Quote# 97678

God does have a sense of humor. Offensive linemen toil in obscurity from the media, but the headlines today are about a lineman named "Richie Incognito."

Andrew Schlafly, Conservapedia 29 Comments [11/16/2013 6:17:44 AM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: psyGremlin

Quote# 97664

This brings up a point I have thought about for a while, and might involve a break from androsphere orthodoxy.

We know that before Marriage 1.0 was created, almost all women reproduced but just 40% of men did. This meant that the bottom half of men were disenfranchised.

BUT, this meant that every new boy born was the son of an alpha and the grandson of an alpha.

Marriage 1.0 was meant to harness male output by enabling all men to be fathers (and ensure each woman had a protector). But this involved an unnatural number of lesser Beta or Omega males to reproduce.

Hence, today we have a lot a manginas. Manginas are the outcome of too many lesser Beta/Omega males being able to reproduce. A Futrelle is a very unnatural outcome.

Maybe the attempts by women to destroy Marriage 1.0 are what nature wants them to do, because nature is seeing too many manginas being created, and this is a process to correct that. What is wrong is that women have enacted laws to steal a man’s income stream on a ‘no fault’ basis, and to use children as conduits for wealth seizure.

But perhaps the wishes by women to shut out the bottom half of men from reproduction, is in fact what nature wants, to get evolutionary norms back on track.

Of course, this brings up the problem of civilization being the product of the work of beta males. But then again, are the bottom 20% of men doing any useful work? If Futrelle represents the culmination of mangina existence, I think we can agree he and his ilk were never going to be the ones who did any useful work in terms of keeping the lights on and the roads paved. In other words, are the bottom rung of men even the ones doing any of the useful work? I think many of them are not (again, look at the most committed manginas, and see if they have any ability to do the important, civilization-sustaining work).

Maybe women are acting a certain way, because nature wants them to, in order to undo the generations upon generations of selective breeding that enabled manginas to exist.

After all, one thing that feminists and androsphere men can agree on, is that manginas should not exist, and all costs should be transferred onto manginas, without mercy.

This idea is still evolving, but there may be merit to the idea that if Marriage 1.0 enabled generations upon generations of bottom-rung men to reproduce, where they never would have under prehistoric norms, the present-day population of mangina represents the cumulative refuse of that unnatural selection, and women are merely attempting to correct this, under nature’s directi0n. If this is the case, we should not oppose it. Rather, we should only be educating men and let THEM decide on whether they want to be red pill, or blue pill (and hence on the waitlist for the extinction that women are gradually processing them into).

This also means that Game is important, for single AND married guys. Your evolutionary future depends on it.

TFH, The Spearhead 72 Comments [11/15/2013 4:19:58 AM]
Fundie Index: 60

Quote# 97660

[In Orthodox Judaism a man has to be the one to provide a get and divorce his wife. This is in response to an article about a husband holding his soon-to-be ex-wife hostage in marriage after she was granted a civil divorce.]

Why did the state of New Jersey grant the civil divorce in the first place? There should be a law in place preventing a civil divorce from being granted if the religious divorce is blocked.

BubbaMetzia, Reddit 33 Comments [11/15/2013 4:18:43 AM]
Fundie Index: 31

Quote# 97657

I BELIEVE THAT the intellectual capacity of women is on the whole inferior to that of men. By "on the whole," I do not mean just "on the average"; though I do mean that much. My belief is, if you take any degree of intellectual capacity which is above e average for the human race, as a whole, then a possessor of that degree of intellectual capacity is a good deal more likely to be man than a woman.

This proposition is consistent, of course, with there being women, and indeed with there being any number of women, at any level of intellectual capacity however high. But it does mean, for example, that if there is a large number of women at a given above average level of intellectual capacity, then there is an even larger number of men at that level.

In the past almost everyone, whether man or woman, learned or unlearned, believed the intellectual capacity of women to be inferior to that of men. Even now this is, I think, the belief of most people in most parts of the world. In this article my main object is simply to remind the reader of what the evidence is, and always was, for this old belief, and of how strong that evidence is.

An opposite belief has become widely current in the last few years, in societies like our own: the belief that the intellectual capacity of women is on the whole equal to that of men. If I could, I would discuss here the reasons for the sudden adoption by many people of this opinion. But I cannot, because I have not been able to find any reasons for it, as distinct from causes of it. The equality-theory (as I will call it) is not embraced on the grounds of any startling facts which have only lately come to light. It is not embraced on the grounds of some old familiar facts which have been misunderstood until lately. It is not embraced, as far as I can see, on any grounds at all, but from mere prejudice and passion. If you ask people, "What evidence is there for the equality-theory?", you do not get an answer (though you are likely to get other things).

David Stove, Cricket Versus Republicanism 37 Comments [11/15/2013 4:16:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 35

Quote# 97656

Any serious answers to these questions would be instructive, but I do not really expect to receive any such answer. The evidence for the inferior intellectual capacity of women is so obvious and overwhelming, that anyone who can lightly set it aside must be defective in their attitude to evidence; and our contemporary equality-theorists are in fact (as I have hinted several times), religious rather than rational in their attitude to evidence. As providing some further indication of this, the following thought-experiment may be of use. Suppose that the historical evidence had been the exact reverse of what it has usually been: that is, suppose that the intellectual performance of men had been uniformly inferior, under the widest variety of circumstances, to that of women. Rational people would in that case be as confident of the superior intellectual capacity of women as they now are of the reverse. But would those people who are at present equality-theorists be as confident then as they are now of the equal intellectual capacity of the two sexes? To ask this question is to answer it. The fact is, our egalitarians treat evidence on a basis of heads-I-win-tails-you-Iose; indeed, to say so is "putting it mild," at that.

David Stove, Cricket Versus Republicanism 20 Comments [11/15/2013 4:16:18 AM]
Fundie Index: 28

Quote# 97655

There is only one type of man on the planet today. Man with a soul. Why? As I point out in my OP there was an event that wiped out all of the monkey men, only leaving the decendants of Adam.

Drich, Atheist Forums 30 Comments [11/15/2013 4:14:52 AM]
Fundie Index: 25
Submitted By: Doubting Thomas

Quote# 97654

I had two choices at the end of my first date with my husband: put out or no second date. He didn’t directly say so, but it was understood. So I put out. I wanted to anyway, so it wasn’t like it was some traumatizing thing. But the fact that I wanted to was in conjunction to the fact that I had to do so if I wanted to continue seeing him. Understand?

So, I willingly became his concubine, like 80% of other women do with their men. And I (and they) enjoyed it, but I was very much wanting his commitment, too. My choices, again, were this:

- Put out immediately. Continue to see him. Have a slim hope that he will put a ring on it.

- Do not put out. Do not see him again. Have no hope that he will put a ring on it.

(Reminder: I was a lapsed Christian and he was an atheist, so two sexually-active Christians *might* have a slightly different script, but it will probably only be a matter of how long they wait to jump in bed together).

The right choice would have been the second one: do not put out, do not see him again, do not get a ring.

But…and here is where it gets tricky…suppose I had done that? Suppose I had continued doing that? I’d be 44 and single. I would also be righteous and blessed by God…but I’d probably have no husband. As it stands, I was unrighteous and I got the prize. I have a man who committed to me.

Again: It is WRONG but that does not make it UNTRUE. See the difference? Other women see this. They see this example, and they understand what it means. In particular, non-Christian women see this choice: put out and eventually you may get a man to commit. Don’t put out and you will never get a man to commit. Even if they WANTED to be chaste – which they don’t – how could they? They only could do so if they committed to a single life. As they should, but who wants that? I didn’t. Neither do most other women.

Sunshine Mary , Sunshine Mary and the Dragon 45 Comments [11/15/2013 4:07:05 AM]
Fundie Index: 29

Quote# 97653

You MAY be a scientist studying PHYSICAL science.
I find a bit arrogant that someone studying physical science can pretend to understand intuitional science.
As far as intuitional science is not affected by the law of cause and effect it is logical that you can not understand a bit of it with the physical science tool

enrico, Atheist Forums 39 Comments [11/15/2013 4:06:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 29
Submitted By: Doubting Thomas

Quote# 97650

Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past — I’m not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble — recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin’s penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an “enemy of the people”. The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, “clan liability”. In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished “to the ninth degree”: that is, everyone in the offender’s own generation would be killed, and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed. (This sounds complicated, but in practice what usually happened was that a battalion of soldiers was sent to the offender’s home town, where they killed everyone they could find, on the principle neca eos omnes, deus suos agnoscet — “let God sort ‘em out”.)
.
We don’t, of course, institutionalize such principles in our society, and a good thing too. Our humanity and forbearance, however, has a cost. The cost is, that the vile genetic inheritance of Bill and Hillary Clinton may live on to plague us in the future. It isn’t over, folks. Dr. Nancy Snyderman, a “friend of the family” (how much money did she give them?) is quoted as saying that Chelsea shows every sign of following her parents into politics. “She’s been bred for it,” avers Dr. Snyderman. Be afraid: be very afraid.

John Derbyshire, The National Review 33 Comments [11/15/2013 4:02:31 AM]
Fundie Index: 31

Quote# 97649

"Right now, in 2013, in many states a person can be fired simply for being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender," Obama wrote in a blog..."

Very unfortunate those perverts, degenerates and depraved lust-crazed freaks can't be fired. It would keep them in the closet where they belong. That way they can't spread the poison that homosexuality/lesbian etc is a 'lifestyle' choice. Our children wouldn't be targeted, and it would be one less piece of 'werk' that our children wouldn't be brainwashed into believing.

"It's offensive. It's wrong. And it needs to stop, because in the United States of America, who you are and who you love should never be a fireable offense," the president added."

It's not 'love', it's lust Dingleberry. And although you might find the morsel of pure truth 'offensive', your homosexuality is offensive. Everything that you ARE is offensive to anyone with at least two firing synapses. Homosexuality, lesbian and other depravities are deeply offensive to God!

Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. (Luke 6:45, Matt 12:34)

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)

patsystone, WND 33 Comments [11/15/2013 4:01:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 34
Submitted By: Hasan Prishtina

Quote# 97628

Hell, just go to Detroit or Chicago. Plenty of it there.

That aside, Pop Sci lost me when it sold out to the Gorebull Warming myth. As for the subject, wanna know WHY there's an obsession with finding dark matter? Here's the undiscussed reason: they are desperate to find something that supports the notion of an endlessly cycling universe of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, so that Event One can become just the latest in an infinite series rather than the one and only Big Bang.

If they can find enough "dark matter" to add its gravity to "light" matter, they can show that the universe will ultimately stop expanding and collapse into itself. They can then reject the necessity of God as the Prime Mover of creation. In short, it's a way to justify atheism.

Old saying: the closer we get to the beginning of the universe, the closer we are to looking into the face of God. Atheists are hoping beyond hope that when we get there, we will see nothing and no One.

DoctorDoom, Where Liberty Dwells 52 Comments [11/14/2013 4:11:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 43

Quote# 97627

Haha wow you really are all over the place aren't you? Throwing around light theory mixed in with the Doctrines of Grace and John Calvin. This must be the ADHD method of discussion haha. Actually many Scientists are moving away from the Isotropic Light Model because it provides a lot of time problems for the big bang. I think the an-isotropic model is a more valid model. Which can be summed up by the Astrophysicist Robert Newton as follows...

"..using the observational definition of time, the speed of light depends on its direction of propagation relative to the observer. (Again, this is a property of spacetime, and not a property of light. All relativistic particles such as neutrinos would also move at different speeds in different directions.) Light travels at the canonical speed of 1,079 million km/hr only when moving tangentially relative to an observer. It moves at half the canonical value when moving directly away from the observer, and it moves infinitely fast when travelling directly toward the observer—travelling instantaneously from point A to point B."

So this would mean that whenever you observe something happen in Space it actually just happened, rather than 13 billion years ago or however many light-years the object is away. This model holds up in all the tests so it really is an exciting new approach.

Statler Waldorf, Atheist Forums 37 Comments [11/14/2013 4:09:47 AM]
Fundie Index: 24
Submitted By: Doubting Thomas

Quote# 97626

Nazification was Hitler and the Nazis’ successful attempt to make all of Germany a Nazi State and every German citizens a Nazi by using proven tactics like Gleichschaltung (forcing into line) and Weltanschauung (Nazi worldview). Similarly, under today’s Progressive Revolution since the 1850s, the Democrat Socialist Party has totally embraced Machiavelli’s “the end justify the means,” “Might makes right,” or as Lord Acton wrote of Machiavelli, “State [and federal] power is not bound by moral law,” which can only be achieved through the liberal lie: separation of church and state. Book burnings then, Obamacare now, were simply a dramatic means to achieve these socialist ends.

The caption in the image above was perhaps written around 1943 and says that, “Ten years ago the Nazis burned these books … but in America we can still read them.” Although this statement tried to distinguish America from Nazi Germany, it is only partially true today. Why? Because while in a de jure (legal) sense America today doesn’t burn books, in a de facto (unofficial) sense through our book publishing industry, our literary agent industry, our media, our education system, our politics, our legal system and throughout culture and society, their exists an existential book burning, happening on a much greater scale by the Democrat Socialist Party, a scale the Nationalist Socialist Party could only dream of 80 years ago under Hitler and the Nazis. In modern times today, leftists creates this book burning atmosphere by deconstructing, perverting and destroying conservative ideas, particularly those out of the Judeo-Christian tradition of intellectual thought … without lighting one match or igniting one torch. Hitler would be pleased!

Only in such an anti-God, anti-intellectual society as America has devolved into during the Age of Progressivism (1860–present) and in the Age of Obama (2009–present) are Heine’s prophetic words tantamount to those of Moses, Isaiah and St. Paul when he wrote, “Where books (ideas) are burned, they will, in the end burn people, too.”

Ellis Washington, WND 57 Comments [11/14/2013 4:09:29 AM]
Fundie Index: 32
Submitted By: Hasan Prishtina

Quote# 97624

There is a company I know of that provides mail order wives from Asia. There's something special about these wives: they're medically certified virgins.

Frankly, marrying a virgin is what I want to do. There's no way I'd ever marry a non-virgin - a girl like that is basically used and no good.

In a year and a half I plan on marrying a girl through a mail order bride service (they're much better than American women, who are mostly whores who fornicate with many men before they settle down with their future husband).

Barth, Yahoo Answers 81 Comments [11/13/2013 4:45:24 AM]
Fundie Index: 66

Quote# 97618

(On stopping being gay)


You're not trying hard enough; I'm sure with proper support you would be successful in the endeavor to do away with that choice, but as you've said, your close kin have embraced the wrong choice made rather than help change it.

*Gay teenagers kill themselves every year because they want to change but can't. If they haven't tried hard enough, I don't know if anyone can.*

They have taken the 'easy' way out...in either case, they have a hot spot waiting for them.

Valcouria, Nationstates 37 Comments [11/13/2013 4:04:02 AM]
Fundie Index: 50
Submitted By: zyr

Quote# 97615

The only warping of Christianity that is occurring are the secular humanists who have infiltrated good Christian society and started preaching that everything is just fine, there's no such thing as sin. To be frank, those who ascribe to such a view are not Christian, just some offshoot of the secular humanist viewpoint that happens to believe in something greater than themselves.
...
Should be called something else, to be honest.

*America's government and laws are not based on Christianity nor is marriage a necessarily religious ceremony.*


Just about all laws are based on Christianity, actually. The Ten Commandments? Those things that some courts have said are not fit to hang in a court room to display our humble legal beginnings?

As for the second point, the church and the government should be in step with each other; it shows that they are both in the same mindset. When one goes a different way, society stumbles and falls apart...as ancient Rome will show.

Valcouria, Nationstates 39 Comments [11/13/2013 4:03:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 31
Submitted By: zyr

Quote# 97614

(On Hawaii probably being the next state to legalize same-sex marriage)

And so 'progress' continues to degrade and destroy cultural morality and sensibility...is it any wonder the world is coming apart at the seams? I surmise not.

*I love being gay. It allows me to laugh extra hard at people like you.*

And I do enjoy believing that you and people like you have a hot room waiting for you at the end of your mortal life. Guess we're even then, aren't we?



Valcouria, Nationstates 29 Comments [11/13/2013 4:03:34 AM]
Fundie Index: 37
Submitted By: zyr

Quote# 97612

Currently, hourly employees receive time and a half after 40 hours of work each week. Salary employees do not get overtime for working over 40 hours each week. Is this fair? Now look at it this way, an employer is paying an employee for a service. The employer is being punished for trying to increase their profits to pay their employees more money. This is also punishing the employees from working more hours if they choose.

The common argument is that the employer will force the employee to work tons of hours against their will or they lose their jobs. Well, why aren't salary employees protesting for overtime? What about commission employees? Commission employees could work regular time for no pay. Why aren't the commission employees protesting?

What is so special about an hourly wage? Who was the genius that came to the conclusion that 40 hours is regular time? Why not 30 hours or 50 hours? Why is overtime time and a half? Why not time and a quarter or time and three quarters?

Just like minimum wage, an overtime law is a violation of an individuals pursuit of happiness. Now, I cannot freely negotiate an hourly wage and amount of hours to work with an employer or employee without the government being the third party in the negotiation telling us what we can and cannot agree on. If I want to work 50 hours a week for $5.00 per hour, I should be free to do so without the government telling me by law I am not allowed to work.

Shouldn't government get out of our personal and business lives because they are not smart enough to regulate anything for all individuals?

Treubig, Daily Paul 35 Comments [11/13/2013 4:03:20 AM]
Fundie Index: 26

Quote# 97610

Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly has come out swinging this week against immigration activists who believe that one of America’s defining symbols, the Statue of Liberty, is an emblem for supporting open immigration to America.

“It’s most unfortunate that people who had nothing to do with this great gift from the French were allowed to paste a plaque on the base of the statue with a quotation that has misrepresented the statue as an invitation to open immigration. The statue has nothing to do with immigration,” Schlafly declared.

“Remember, it’s the Statue of Liberty, not the Statue of Immigration.”

The famed author of the conservative classic “A Choice, Not an Echo” made her comments in a radio blog commemorating the 127th anniversary of the dedication of the statue that has become a symbol of America.

The plaque she criticized, placed on the Statue of Liberty in 1903, bears the sonnet of immigrant poet Emma Lazarus.

Left-wing media outlets, such as Right Wing Watch and Salon, pounced on the opportunity to attack both Schlafly and her remarks.

Salon called her comments “hateful” and tried to undermine her reputation by claiming that no one pays attention to her anymore.

Right Wing Watch, along with criticizing her remarks, did admit “the Statue of Liberty was not originally meant by the French to commemorate immigration.”

Unlike her critics, Schlafly believes that the icon simply represents America’s value for liberty, nothing more.

“The Statue of Liberty memorializes the unique liberty we enjoy in America. It has nothing whatever to do with immigration,” Schlafly stated in her radio blog.

She also writes weekly for WND.

She quoted Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan to explain the real meaning of Lady Liberty and how the statue represents the uniqueness of America and it’s dedication to freedom and liberty.

“On the Statue of Liberty’s 50th anniversary in 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt stated: ‘The Almighty did prepare this American continent to be a place of the second chance. … Millions have … found … freedom of opportunity, freedom of thought, freedom to worship God.’ President Dwight Eisenhower stated in 1954: ‘It represents … a nation whose greatness is based on a firm unshakable belief that all of us mere mortals are dependent upon the mercy of a Superior Being.’ When the Statue of Liberty was relighted after a restoration, President Ronald Reagan said in 1986: ‘I’ve always thought … that God had His reasons for placing this land here between two great oceans.’”

Schlafly has distinguished herself as a staunch opponent of granting amnesty to illegal aliens and has called legislation that would grant it “Republican Party suicide.”

In her latest column, she argues that the current batch of immigrants don’t subscribe to American values and are fiercely resisting assimilation into American culture. Thus, in her opinion, she believes that it is a bad policy for the GOP to pursue immigration reform as it would certainly kill the party.

Phyllis Schlafly, WND 36 Comments [11/13/2013 4:01:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 23

Quote# 97609

There is absolutely NO circumstance which would warrant the adoption or fostering of children, or of fertility treatments, to enable those involved in the evil satanic practices of sodomy, homosexual activities, and all and any other sexual perversions... to provide a "role model", "example" and "parental" influences to the minds and emotional health of babies /children / youth, and to pollute the minds, spirit, and emotional health of the innocent.
The destructive nature of homosexuality and its related behaviours have devastating effects, not only for mortality, but far into the eternities... as chances to progress are forever lost.

Janadele, JREF forums 20 Comments [11/13/2013 4:00:39 AM]
Fundie Index: 29
Submitted By: Empress

Quote# 97607

I stand by my belief that if we magically could spread all the world’s wealth equally amongst all people right now, by the end of a week we would yet again have poverty, people demanding they be given more because they are now worse off than others, and despicable scumbags taking advantage of these people that feel entitled people’s stupidity to make themselves even richer.

The poor tend to be poor because they generally are prone to making bad choices, and/or live in places where terrible behavior and denial of freedoms make it impossible for any kind of prosperity. Man is inherently evil, and the left hates that concept because it makes their Utopian view impossible to ever achieve. The best way out of poverty is education and the ability to find work. Not all will succeed, and poverty will never be eradicated. It’s a human condition that will forever be there. What the left wants to do, and frankly has spent the last 100 years doing, always results in the only possible outcome, and a disastrous one: a small group of elite hold tyrannical power over the rest, whom are all poor.

AlexInCT, Right Thinking 29 Comments [11/13/2013 3:55:41 AM]
Fundie Index: 29

Quote# 97606

"I always thought that the "laws of nature" were the physical laws and by definition impossible to break.
Since sodomy is physically possible, it wouldn't seem to me a violation of any "laws of nature". "
it "might not seem to you"....but, its called "aids"
you can go ahead n pretend....but, you can't "fool mother nature"...
[emphasis original]

hoot2, Free Republic 46 Comments [11/12/2013 4:02:59 AM]
Fundie Index: 40
Submitted By: Goomy pls

Quote# 97603

[Pope] Francis is a scourge. He is a chastisement upon us, and we deserve it because we have done basically NOTHING while the Church has been all but destroyed, the Mass turned into an abomination and a mocking of Our Blessed Lord upon the Altar and in the Tabernacle, and Western Civilization destroyed as a direct result.

50 million children are murdered every year in the world. Sodomy and fornication are destroying lives and souls at a clip never before seen in human history, and now have as their goal the total and complete destruction of the family unit and the sacrament of marriage. The financial system has been destroyed and the livelihoods of billions of people are, as we speak, being stolen and the loot being distributed amongst a cadre of oligarchs. Mohamedism is running totally unchecked and is now explicitly supported by the maggot-infested carcass of post-Christian civilization, led by the former American republic.

Every day souls are lost forever to hell in numbers that are far too horrific to comprehend.

And Pope Narcissus I just said that the two greatest problems in the world are youth unemployment and lonliness among old people.

Well, let’s see, I’m technically unemployed, and now poor, and am terrified of what will become of me if I should live to old age. Gee, I wish I had been torn limb from limb and then had my brains sucked out of my skull. If only I wasn’t so hindered by OBJECTIVE MORALITY, I might have gone to a nightclub and assuaged, even if only temporarily, my loneliness. Because, you know, good and evil are just “conceptions” in my mind.

Even if the Holy Spirit strikes Francis dead tomorrow, the fact that he has said these things and has given the enemies of God and His Holy Church these rhetorical cudgels will live on until Our Lord returns in Glory. These quotes will be used henceforth to discredit and sow confusion. We will be beaten with them non-stop from now on. Paul VI remained silent in the face of abject insubordination and sat and watched as the Mass and Christian culture were dismantled in the 1960s and 70s. But Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae. As horrible as his silence was, even Paul VI can be defended because his words, when he said anything, were Catholic. Francis is making positive statements, albeit NOT ex cathedra statements, but still private statements made important by the massive dignity of his office, that are now clearly outside of Catholicism and are textbook Modernism. That is a whole ‘nother level of ugly, friends.

Go to confession early and often. And remember, there is no salvation outside the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. If you leave and reject the Church, you are leaving and rejecting Christ. Period. The separation of the wheat from the chaff, the sorting of the sheep from the goats, the sorting of the catch in the nets. That’s what this is.

Anne Barnhardt, Barnhardt.biz 47 Comments [11/12/2013 4:01:38 AM]
Fundie Index: 38
Submitted By: Hasan Prishtina

Quote# 97601

IS HE A POPE FOR ALL CATHOLICS?

You can take the Cardinal out of Argentina but can you take Argentina out of the Cardinal.

The whole World is going Communist so the World will need a Communist Pope. In America, over 60 percent of Catholics voted for Obama, many more than voted for Hitler.

muffythetuffy, The Blaze 33 Comments [11/12/2013 4:01:06 AM]
Fundie Index: 31

Quote# 97597

Here is a list from 2011 of the top 10 DEAD celebrities still earning the most money...

¦ #1 Michael Jackson – $200 Million
¦ #2 Elvis Presley – $60 Million
¦ #3 Marilyn Monroe – $30 Million
¦ #4 Charles Schulz – $26 Million
¦ #5 John Lennon – $15 Million
¦ #6 Elizabeth Taylor – $13 Million
¦ #7 Albert Einstein – $12 Million
¦ #8 Dr Suess (Theodor Geisel) – $11 Million
¦ #9 Jimi Hendrix – $10 Million
¦ #10 Stieg Larsson – $9 Million

SOURCE: The 10 Highest Earning Dead Celebrities | Celebrity Net Worth

Psalms 73:12, “Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches.”

Isn't that something? All those famous celebrities are dead, many for decades; yet, their worldly works are still generating millions of dollars in financial profits. Tragically, they're all burning in Hell.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Precious 52 Comments [11/12/2013 3:46:17 AM]
Fundie Index: 38