1 2 3 4 5 7 | bottom
Quote# 100735

As for young women, higher education is an enormous waste in most cases. They spend their time learning from lesbian pornographers, drinking, whoring and learning to look down on their male peers even as they debase themselves. The old idea that it will help them find a suitable mate is so outdated as to be laughable, but it’s what keeps parents paying for college tuition for their daughters: they hope that daddy’s little girl will get hitched to some conscientious beta male instead of knocked up by a hoodlum. This is the single biggest reason parents send their daughters to college, and it’s a gamble that will only pay off about half the time these days as the female to male ratio approaches three to two at universities (not all college-educated men marry college-educated women, or marry at all). Not a good bet for roughly $100k, but it supports legions of hard-left ideologues, which explains the enthusiasm for the failing system in mainstream media outlets.

W. F. Price, The Spearhead 46 Comments [4/30/2014 3:05:18 AM]
Fundie Index: 40

Quote# 100731

I understand rightwing atheists perfectly well, that is, people who disbelieve in God because they see no evidence for God. Leftwing atheist who disbelieve in God because they hate God, them I never understood, even back when I was an atheist. The rational men, theist or atheist, are natural allies against the irrational men, irrational atheists and irrational theists both.

John C. Wright, John C. Wright's Journal 36 Comments [4/30/2014 3:03:05 AM]
Fundie Index: 22
Submitted By: David

Quote# 100730

[Secondly, from your writing it seems that God was willing to reveal himself to you when you asked. Why is it that he doesn’t seem willing to reveal himself to others? I’ve asked, and received nothing. I know others have as well.]

All I can say is that any man not as stupid and stubborn as I does not need to see God in this life. Is my word not good enough? Either I am mad, or God exists. You believe the planet Pluto exists, I hope, even if you’ve never seen it. Why? Because you trust the men who say they’ve seen it. Why not trust me, now, here, in this? Or trust Saint Paul, who is more convincing, or trust the countless others — the Christian Scientists keep a century of records of miracles, and so does the medical committee at Lourdes — who have seen things just as I have.

Is the miracle of the sunrise not enough? Go look at the veins on a leaf, you will see more about the mind of God in action than I saw.

John C. Wright, John C. Wright's Journal 42 Comments [4/30/2014 3:02:54 AM]
Fundie Index: 17
Submitted By: David

Quote# 100725

The atheist's RELIGION (which is simply a system of beliefs based on a philosophy) of atheism is simply a way to try to block out and override the truth--the ol' ostrich-head-in-the-sand technique:

If you try to tell 'em the truth, they say "Shut up!"
stick their heads in the ground and shout--

"There's nobody there,
there's nobody there,
there's nobody there, I tell you!
See, I can't see 'em!"

Well, atheist reader, Somebody is there and His truth has stood from the beginning of time and will continue for all eternity. God is not dependent on you in any way. Blasphemies, wars, famines, and political appointments come and go, but when the dust settles, there's Jesus. And there is nothing you can do about it but breathe out hot air. You will humble yourself before the Lord Jesus or you will be ground to powder.

"And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." --Jesus Christ (Matthew 21:44)

Most atheists have what I call the Don Quixote Syndrome. Let me explain. Cervantes wrote a book about Don Quixote a long time ago. Don Quixote would attack windmills as if they were his enemies. Of course a windmill is nobody's enemy. If what the atheist believes is REALLY his belief, then he would leave people like me alone. After all, if God did not exist, He and His followers would be no enemy to the atheist. We'd just be deluded people.

Therefore IF the atheist REALLY believes there is no God and the fool attacks a Christian, then he has the Don Quixote Syndrome because the Christian is not his enemy. Nevertheless, God is real and THAT is why atheists have all these organizations and debates to "prove" that God does not exist. Atheist reader, if you would just be true to what you purport to believe, then you wouldn't have the Don Quixote Syndrome.

My old pastor once ministered to an old atheist who had been a card-carrying atheist for decades--but as he laid on his death bed, he wanted a pastor. I don't know if he got saved or not. When it's time to die, many atheists are understandably uneasy and those that aren't should be terrified.

There is hope for the atheist. He can be saved. In fact, there are plenty of atheists that have come to Jesus Christ. I refuse to argue with them, but will answer honest questions. Unfortunately, many atheists ignorantly say hard things against the Lord Jesus Christ and His people. Don't let fancy titles and big words shake your faith in the One who holds your eternal destiny.

Think about this: What does the atheist have to offer you? Eternal life? Spiritual comfort? Love? Kindness? Comfort in the midnight hour when no one is around? No, none of these. He has nothing to offer you but blasphemy, hell-fire and the wrath of God. The atheist will tell you fabulous fairy tales like ...

You were spontaneously generated from a rock,
a monkey is your daddy,
a fish is your cousin,
you have no hope,
you should just live for today,
when you're dead, you're dead.

David J. Stewart, Jesus-is-Savior.com 43 Comments [4/30/2014 2:55:09 AM]
Fundie Index: 24
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 100724

If you have not witnessed a true display of the Heavens Ruling over the natural, are you certain you are asking the right questions?

Those are questions to consider in things I will present about the miracle He let me a witness.

The basic pre-tanglbles: the child was about 1 years old; carried in the mothers arms as she approached me and a friend of mine (from church). My friend did not believe God healed people any more, since the days of the apostles. I knew of God healing people through hearing from other friends but had never firsthand experienced such work of God nor doubted such still occurs. As the mother approached she looked distressed. She presented to us the child's deformed arm, which appeared to be half its normal size. She asked that we would pray for her childs arm, that God would heal it. Under circumstances leading to this point and during the moment I felt concerned and motivated to pray that the arm be made normal.

The miracle: upon praying, looking at the deformed arm, it started to grow in length and character, and over a period of about 8 seconds was changed, made whole and normal like the other arm. After about the first 4 seconds I asked my friend if he was looking at what was happening, since he was located slightly behind me. He acknowledged he was watching.

The mother weep and praised God. My friend and I were acutely aware God showed up and we had witnessed His Power. Within me an acute thought came of all the people who doubt that God exists, being totally unaware of how He at times and select situations displays Himself through the manifestation of supernatural healing.

The mother was rejoicing as she walked away. I was sure those close to her were going to be amazed at the healed child's arm. No doubt, amazed.

Heissonar, Christianforums 34 Comments [4/30/2014 2:54:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 17

Quote# 100723

Religion is the WORST thing that has ever happened to this world; Countless Billions of souls have been doomed to Hellfire by false religion. Learn what the Bible has to say on the matter. I expose many false religions... not to be unkind... but because the truth has been hidden from the world's masses. Just remember, religion didn't die on the cross for you—Jesus Christ did!

David J. Stewart, Jesus-is-Savior.com 64 Comments [4/29/2014 3:26:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 94
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 100719

Also, I find much more convincing cases that are specific, like the following one Mike Licona used in his debate with Stephen Patterson concerning a friend of his.

In June of 1987, he’s riding down a highway when he gets in a horrible automobile accident that places him in the hospital for 21 days in a coma. The 21st day in the hospital is the 4th of July. At 4:00 in the afternoon, his church is somewhere at a park having a 4th of July picnic when they stop and pray for Lloyd. Guess what happens at 4:00 with Lloyd? He comes out of his coma. Guess what else happens - there are a number of other people in the same room with Lloyd who were in a coma for 1-6 months. They all came out of their coma as well. That is a miracle.

How do we know this? Because it’s extremely unlikely by natural causes, and second it occurs in a context that’s charged with religious significance.

Our author has to conclude that this was not a miracle, it was just a coincidence. There are several more stories out there like this one, but they all have to be just chance. He has assumed his conclusion from the get-go.

Nick Peters, CARM 41 Comments [4/29/2014 3:25:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 20
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 100717

Europe from the 5th to the 18th century was the best and most peaceful period in European history.

I posted another comment earlier detailing the multiple genocides inflicted by Pagan tribes against one another in prehistorical times and later by the Pagan Romans who committed genocide against numerous European nations.

Not one nation in Europe suffered genocide under Christian rule between the 5th and 18th centuries. With the rise of secularism, the British state committed genocide against both the Scots and Irish in the 18th and 19th centuries. The secular French Revolution murdered hundreds of thousands. And of course the 20th century was truly the darkest in human history with both Nazism and Communism.


True Freethinker, Daily Telegraph 57 Comments [4/29/2014 3:24:47 AM]
Fundie Index: 45
Submitted By: Tony

Quote# 100716

There is nothing in America any more godless than the murdering of little children. Abortion is MURDER!

Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. Are we being targeted? Isn't that genocide? We are the only minority in America that is on the decline in population. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the black vote will be insignificant. Did you know that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist who created the Negro Project designed to sterilize unknowing black women and others she deemed as undesirables of society? The founder of Planned Parenthood said, "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." Is her vision being fulfilled today? For more, please visit www.blackgenocide.org. Please read, Mass-Murderer Margaret Sanger. DEFUND Planned Herodhood!

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Savior 33 Comments [4/29/2014 3:17:24 AM]
Fundie Index: 25

Quote# 100709

Reminds me of Marabel Morgan's 1973 book The Total Woman. Morgan was in the social circle of the wives of Miami Dolphins football players and witnessed how a large percentage of these pampered young wives were destroying their marriages by turning into slovenly nags, so she wrote an advice book teaching her friends two things.

The first was time management. Hey girls: get your small half of the division of labor within your marriages done early, so you don't feel unhappy and bitchy about cleaning, grocery shopping, cooking etcetera on account of only getting it done at the last minute and under pressure. Get your stuff done early and you can feel great about yourselves while you go about your "me" time shoe-shopping or whatever, instead of feeling guilty about getting nothing done all day.

The second was to tell these women that in their conflicts with their husbands, THEY were the problem, not the husbands. These pampered young wives were always trying to vie for power in their relationships by doing stupid things like withholding sex because their husband hadn't taken out the trash yet. They were following female instincts to find grounds on which to see themselves as wronged, which they would then try to use as leverage. In short, these wives were not self-controlled and needed a man to control them, to not tolerate their bitchiness, but how many men are up to that without getting pissed off and alienated? These guys were stud athletes. That didn't make them extraordinary men who had any special talent for dealing with irrationally demanding women.

So Morgan tried to teach the women how to control themselves. She told them not to try to gain and use manipulative power in their marriages but do the opposite. Instead of holding back affection until they got what they wanted the wives were advised to unilaterally disarm: to give freely and generously, to stop nagging, to be hot for sex regardless of what else was going on the the relationship, and it worked.

All these wives discovered that it had indeed been them who was the problem. When they became forthcoming and generous their husbands did not grab the offered territory and demand still more. They didn't become oppressive. Instead they became MORE willing to do their part of the household division of labor. They reciprocated, and were just happy that their wives were not being bitches anymore, making them want to be with their wives more and make their wives happy.

The feminists absolutely hated it. The idea that women were the problem, not men, went against all of their ideology. But there is obviously a lot of truth to it: in very many cases women ARE the problem, and for that large fraction of cases the advice to stop being a bitch is important wisdom. Neither does it do any harm to women who aren't bitches to see someone lay out the ways in which a lot of other women ruin their marriages.

Then there are the feminists, that small minority of women who embrace self-destructive bitchiness, who don't want to be givers and don't want other women to be givers, but want all women to be as demanding and stingy as possible. That's their fight against men. They are in a constant tug of war.

Alexander Rawls, The Telegraph 30 Comments [4/28/2014 3:34:09 AM]
Fundie Index: 28

Quote# 100708

Vishwa Hindu Parishad's (VHP) president Pravin Togadia sent temperatures soaring in Bhavnagar on Saturday evening with a hate speech that targeted Muslims for buying properties in Hindu areas.
At night, Togadia joined a group of VHP and Bajrang Dal members on a street protest outside a house purchased by a Muslim businessman near Meghani Circle. While saffron groups have been regularly organizing 'Ram Dhuns' and 'Ram Darbars' to thwart such deals, Togadia went a step further by asking the protesters to take complete control of the house and put a 'Bajrang Dal' board on it.
Togadia told the gathering that there were two ways to stop such deals. One is to pressurize the state government to bring in Disturbed Areas Act in Bhavnagar, which prevents inter-
community sale of immovable property. The second is to take forcible possession of the house and fight a legal battle later which will go on for years.
He gave the Muslim occupant 48 hours to vacate the house. "If he does not relent, go with stones, tyres and tomatoes to his office. There is nothing wrong in it. Killers of Rajiv Gandhi have not been hanged ... there is nothing to fear and the case will go on," Togadia told the charged-up gathering.
"I have done it in the past and Muslims have lost both property and money," he said.
He also said that this election is the best time to pressurize political parties to ensure safety of Hindus. "Don't be reluctant to pressurize Congress or BJP for the sake of Hindus' safety," he said.
After the event was over, tension was palpable and police feared that the mob might attack the house. A team of policemen has been stationed outside the house to avert any trouble.

Pravin Togadia, The Times of India 22 Comments [4/28/2014 3:33:28 AM]
Fundie Index: 20
Submitted By: arcanephoenix

Quote# 100706

The Family Foundation is asking that you join us for 40 Days of Prayer, Fasting and Repentance for Marriage from August 27 until October 5, 2014. Our state and nation are mired in a morass of confusion and post-modern thinking that does not believe in absolutes nor that any truth can even be known. Nowhere is this more evident than in the current debate raging about what constitutes marriage. Pagan philosophies, a secular humanist education establishment and an entertainment industry that is absolutely determined in pushing the envelope on decency and morality have all combined to turn this great land into a country that our forefathers could not even begin to recognize.

Family Foundation of Virginia, CitizenLink 33 Comments [4/28/2014 3:32:44 AM]
Fundie Index: 14
Submitted By: Aspergus

Quote# 100704

The propaganda I distribute is not intended for intelligent Jewish women.. The ancient magic I practice is hidden, only activated by the subconsciously receptive pineal gland of European's. (Did you know that the Chemo/ Biol composition and structure of the Ashkenazi pineal gland is so genetically distant to white European's, it's classed as 'inter-species?).

rwrw66, Ora-Shira's Blog 24 Comments [4/28/2014 3:31:06 AM]
Fundie Index: 39

Quote# 100657

One of the most hideous evils of modern times is the corrupting of the Word of God. The New International Version (NIV) of the Bible is an evil work, a piece of filth, and should go into your garbage pail if you have one. Tragically, the NIV is by far the most popular Bible in America today amongst ministers and laity. The NIV completely removes the necessary word “begotten” from John 3:16...

•King James Bible: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

•New International Version: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

The NIV teaches heresy, because Jesus is not God's one and only Son. By removing the all-important word “begotten” they have perverted the words of the living God. Evidently the ignoramuses who translated the NIV never read John 1:12, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” Those unscholarly intellectuals never read 1st John 3:1, “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.” The truth of the matter is that God has MANY sons, but only one BEGOTTEN Son. If you are a born-again child of God, male or female, then you are an adopted son of God.

Jesus was born of a miraculous virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23), and entered this world as the Godhead incarnate, i.e., the Godhead in the flesh (Colossians 2:9; 1st Timothy 3:16). Please note that all my Scriptures references are solely to the trustworthy inspired King James Bible. All modern bible versions have been tampered with and are corrupt.

How could the NIV translating committee be so stupid? It is no small matter to translate the Word's of Almighty God, especially when you CHANGE what He said. The Bible, in numerous references, warns and pronounces a curse upon all Bible corrupters (Deuteronomy 4:2; Galatians 1:8-9; 2nd Peter 3:16; Revelation 22:19). “...for ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the LORD of hosts our God” (Jeremiah 23:36). Now they're catering to the sinful agendas of lesbians and feminists with their NIV 2011, which is a gender-inclusive Bible. Please remember that lesbianism, transgender, gender equality and unisex are synonymous with the sinful philosophy and lifestyle of feminism, which is rebellion against God-ordained masculine authority.

The King James Bible translates John 3:16 absolutely 100% correct. The word “begotten” is there in John 3:16, because Jesus is indeed the only begotten Son of God. Every born again believer is an adopted son of God... “To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons” (Galatians 4:5). Every Christian is an adopted child into God's family. So if you have a Bible, make sure that the word “begotten” in present in John 3:16, or else throw it into the garbage after tearing it up. Why Would Anyone Use the NIV?

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Precious.org 46 Comments [4/27/2014 4:38:58 AM]
Fundie Index: 28
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 100535

There are dozens of reasons to bar women from combat roles. There's the risk of sex, rape, and pregnancy. There are the issues of strength and the ability of women to endure the wear and tear of combat arms. Smaller bodies break down faster. Men will also go to great lengths to protect women in danger, it's an instinct that overrides any training that soldiers experience. That in turn undermines combat effectiveness. Women will also turn sex to their advantage. For example -- women will flirt with their peers and charm them into carrying their load for them. Women will sleep with their superiors to earn a better fitness report. These are things that have happened, do happen, and will continue to happen. As we've seen in the past, training standards are flexible. Once we enact a policy (such as the new Marine PFT for women) the standards will be adjusted to meet the required outcome. That's just politics. I can see only one real reason to integrate combat units, it's not a manpower shortage it's to feel better about ourselves.

There are many roles in the armed services that women are just as qualified at. Allowing women to join was the right decision, allowing them into combat arms is not. They are less capable, and their inclusion will undermine the performance of men in the field.

Lemon, RPG Codex 42 Comments [4/27/2014 4:37:37 AM]
Fundie Index: 23

Quote# 100475

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

People who are advocating a righteous cause do not seek to silence all dissent and destroy those who dare to disagree. They let the truth of their position speak for itself, and they don't fear those who mistakenly fail to see the virtue of their position.



Bolshevik. OkCupid is creating fascism, not love.

The essence of fascism is the stifling of dissent. You might argue that the term doesn't apply here because the power of government isn't the driving force behind it. I would tell you that's irrelvant [sic]. The tactics of fascism are the same regardless of who is weilding [sic] the power. What matters is that they have the power and are willing to use it, and right now gay marriage activists have the power because they are able to scare the bejeezus out of just about everyone.



And just to make sure you get the message, they won't just try to silence you today. They'll go back through your history and find out if you've spoken up in the past, and punish you for that - maybe by putting pressure on your employer to take away your job. Or maybe they will conscript the power of government, forcing you to provide them services that your faith would suggest you should not provide.

This movement is evil, not because homosexuality is a "worse sin" than other sins, but because its champions are trying to not only silence but in many cases destroy those who disagree with them. The gay movement understands something. They understand that in order for their movement to ultimately succeed, they need to turn the entire culture into a mindless army of obedient adherents like the Borg on Star Trek. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

Dan Calabrese, Right Wing Watch 23 Comments [4/27/2014 4:34:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 21
Submitted By: Night Jaguar

Quote# 100459

In his Kremlin defense of Russia’s annexation of Crimea, Vladimir Putin, even before he began listing the battles where Russian blood had been shed on Crimean soil, spoke of an older, deeper bond.

Crimea, said Putin, “is the location of ancient Khersones, where Prince Vladimir was baptized. His spiritual feat of adopting Orthodoxy predetermined the overall basis of the culture, civilization and human values that unite the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.”

Russia is a Christian country, Putin was saying.

This speech recalls last December’s address where the former KGB chief spoke of Russia as standing against a decadent West:

“Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values. Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation.”

Heard any Western leader, say, Barack Obama, talk like that lately?

Indicting the “Bolsheviks” who gave away Crimea to Ukraine, Putin declared, “May God judge them.”

What is going on here?

With Marxism-Leninism a dead faith, Putin is saying the new ideological struggle is between a debauched West led by the United States and a traditionalist world Russia would be proud to lead.

In the new war of beliefs, Putin is saying, it is Russia that is on God’s side. The West is Gomorrah.

[...]

Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum writes that she was stunned when in Tbilisi to hear a Georgian lawyer declare of the former pro-Western regime of Mikhail Saakashvili, “They were LGBT.”

“It was an eye-opening moment,” wrote Applebaum. Fear and loathing of the same-sex-marriage pandemic has gone global. In Paris, a million-man Moral Majority marched in angry protest.

Author Masha Gessen, who has written a book on Putin, says of his last two years, “Russia is remaking itself as the leader of the anti-Western world.”

But the war to be waged with the West is not with rockets. It is a cultural, social, moral war where Russia’s role, in Putin’s words, is to “prevent movement backward and downward, into chaotic darkness and a return to a primitive state.”

Would that be the “chaotic darkness” and “primitive state” of mankind, before the Light came into the world?

This writer was startled to read in the January-February newsletter from the social conservative World Council of Families in Rockford, Ill., that, of the “10 best trends” in the world in 2013, No. 1 was “Russia Emerges as Pro-Family Leader.”

In 2013, the Kremlin imposed a ban on homosexual propaganda, a ban on abortion advertising, a ban on abortions after 12 weeks and a ban on sacrilegious insults to religious believers.

“While the other superpowers march to a pagan worldview,” writes WCF’s Allan Carlson, “Russia is defending Judeo-Christian values. During the Soviet era, Western communists flocked to Moscow. This year, World Congress of Families VII will be held in Moscow, Sept. 10-12.”

Pat Buchanan, WND 31 Comments [4/26/2014 5:18:51 AM]
Fundie Index: 23

Quote# 100421

Cosmo Vern Said: “Why do I need cleansing, exactly? I feel great. I'm a good father, a loving husband, I work hard, I fought for my country, I pay my taxes, generally a good person (or at least I try to be). I don't feel like I need to be cleansed of anything, and I certainly don't think some deity has any right to tell me otherwise, let alone a man who claims to know what that deity wants. You know, you talk so much about Jesus dying to take away the sins of the world, and then with the next breath tell us that we're filthy because some divine Law says so? Give me a break.”

Ray Answers: You will continue to feel as though you don’t need to be cleansed of anything as long as you measure yourself by your own mortal standard. You are making a terrible mistake in doing this and you do it because you think that God has the same standard as you. But He doesn’t. He is moral perfection and to illustrate this (inadequately) I will use what most will think is an extreme illustration. But it’s not.

A man viciously raped a young girl, slit her throat and burned her body. In court he plead guilty, but added that there were mitigating circumstances. He said in his defense that he felt great, worked hard, paid his taxes, and that he generally was a good person. The young girl was your precious daughter. You are allowed to cross-examine him. What would you say? Don’t dismiss this as a stupid illustration. Stop for a moment and give it some thought. What would you say to him?

