has a lot better judgment in choosing a partner for you than what you have in 3 promille drunk state at some random bar at 4am in Saturday night. That's where most of relationships start, and it's not a good start for a relationship.

Puupi, MMO Champion 6 Comments [8/9/2018 7:55:54 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 139643

Being forced to take the trash out or being forced to do your homework are a little different to being forced to marry (potentially for life) a man you do not wish to marry, to have sex with him as and when he desires (as is the case in their culture), bear his children without a say in the matter, and risk your life in doing so.

You have to see there is a bit of a difference in those things. Even the most serious things you are forced to do in the west (like... you are forced (pretty much) to go to a particular school by your parents) are really nothing compared to that. Also, in the west you have a lot more legal protection for the extreme things you don't want to do. You have places you can call (child abuse places like Childline) if the things you are being forced to do are too extreme.


I was forced to go to the military (like every man in my country), I was forced to serve my country with my life (literally).

I don't think those are small things. I would do them without being forced, too. But that doesn't change they are being forced upon me.

I really have hard time understanding the demonizing of sex. Everyone WANTS to have sex in their life, it's the best thing in the world.

Now when sex is forced it becomes the WORST AND MOST ATROCIOUS THING IN THE WORLD.

How the fuck does that kind of switch happen.

Not all sexual experiences for all involved parties are pleasurable.
Would you look forward to sex if you were unlikely to orgasm because your partner wasn't interested in your pleasure, or even your comfort? If it was a painful experience for you because you aren't aroused by your partner, would you look forward to doing that again?

Obviously I would not enjoy it and wouldn't look forward to doing that again. But people do other discomforting things, too, because it's part of life and needs to be done. Like work.





Puupi, MMO Champion 8 Comments [8/9/2018 7:55:05 AM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 139642

Perhaps a 14 year old girl who for whatever silly reasons feels as if she was raped, and is facing a lifetime of more rape, and is probably going to be expected to bear the children of whom she feels is her rapist, which could very possibly kill her? Do you not acknowledge any remote possibility that this girl felt she had been raped? Growing up in a culture that condones rape doesn't make the rape victim feel any less raped, it just allows the rapist to escape culpability.


Refusing to put out for your Husband is not rape in their country so you cannot call it rape. Marital rape has only been a crime in the West for what only 30-40 years? Again with the double standards and the righteousness...

Shinra1, MMO Champion 3 Comments [8/9/2018 7:54:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | top