Quote# 110868

Dear ones in Christ,

Let’s take a peek behind the scenes. We must always remember that the Devil is the father of lies (Jn 8:44). After the mess in the Garden of Eden, the Devil walked out as the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4). Satan is on a short leash but when the great tribulation comes, that leash is removed for 7 terrible years. Thank God we won’t go into the coming nightmare.

Now if Satan controls the world system, like the news, media, politics, wars and religions, then we’re being fed nothing but lies. The only things we can trust are the words of God.

Ever since the printing of The Authorized Bible of 1611, Rome has cursed its existence. They’ve been trying for 400 years to destroy it. They finally pulled it off! Behold, we are up to our necks in all the new Bibles, all approved by the Vatican. What was once beloved, pure words of God are now detested in “Christian” circles.

Everyone’s on the band wagon, thanks to Satan’s public relations gang. The King James Bible has been smeared and rejected. Do I have anything against the Vatican who engineered all of this? Well, I am a little bothered when the Pope sits as God, the Father (Holy Father), also as God, the Son, (Vicar of  Christ) to his followers, and he speaks as God (The Holy Ghost) ex-cathedra. Yeah, I do have a few things against Rome’s antichrist. He is slightly presumptuous!

Please note that, at Chick Publications, we trust that preserved Holy Book in spite of the Devil, and will continue to quote from it long after old Jack Chick is gone —no offense, anybody.

Your brother in Christ,

Jack Chick

Jack Chick, Chick Publications 28 Comments [7/17/2015 2:32:57 PM]
Fundie Index: 19

Quote# 110867

One thing that really interested me during my research into Ebola, was that some of the people who wore the containment suits, still came down with Ebola. And some of the comments placed about this sounded so bewildered; they even pointed out that the workers must have been very careful in the use of their suits, for they knew it was a matter of life and death. Yet they still became sick from Ebola. Of course they were saying this, thinking of how severely contagious it must be. Yet when I first read this, I almost shouted out loud “demon!”, so clear was the revelation from this example. After all, a containment suit is no protection from a demon. Spirits would go right through it!

Then all the demon would have had to do, is place its lying symptoms of say, fever, headache, and muscle aches for example, on to the person, and then if the person believed those lies, The symptoms would become his, and the disease could then enter in and do its damage to the person.

Yes, I can just imagine all those who may read this and think “Wow is she foolish!”(1 Corinthians 1:18,) yet I am here to testify, that I DO NOT GET SICK FROM VIRUSES ANYMORE.

Dreams of Dunamis, Dreams of Dunamis 26 Comments [7/17/2015 2:32:29 PM]
Fundie Index: 25

Quote# 110866

The type of friends you choose to spend time with is a very big thing. The clothes you wear matter. You young girls, and older women too, should never wear sexy bluejeans. I've heard the excuse about wearing baggy or loose fitting jeans, but pants are pants. When a woman bends over, men are going to get a nice show of flesh, when those baggy pants pull tight. Women are naturally more upholstered (shapely in an attractive way) than men, and men will be tempted to lust just by seeing your buttocks hugged by your clothes. Even a dress can be immodest if the sun is shining through and exposing the private area. That why in the old days, women wore double-dresses, down to the floor, and they were (and are) so classy and beautiful. Those are great wives!!!

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Precious 53 Comments [7/17/2015 3:49:21 AM]
Fundie Index: 28

Quote# 110864

Flat earth, blood letting, and a host of other crap used to be widely believed by the majority of scientists and was taught in classrooms. There is no definitive evidence for evolutionism - NONE. There is however evidence that evolutionism is false, "How do we know the earth is billions of years old? Various dating methods. How do we know the dating methods are accurate? Duh, because the earth is billions of years old." Circular reasoning crap.

Oboehner, Christian News Network 37 Comments [7/17/2015 3:36:16 AM]
Fundie Index: 30

Quote# 110863

[On a report that the Boy Scouts are going to allow gay men to be Scout Leaders.]

What does same-sex marriage have to do with allowing your CHILD to be groomed to be gay or even molested by gay scout leaders?

Will there be a big box on the application that says, "I am sexually attracted to minor children," so they can be vetted and denied?

Another big box that says, "I prefer to focus on ages ranging from ___ to ___."

Will there be a chapter in the handbook and merit badge for Groomed to be Gay?

Will there be a chapter in the handbook and merit badge for Molested by the Best?

Will Explorer Scouts be required to be both Gay AND Molested? And assist in teaching the same?

I've heard that stats show a molester molests in excess of 40 children before he is caught and stopped. The multi-million dollar lawsuits will destroy the BSA in no time. They don't have deep pockets like the Catholic Church.

