Quote# 93672

Excusing the raising of children by homosexuals by saying the kids are taken care of is a red herring. Satan can appear as an angel of light, does that mean he is good? Yes, I am sure some homosexuals can provide food and shelter and needs for children, but so can heterosexuals, who happen to not be living an unrepentant abominable lifestyle.

While the children are fed and taken care of, and have their physically needs being met, they are being warped and twisted spiritually, leading them down a path towards destruction. It is almost like saying abortion is good because it can prevent a lifetime of suffering for a child... Proverbs 14:12 "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."

srogue, Rapture Ready 40 Comments [4/11/2013 3:20:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 56

Quote# 93671

I don't think this is correct. I don't think it's even possibly correct, in fact, I will assert that the notion is a simple category error. To claim that the observable, demonstrable, and provable contradiction between women’s rights and the rights upon which Western civilization were historically founded could even theoretically be described as misogynistic is tantamount to setting oneself against logic, against history, and against reality itself.

As the Castrate said, it is so or it is not so. If women's rights contradict the rights of natural law, or the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, then they contradict them. If I am correct, and they do, then it is a simple matter of fact and neither my feelings about women or Susan's feelings about Martians have anything whatsoever to do with the matter. The idea is not misogynistic for the same reason it is not romantic or anti-semitic or happy or purple. The term simply cannot apply, not even hypothetically.

But no one need take my word for this. I plan to methodically prove it, conclusively, in a series of forthcoming posts. As I mentioned on her blog, I’d even welcome Susan's contribution, if she would care to provide me with what she would consider to be the definitive “women’s rights”.

I would also welcome a comprehensive list of "women's rights" as they are distinguished from simple non-sexually based rights from anyone, male or female, who considers himself to be a feminist or even just a defender of "women's rights". I can, of course, simply resort to Wikipedia, but I would prefer to utilize the list provided by a self-professed champion of them.

Vox Day, Vox Populi 48 Comments [4/11/2013 3:18:55 AM]
Fundie Index: 51

Quote# 93668

Ok, I was having a problem with emailing someone. Well, yesterday I gave the problem to Jesus. Well, I tried emailing her again and it worked!

Praise Jesus

Snoopynstorm, Rapture Ready 71 Comments [4/11/2013 3:18:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 117
Submitted By: Cindy

Quote# 93667

Universities have a preponderance of heterosexuals. But, the perhaps 8% or so of employees who practice homosexuality are responsible for the great bulk of the child molestations! Everyone knows that homosexuals go ‘where the boys are.’ Thus the Boy Scouts and Catholic Priest scandals. But the University and Hollywood scandals exhibit another rule — ‘where gays cluster, boys suffer.’

Everyone knows ‘the pill’ freed heterosexuals from social control — but it also (indirectly) freed those who practice homosexuality. Before the 1960’s, ‘everyone’ had to conform to a norm that guaranteed a future — each citizen was responsible to get married and produce children. This social milieu was self-reinforcing: ‘If I must be disciplined in my sex life, then everybody else should be as well!’ Thus the citizenry generally worked to suppress those with deviant sexual habits.

But that changed radically with the invention of ‘the pill.’ Shielded by the anonymity of modern life, the pill assured that those with heterosexual tastes could live their sex lives almost free from social discipline. Pregnancies would no longer reveal your liaisons, and no one knew whether you were childless by fate or choice. Good news for homosexuals, because if heterosexuals could ‘do whatever they wanted’ sexually, the notion of fairness inevitably pushed heterosexuals to agree with ‘why punish those with other harmless sexual tastes?’

Of course, ‘harmless’ is the operative word. Is homosexuality indeed harmless?

Evangelizing for homosexuality, the entertainment industry (joining the psychiatric professions) began to flood the media with the message that ‘homosexuality is different, yet harmless.’ Hollywood asserted that homosexual practitioners were just as stable, just as worthy of marriage, just as worthy of parenthood, etc. The combination of these two new realities — the pill and Hollywood promotion of homosexuality — is the key to understanding where we are today.

Paul Cameron, Right Wing Watch 51 Comments [4/10/2013 3:20:46 AM]
Fundie Index: 67

Quote# 93662

homos in football? shocking.

they’ve been pushing homo friendly subliminal advertisement in commercials during the games for a number of years.

simple... if nfl goes fag:

1. don’t go to the games.
2. stop watching the games.
3. don’t buy any nfl gear or paraphernalia

satisfy your football needs with the college games.

sten, Free Republic 58 Comments [4/10/2013 3:07:57 AM]
Fundie Index: 55

Quote# 93661

The very weighty criticisms of Darwinian molecules-to-man evolution are readily available, but for whatever reason you choose to ignore them. Note we’re not talking about natural selection, which is something no one (including Biblical creationists, most of whom aren’t as dense as you’d perhaps like to pretend) disputes. But apparently the scores of scientists who doubt Darwinian theory are all just a bunch of yokels, correct? Doubters who include prominent atheists like Antony Flew (who ceased being an atheist and moved to agnosticism before he died) and Thomas Nagel, as well as theists of all stripes.

I would suggest starting at intelligentdesign.org for an overview, then sites like uncommondescent.com, evolutionnews.org, and arn.org for more in-depth discussions of the limits of neo-Darwinism. To sum up…Darwin’s Grand Theory of Evolution is outdated 19th century science (again, NOT talking about natural selection, which is observable and factual, but that theory pre-dates Darwin himself). If Darwin were alive today, he would NOT be a Darwinist. Darwin himself thought the cell was a mere lump of protoplasm, which of course is not proven to be bogus. Believing in neo-Darwinism is like believing a 747 can assemble itself from all its assorted parts scattered on a field, given enough time (1 billion years? 13 billion? 15 quintillion? Doesn’t matter, ain’t gonna happen).

Derelictus, Moonbattery 38 Comments [4/10/2013 3:07:38 AM]
Fundie Index: 39

Quote# 93657



There is nothing in scripture that would ever lead me to believe that our Lord and Saviour would conduct a homosexual wedding ceremony or endorse homosexual couples adopting children. I will never support either position regardless of whether the adopting couple would provide a loving and nurturing home.

Batman, Rapture Ready 58 Comments [4/10/2013 2:55:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 40

Quote# 93652

["Cancer clinics are turning away thousands of Medicare patients. Blame the sequester."]

The bright side of this is, when faced with death people look to the Lord.

Cindy S., Rapture Ready 59 Comments [4/9/2013 6:06:52 PM]
Fundie Index: 84

Quote# 93646

I read this entire thread. My wife is on FB and my 4 adult sons are on FB. I've told them countless times that FB is evil and they won't listen to me. After reading through this my opinion that FB is evil has not changed one bit. People say things there that they would never say face to face. If it's worth saying, say it to someone's face. And if someone is worth being a friend, you should be a friend "closer than a brother" and not some silly, cyber friend. FB is evil and nothing good can come from being on it.

rks7777, Rapture Ready 58 Comments [4/9/2013 5:56:23 PM]
Fundie Index: 17

Quote# 93628

The founder of a Colorado gun group is looking forward to November’s “hunting season” because it will be “time to hunt Democrats.”

Dudley Brown, who serves as the executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and the executive vice president of the National Association for Gun Rights, used some violent rhetoric during a Wednesday interview with NPR about how gun owners would deal with Democrats who supported President Barack Obama’s proposal for universal background checks.

“I liken it to the proverbial hunting season,” Brown quipped. “We tell gun owners, ‘There’s a time to hunt deer. And the next election is the time to hunt Democrats.’”

“This is a very Western state with traditional Western values,” he pointed out. “And citizens had to have firearms for self-defense, and right now that’s still the case.”

Dudley Brown, The Raw Story 43 Comments [4/9/2013 5:54:51 PM]
Fundie Index: 34

Quote# 93623

(In response to Republican Senator Mark Kirk stating he is supporting same sex marriage)

Intense pressure is being applied to these people. Threats, blackmail where applicable. And so many people don't know how to phrase support for traditional marriage in a way that doesn't sound 'mean' to modernist ears. I was on a fb thread for World Mag. yesterday (a Christian magazine, btw) and someone posted about how the pro-gay marriage side is the only 'loving and caring' side.

I've noticed the snowball effect too - more like an avalanche actually. This idea arose from nothing and is about to take over the culture. Even gay activists weren't interested in gay marriage until very recently, but now it's the mark of who is nice or not!

The thing is, every time the Christians, or the Republicans, cave on a social issue, the Left comes up with another social issue to beat us over the head. They're not interested in rights so much as in hurting us.

Reason&Hope, Rapture Ready 40 Comments [4/9/2013 5:54:42 PM]
Fundie Index: 39

Quote# 93262

"Looking around at our world, our universe, and saying there is no God is like looking at a seven-course meal and saying there is no cook."

I don't remember who made that quote, but I believe it has a great deal of truth in it. I mean, when we look at the complexity of life, and how everything intertwines with each other and how organisms can survive and adapt to different environments it seems very difficult to me to say that it was all by accident. I am a creationist (on the fence about young/old earth), and I know that Adonai has created and designed the entire universe, the galaxies, and every strand of DNA in every organism on earth. If we look under the microscope at the human body (or any other organism) we can see how each cell is a machine, a factory.

Cells know how to divide and function correctly, they have their own systems of disposing waste, how to grow together to heal the body, and many other functions essential to life. The reason I have no belief in evolution is the fact that you cannot create something out of nothing (law of conservation of mass) meaning that nothing in the universe can create or destroy mass, and that something outside of the bonds of the universe must have made all mass (eg: God). All animals today are designed for their environments, they are born with traits and genes handed down from past generations to be stronger/weaker, than others.

Also, I've started to accept the belief of challenging everything, no matter who says it. I'm obsessed with history and love to research all topics. And recently, I've started to realize, "how to we know that what the evolutionists/atheistic scientists is even true?" I mean, I have no access to their personal research, I only have the info they report to the news. And for all I know, they could be making everything up. So, why must I accept that what they say is true?

Deiterra, Nationstates 37 Comments [4/9/2013 5:53:19 PM]
Fundie Index: 23
Submitted By: acebrock

Quote# 92984

"Anyway, I think the main point is, that if one debates a creationist in public, they have to agree on things that can't be talked about."


I won't debate creationsim with anyone on TV or radio that won't first agree that we don't step outside of Genesis 1.

Once they get you outside of Genesis 1, the conversation is over; as they'll bring up the Fall, the Flood, the Grand Canyon, SN1987A, ERVs, varves, tree rings, ice cores, K-T boundary, sin nature, Adam's rib, Cain's wife, Hebrews in the desert, contradictions in the Bible, who wrote what, the Crusades, witch hunts, the Inquisition, was Jesus born in December, the order of events on Resurrection morning, definition of "kind", she bears mauling children, rape, incest, genocide, macroevolution, microevolultion, water canopy, abiogenesis, spontaneous generation, spontaneous combustion, the Ten Commandments, the fallibility of the Scriptures, was Mary a virgin, conflicting lineages in Matthew & Luke, Q, the 10 plagues, how did Judas die, the Filoque Controversy, and a few other things you guys like to bring up.

And that's just before the first commercial.

AV1611VET, Christianforums 44 Comments [4/9/2013 5:53:12 PM]
Fundie Index: 50

Quote# 93634

The Marines will have no choice but to make the Combat Endurance Test more equal. Which is to say easier. Because, after all, everyone knows that actual military combat is considerably less difficult than an introductory fitness test.

What I'd love to see is for the Marine Corps to address the political pressure it is facing by creating an all-female combat battalion. Give them the very best of training, the best equipment, and then put them right on the front lines. After one-third of them suddenly fall pregnant before the deployment, another third flee at the first sound of gunfire, and the remaining third are captured and raped, there won't be any need to continue the debate any longer.

When faced with lunatic nonsense, agree and amplify. To be honest, I'm genuinely surprised that none of the four female pioneers managed to break their necks or otherwise get themselves killed during the test.

Vox Day, Vox Populi 53 Comments [4/9/2013 5:49:54 PM]
Fundie Index: 54

Quote# 93630

Republican shock jock Rush Limbaugh said Monday that the tide of opinion on LGBT rights has turned so sharply that he’s getting seriously freaked out “that Vladimir Putin is saying things I agree with” these days.

Limbaugh was specifically talking about Putin’s move to ban the adoption of Russian orphans by same sex couples in other countries, and how he thinks that’s a good idea.

“It freaks me out,” Limbaugh said. “I have to tell ya, it freaks me out that Vladimir Putin is saying things that I agree with. The Russian president has opposed the adoption of Russian orphans by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender foreign couples, and has instructed the government and supreme court there to prepare changes to existing law by July 1.”

He added it’s “ironic” that he now agrees with Putin, even after growing up fearing the Russians and being told that liberals secretly love Soviet-style communism.

“To the left, and still today, the United States was the great Satan,” Limbaugh insisted. “And so now here’s a KGB officer who is — this guy is what he is, he’s an old communist — and he’s speaking out against the popular issue of the day in Russia.”

Rush Limbaugh, The Raw Story 32 Comments [4/9/2013 5:49:44 PM]
Fundie Index: 31

Quote# 93629

Republican lawmakers in North Carolina have proposed a bill that they say would allow to the state to establish an official religion and defy the Constitution of the United States.

Nine state House members joined with Republican state Reps. Harry Warren and Carl Ford of Rowan County to sponsor House Bill 494 in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) last month that sought to stop Christian prayers at official Rowan County government meetings.

[...]

Warren and Ford’s bill would declare that North Carolina is “sovereign” and any court ruling about religion is nullified by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.

“The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws respecting an establishment of religion,” the bill states.

“The North Carolina General Assembly does not recognize federal court rulings which prohibit and otherwise regulate the State of North Carolina, its public schools or any political subdivisions of the State from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.”

[...]

Rep. Harry Warren in 2010 told NC Tea Party TV that the federal government had too much power and that it was doing everything possible to “infringe on sovereignty of the states.”

“I wholeheartedly believe that we have to do what we need to do to protect our sovereignty,” he explained. “And I would fight very hard to make sure we maintain our sovereignty and our state’s rights.”

Reps. Henry Warren & Carl Ford, The Raw Story 38 Comments [4/9/2013 5:49:30 PM]
Fundie Index: 42

Quote# 93626

The vaccine is introduced into the child, the child then grows and tries to find its own personality, and if this is inhibited by mercury or other substances present in the vaccine which enter the brain, the child becomes gay. The problem will especially be present in the next generations, because when gays have children, the children will carry along with them the DNA of their parent’s illness. Because homosexuality is a disease, even though the WHO has decided that it is not. Who cares! The reality is that it is so. Each vaccination produces homosexuality, because it prevents the formation of one’s personality. It is a microform of autism, if you will. You will see how many gays there will be in the next generation, it will be a disaster.

Gian Paolo Vanoli, Huffington Post 45 Comments [4/9/2013 12:37:14 PM]
Fundie Index: 65
Submitted By: John_in_Oz

Quote# 93621

(Regarding the fact that Mary Horton, the founder of the Talk Origins Usenet newsgroup and archive, is a transsexual)

They point to the fact that entire site is biased.

Why do you think transexuals hate christianity & creationism?

Why are most atheists homosexual/sexually immoral?

Because the Bible tells us that homosexuality/transgenderism is an abomination, so homosexuals and transexuals resort to atheism because of their hatred of the Bible. They can't admit they are in the wrong and atheism provides a cover for them to be accepted.

Cassiterides, The Flat Earth Society 29 Comments [4/9/2013 11:14:52 AM]
Fundie Index: 44

Quote# 93615

Actually he raised some valid points against Islam. A few examples:

1. Islam teaches polygamy. In fact the Koran is a text based entirely on this immoral doctine of men having multiple wives. Muhammad for example had 11 wives.
2. Islam teaches sexual immorality. The Koran states Muhammad had sexual intercourse with over 20 woman (including women outside his marriages, including several of his owned female slaves).
3. Islam teaches child marriage (sick). Muhammad married Aisha when she was six years old. The Hadith, explains that he had slept with Aisha while she had childrens ''dolls'' in her bed.

None of these facts are distortions from ''anti-Islam websites'', all these things you can read in the Koran and Hadith. Also the usual liberal argument ''well all religions teach the same thing'' is a fallacy here. The Bible is strongly against polygamy (and those that practiced it were punished i.e King Solomon), is against sexual immorality (it promotes no sex outside marriage) and thirdly is certianly against underage marriage or any other as disgusting things.

Cassiterides, The Flat Earth Society 29 Comments [4/9/2013 11:14:06 AM]
Fundie Index: 20

Quote# 93610

Homosexuals cannot be "awesome" parents.

Why shouldn't they raise children? They won't raise them in the admonition of the Lord and teach them the truth of the Bible because they can't even see it for themselves. They are blind guides leading little children astray.

Matthew 18:6
...but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

EarsToHear, Rapture Ready 50 Comments [4/8/2013 3:42:32 AM]
Fundie Index: 44
Submitted By: Tuxedo Mask

Quote# 93609

["As a bibliophile, I'm sure the gospels of John 1:18 and John 6:46 are familiar to you."]

One other thing. If you call any other Christian on this page a "bibliophile" I will ban you. Please show respect for your fellow species. Thanks.

["Ray I sincerely apologise for the use of the word 'bibliophile'. It means lover of books ...."]

Leonie, I'm the one who should be apologizing. I thought it was just another atheist insult, a cross between pedophile and Bible. My sincere apologies. Still learning. Best wishes.