I will leave that answer up to you. Now go to www.needGod.com and do the test.

Ray Comfort, Facebook 43 Comments [4/26/2014 5:18:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 33
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 100420

People are idiots for blindly believing in science. People who believe in science think it's not a faith but you don't realize more than half of science is based on things you can't see. You guys swear buy big bang but you weren't there to see it. I have a witness, God, who is yours? Science can't even figure out how to cure cancer or isolate it from the gene pool so it is no longer a hereditary problem. I have someone who can do all that and more, God. Where's your super doctor? Oh can't help because he didn't make the phenomenon that is the human body? Tsk. Tsk. Every time you see a "theory" that's something that's not guaranteed to be correct that's just something accepted as correct by a bunch of flawed people. Science and math are plagued with them. You're putting your faith in people that aren't perfect and that makes you comfortable because you aren't perfect but imperfect people can't lead you to perfection. I am a science and math major and I'm not half as dumb as people on here. Being Christian doesn't mean to be ignorant, I know to look for the science in the world my God created and I'm thankful for every bit of knowledge I get but with that understanding also comes the ability to discern what what I need to pass class and what science is questionable. You rely on science to keep you alive everyday and it fails, everyday. I rely on God to keep me alive everyday and even when they bury me in the ground I'll be alive because that's what being a Christian means. Atheist and scientists don't bother me for not believing in God you guys bother me because you don't accept your "faith" and circumstances for what they are.

AimeeGurl, IFLScience comments 62 Comments [4/26/2014 5:17:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 38
Submitted By: quinky

Quote# 100400

NASA believes that the Sun a radiated body caused life on Earth, yet ancient documentation states that Light created life, not evil.

Sun worship, a burning body of energy light sound forms evil burnt bodies of radiation. Radiation attacked the Earth and caused her atmosphere to fall out as per ancient literature explains.

Radiation is supposed to be the result of origin creation as per scientific literature updates, yet origin creation quantifies that it was destroyed and transformed via our own awareness as conscious receiver of information, hence radiation the evil burnt body did not create life as previously supposed. Sun worship was therefore stopped as a religious practice.

By ancient religious version the previous Heaven Earth atmosphere was attacked by the Sun (Satan), and the Christ act (Oxygen) saved the life of Earth by stopping the radiation burn releasing a huge volume of water onto Planet Earth, causing radiation (Satan) to fall into the Earth body (stone). The empty atmosphere around the planet cut off the radiation attack of Earth.

Oxygen was created as the Christ Act in the previous origin formed atmosphere, and when the earth's volcanic eruptions released gases and vapor, the atmosphere was replaced from its act of destruction as fall out. Human remains pre dating the dinosaur era has proven this via archaeological discovery in coal bodies. Radiation burning the previous nature on Earth evidence of the coal beds containing human implements. Volcanic eruptions replaced the Earth face with new stone.

Oxygen therefore became the new atmospheric spirit of creation. Oxygen as a mass body therefore protects us from radiation attacking us as per documentation. Radiation quantifies that it is used by science to destroy cells allowing healthy cells to continue to produce.

If our consciousness, the state of our personal awareness believed that radiation created us, why would it protect its own body from radiation pollution when dealing with cancer victims? As consciousness demonstrates to advise us, it seems it already does.

Science looking for new creation theories are involved in the current day dilemma of falling out UFO bodies in their attempt to study the evolution of cellular matter. Believing in the radioactive creator theory (evil spirit) is therefore a new science theory proposed by the occult scientists.

NASA has demonstrated occult science exploration along with the Catholic Church........what else is there to say?

Wendy Moir, JREF - Religion and Philosophy 55 Comments [4/26/2014 5:17:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 67
Submitted By: NearlySane

Quote# 100365

As evident in Acts 17, there are often constraints imposed upon us by time and other factors. But as circumstances allow, we must offer a systematic and comprehensive presentation of the biblical worldview, and a systematic and comprehensive refutation of the non-biblical worldviews represented by the hearers. Our aim must be nothing short of a complete vindication of Christian claims, and a thorough annihilation of non-Christian beliefs. This may be done over the course of days or even months. And in some situations, it is done over the course of many years, as should be the case in parenting our children. Sometimes we may have only half an hour, but whatever the case may be, we should seek to cover the major points, or to preach "the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27, NKJ). As we do this, we must make clear that we are loyal only to the biblical foundation and heritage, and not a pagan foundation or heritage.

[...]