[Emphasis added]

Ray Comfort, Facebook 98 Comments [4/8/2013 3:09:21 AM]
Fundie Index: 42
Submitted By: Night Jaguar

Quote# 93607

All non-Christians are morons. Many Christians refuse to say this because they have an evil respect for non-Christian scholars, and a false concept of Christian gentleness. In refusing to declare that all non-Christians are stupid, they have denied an important aspect of the Christian faith. The biblical message is that man is both sinful and stupid without Christ. Thus those who deny that non-Christians are stupid also deny that Christ saves us from both our wickedness and our foolishness. This implies that we were intellectually sufficient without salvation from Christ, and that we needed his salvation only from our sinfulness. This is a denial of the saving work of Christ, and amounts to blasphemy.


Vincent Cheung, Doctrine and Obedience (.pdf) 58 Comments [4/8/2013 3:08:55 AM]
Fundie Index: 55
Submitted By: Skyknight

Quote# 93595

In fact, I had this discussion with some wonderful, caring Democrats earlier this week on the issue of, well, they said "surely you could agree to limit the number of rounds in a magazine, couldn't you? How would that be problematic?"

And I pointed out, well, once you make it ten, then why would you draw the line at ten? What's wrong with nine? Or eleven? And the problem is once you draw that limit ; it's kind of like marriage when you say it's not a man and a woman any more, then why not have three men and one woman, or four women and one man, or why not somebody has a love for an animal?

There is no clear place to draw the line once you eliminate the traditional marriage and it's the same once you start putting limits on what guns can be used, then it's just really easy to have laws that make them all illegal.

Rep. Louie Gohmert, Right Wing Watch 59 Comments [4/7/2013 4:41:31 AM]
Fundie Index: 61
Submitted By: Zagen30

Quote# 93594

Evangelical atheists are funny little people, ain’t they? They claim to be the sole heirs to true “reason,” while promoting a mechanistic model of the the universe that is more faith-based than that of theists. I believe the origin of the universe in the big bang (a theory originated by Fr. Georges Lemaître) has a theistic cause, and I have the proof of my own senses and reason, as well as the perfectly sound logical point that all causes must trace themselves back to a First Cause. They also believe that the universe has an origin point, and that their faith-based view of science will find the solely natural cause for that origin annnnny day now. Just give it time. Top Men are working on it right now. Top! Men!

Of course, once that cause is found, it still doesn’t rule out a theistic answer to the origin and nature of the universe any more than understanding why a rose is red and smells nice renders Shakespeare meaningless.

Here’s the glorious truth for them: time, space, and matter have an origin point outside of time, space, and matter, and this everyone understands to be God. It’s really not that hard, and if the next question is, “Well, then where does God come from?” the answer is right there in that complex, brilliant, poetic, vexing, and infinitely wise thing we call scripture, formulated long before the idea of contingent being: “God is.”

What, you wanted something more than that? Maybe a calculation or a formula or a paper in Nature? An answer that reduces the infinite wonder of a totally non-contingent being responsible for all existence into something you can store in that bag of gray mush in your noggin? Tough crap. That’s all you’re getting: YHWH. It’s all you need. Embrace that one mystery, and all else makes sense.

Thomas L. McDonald, Patheos.com 68 Comments [4/7/2013 4:41:08 AM]
Fundie Index: 43
Submitted By: emau99

Quote# 93590

The truth tends to reveal itself over time. Over the last ten years, I've observed that the intrinsically anti-freedom authoritarianism of feminism is increasingly out in the open. At this point, only those who aren't paying attention can still pretend to buy into the idea that feminism and women's rights are even remotely compatible with Western civilization or resemble anything that the Western intellectual tradition would consider legitimate rights.

That is the true heart of feminism. As I wrote when I pointed out that feminists are sub-civilized: "This is what the feminist's vaunted concept of equality means. This is what it has always meant: the legal protection of a woman from all and any consequences of her actions. This includes a woman's ability to break any contract at will, to steal from anyone as she pleases, and murder even the most innocent without having to even hear a whisper of protest to make her uncomfortable."

Barbara helpfully adds an element that I neglected to include, which is that women "should be able to make you not offend" them. Being intellectually incoherent and unjustifiable in the eyes of every rational observer, feminism is necessarily an ideology of force. This is why it has to be resisted every bit as strenuously as other such ideologies, including communism and National Socialism.

And a science fiction that cannot be sexist or minority-phobic is not science fiction at all, but a dogmatically limited sub-genre in which all literary value is necessarily subservient to ideological whimsy.

Vox Day, Vox Populi 49 Comments [4/7/2013 4:35:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 43