Most Christians are not aggressive enough, even if they know something about biblical apologetics and evangelism. We can all take a lesson from the exchange between Elisha and Jehoash: (quotes 2 Kings 13:14-19)

God has given us divine weapons with which to destroy all non-Christian religions and philosophies (2 Corinthians 10:3-5). These are spiritual or intellectual weapons, expressed in our preaching and arguments. But what are we doing with them? As Elisha was angry with Jehoash for not being aggressive and thorough enough, so this man of God would be very angry with most of us today. He would have no patience for our tolerance and propriety.

Nevertheless, God is faithful to himself and to his people, and he has preserved some of us who have not bowed the knee to relativism, pluralism, and other non-biblical perspectives. We who know our God will do great things in his name. We will ceaselessly attack non-Christian religions and philosophies with biblical argumentation and persistent prayer. We will strike them again and again. When they run, we will pursue them; when they hide, we will expose them; and when they fall, we will trample them. We will not make Jehoash's mistake, who struck three times and stopped – we will never stop. When we finally learn to fight by the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, we will find that non-Christian thought has no defense against our assaults. We will be an invincible army, and the very gates of hell will not stand against us.


Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations (.pdf) 25 Comments [4/26/2014 5:17:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 20
Submitted By: Skyknight

Quote# 100363

On the final page of his book, Humble Apologetics, John G. Stackhouse, Jr. writes, "We Christians do believe that God has given us the privilege of hearing and embracing the good news, of receiving adoption into his family, and of joining the Church. We do believe that we know some things that other people don't, and those things are good for them to hear. Above all, we believe that we have met Jesus Christ."

This is fine, but then he adds, "For all we know, we might be wrong about any or all of this. And we will honestly own up to that possibility. Thus whatever we do or say, we must do or say it humbly." This is unbiblical and outrageous. He has just stated what represent some of the central claims of the biblical message, and that he affirms these claims as true, so when he says that "we might be wrong about any or all of this," he necessarily implies that Scripture itself might be wrong about any or all of this. However, since the Bible itself does not admit that it "might be wrong about any or all of this," when Stackhouse says that he "might be wrong about any or all of this," he is no longer defending the Bible.

Of course, his emphasis is that he himself might be wrong that the Bible is the revelation of God, but this still returns to the point that if this is what he means, then he is no longer defending the Bible. He is saying that he might be wrong when he says that the Bible is right, which amounts to him saying that the Bible might be wrong. Since he says that he might be wrong when he affirms that the Bible is true, so that the Bible might in fact be false, he is no longer doing biblical apologetics.

The Bible says that when we affirm what it teaches, we can know with certainty that what we believe is true: (quotes Luke 1:3-4, John 17:6-8, and Hebrews 11:1,6, with emphasis on phrases implying certitude of knowledge)

If the Bible itself claims to be the revelation of God and therefore completely true, then by what standard of humility does Stackhouse call his less than certain approach to apologetics "humble"? Since the Bible is the ultimate standard of ethics, it also defines humility; therefore, when Stackhouse implies that the Bible itself might be wrong, he is not being humble, but arrogant – so arrogant that he says he might be wrong if he affirms what God reveals. According to biblical standard, it is not humble to say that you might be wrong when you affirm what the Bible affirms; instead, you are arrogant if you say that the Bible might be wrong.

For Stackhouse to assume the identity of a Christian and then say that his religion might be wrong is to say that Christianity might be wrong; therefore, instead of doing apologetics – humble or not – he is in fact attacking Christianity. If the Bible is the word of God, then to say that we might be wrong about it being the word of God is not humility, but blasphemy. If Stackhouse admits that he himself does not have certainty, then we may perhaps still accept him as a weaker brother, but when he says that we should not ever claim certainty, then he has made himself an enemy of Christ.

Rather than saying that we must "own up to that possibility" that we might be wrong, we must insist on the impossibility that we are wrong when we are affirming what the Bible teaches. When we affirm what the Bible affirms, it is impossible that we are wrong. If Stackhouse is so "humble," he must also confess that he might be wrong when he says that he might be wrong about Christianity, for how can he be so sure there is "that possibility" that Christians can be wrong who affirm the Bible? Is he fallible when he affirms the Bible, but infallible when it comes to "that possibility"?

Stackhouse's position is unbiblical and irrational. We must reject such pretended humility, unfaithful spirituality, and asinine pseudo-scholarship in exchange for an approach to apologetics that is biblical, which is one that says, "We are right, and we are sure that we are right. You are wrong, and we are sure that you are wrong." If this biblical position brings the world's reproach, then so be it; let the non-Christians try to defeat us in argumentation. On the other hand, if you who claim to be a Christian are so drunk with "tolerance" that you prefer to adopt Stackhouse's anti-biblical stance, then why not go all the way and stop calling yourself a Christian?


Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations (.pdf) 17 Comments [4/26/2014 5:15:29 AM]
Fundie Index: 16
Submitted By: Skyknight

The "Most Likely to be Convicted of a Felony" Award

Quote# 100269

[Emphasis mine.]

I live in a university town that's overrun with young girls. Here are my observations.

First, while any young man arguably loves seeing naked women, the pleasure gained from looking at naked or semi-naked women can be negated entirely by the context. What I mean by context, is the only time it's enjoyable looking at promiscuously dressed women, is if you can have them on the spot. So if a woman is a hooker or a stripper, then it's enjoyable to watch them. However, if a woman is completely unattainable, then it's mentally and physically unpleasant to look at promiscuous women. Women, out of respect for men, should dress in a way that doesn't excite men. A woman dressing provocatively and leaving a man in an unfinished state of excitement is the equivalent of a man dressing in such a way that causes a woman to have a sudden onset period. Simply put dressing provocatively and then suppressing male urges is an assault on men's sexuality.

Second, how a woman dresses directly affects a man's desires. As you can imagine, my university town, Berkeley California, is one big liberalized hypersexual runway show. I'm forced to stare at hundreds if not thousands of women a day, all of whom bring sluttiness to all new pinnacle. But in this sea of flesh, I'm sometimes struck by an anomaly. Seeing as Berkeley is also a multi-cultural haven, I sometimes have the pleasure of being startled by the sight of conservative muslim and Indian women. It's in these sightings that I've discovered something about my own human nature.

I've discovered only my base urges are awakened when I see sluts. It's as though I'm operating on autopilot and anything short of sex, goes off the radar. Simply put, I cannot on a primal level get passed my sexual urges when looking at sluts. I can argue with myself intellectually all I want, but ultimately my actions will be dictated by primal urges. So I'm only able to view sluts as sexual objects. This means as far as actions go, that at best I just want to exploit them for casual sex and at worst I want to rape them.

Yet when I see conservative, modestly dressed muslim and Indian women, I'm amazed by how different I feel towards them. The only thing I want to do is help them. Yet the only thing I want to do to a slut is rape them. These muslim and Indian women are very beautiful, so it's not as though I'm not attracted to them. It's just that dress codes in both sluts and modest women operate as agents for activating different hardwired impulses in my psyche. If I extrapolate this observation to society, I think it's easy to see why in a slut society women will be more prey to rape. And why in a modestly dressed society, women will be protected, helped and nurtured. Simply put, dressing like sluts brings out murders, rapists and sadists in men. Dressing modestly brings out knights in shining armor. A society based on sluts, might as well be a pro-rapist society.

Drealm, CoAlpha Brotherhood 62 Comments [4/26/2014 5:14:51 AM]
Fundie Index: 56
Submitted By: Rabbit of Caerbannog

Quote# 100149

The ‘hate crimes’ gays complain about are infrequent and seldom involve more than name-calling or snide remarks. The FBI reported 431 hate crimes against homosexuals for the U.S. in all of 1991. Only one was “confirmed” for Washington, D.C. – yet D.C. gay activists claimed 397 incidents! When pressed, they admitted that at least 366 of these “crimes” consisted of “verbal harassment.”

In line with traditional psychiatric opinion, violence goes hand-in-hand with the ‘gay’ lifestyle. Almost all the exposure by homosexuals to violence and disease is encountered in the gay subculture. Most of the murderers in the lifespan study whose sexual orientation could be determined were also homosexual. While violence toward homosexuals is deplorable, most violence involving gays is self-induced (and the gay subculture may export more violence than it absorbs from without).

Paul Cameron, Family Research Institute 18 Comments [4/26/2014 5:13:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 18

Quote# 99998

Look guys, women are like pets.

Do pets love you?

No, of course not but they do feel the warmth which is the love you may have for them. At a minimum you are their meal ticket. That in of itself is why they stick around.

Same same with women. As long as you are their meal ticket they "love" you but the very moment you can't provide for them. The very moment they find a better deal, find some higher status.

Watch how fast that "love" goes out the window.

The reason being is it never was there to begin with. It was just something they were telling you to keep the goodies coming. Up until they could find something better. If they can.

The thing is men can love women all they want or none at all but don't expect them to love you back in the same measure. They simply do not have the ability.

Period.

Once you realize this it's easy to walk away from them or keep them around to whatever degree that suits you.

MGTOW

Rex Patriarch, Rex Patriarch - Going His Own Way 37 Comments [4/26/2014 5:13:51 AM]
Fundie Index: 41
1 2 3 4 5 7 | top