Perhaps this where the APA gets the go ahead on their philosophy that sex with children is good for the children? A moment for teaching tenderness, male bonding and mutual experiences as only two males can share, designed especially for those in fatherless homes -- and any other children the leader selects. Something for which there is no civil recourse if molesting is no longer deemed a criminal act and has the Federal stamp of approval.

Homesick777, Rapture Ready 36 Comments [7/17/2015 3:35:26 AM]
Fundie Index: 23
Submitted By: documentingtehcrazy

Quote# 110861

You know, there is a mountain of stuff that was written about gays in the military that was 100% against their serving. You name it and someone wrote it or said it. Hell, just the fact that the psychiatric club regarded being gay as a mental illness was sufficient to be against gays in the military. That view changed but, still, gays were not permitted in the military. Some were flighty and swishy. Others were going to have hard-ons in the bay showers. You name it. So, now, that’s all behind us. Gays are welcome and it is taboo to disparage men who screw other men in the ass. It’s the new normal. Well, recent history is repeating itself, only this time around it’s transgenders and this time around there is little debate. Next will be dog boinkers, I guess. After all, if the dog screwer can do his job, what difference does it make? It’s all good. So, jump on board the transformation train. It cannot be stopped now anyway.

2/17 Air Cav, This ain't Hell 37 Comments [7/17/2015 3:11:34 AM]
Fundie Index: 16
Submitted By: Slaanesh

Quote# 110860

[Article was entitled "Pentagon is lifting the tranny ban".]

No one should be surprised that the Pentagon has decided to lift the ban against transgendered service members according to the Associated Press.

Yeah, well, go ahead. The thing is, I don’t want to hear the Pentagon cry about how they don’t have money to fund our healthcare, how they don’t have money for adequate pay raises for the folks on active duty, how they can’t afford to keep the A-10 Thunderbolt in the skies above the ground forces. If they have the money to study how to integrate deviants into the services for no good reason, they have enough money to pay us cis-gendered folks what they promised us.

Jonn Lilyea, This Ain't Hell 22 Comments [7/17/2015 3:11:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 17
Submitted By: Slaanesh

Quote# 110857

Christians say they want a God of Truth—meaning One who never lies in any way shape or form. But what would it really be like to talk to a God who tells you the absolute truth all the time? Let’s consider how this would change your conversations with God:

You: “God, how much do You love me?”

God: “It depends on how you look at it. I love you more than other people do, but I don’t love you anywhere near as much as I love Myself. When it comes right down to it, I think you’re totally expendable. You aren’t essential to Me in anyway. I made you for My own benefit, not yours. You see, it’s all about Me. You’re like a background detail.”

Total honesty isn’t all that pleasant, is it? What you really want God to say is, “Yes, child, I love you very much.” This is what He does say to you today, but it is a very incomplete answer. Intentionally leaving out information and thereby creating a false impression of reality is just another form of lying, and God does this with us all the time.

Anna Diehl, The Pursuit of God 23 Comments [7/17/2015 3:09:32 AM]
Fundie Index: 12

Quote# 110855

I am sick of seeing muppets with that pathetic gay rainbow imposed over their pictures, especially when they are straight. It's especially sickening when a child has it because mum and dad have no spine.

[...]

I think their plan is to express their perverted views onto their children every time they see a rainbow. Oh look kids, another man has just been bummed, let's celebrate with some sausages and chocolate spread.

Seaxan, Anglo-Saxon Foundation 24 Comments [7/17/2015 3:06:04 AM]
Fundie Index: 10

Quote# 110853

Jesus sounds rather two-faced, doesn’t He? Well, that’s because He is.

It’s not hard to find God contradicting Himself in the Bible. Those who are looking for excuses not to submit to God like to compile lists of these contradictions and say, “See! God is a hypocrite! Who needs Him?!” The problem with this argument is that what they’re really saying is, “I shouldn’t have to believe in God until I approve of how He operates.” Well, no, this isn’t how it works. No one will escape the torments of Hell by pulling out the “but I didn’t approve” card. God doesn’t care if we approve of His methods or not. He simply introduces Himself to us—contradictions and all—then He DEMANDS that we submit to Him. If we defy Him, He retaliates by torturing us forever. We might think this system is unfair, but God thinks it is fabulous.

Anna Diehl, The Pursuit of God 35 Comments [7/16/2015 2:57:17 PM]
Fundie Index: 20

Quote# 110852

Now if you think you’re doing a perfect job at forgiving people, you’re utterly delusional. When we humans don’t want to face what misers of mercy we are, we just carefully avoid thinking about the people who really tick us off. We think that not thinking about something makes it go away. There are names for these kinds of mind games: denial, compartmentalizing, and stuffing to name a few. But the point is that you really don’t feel good will towards every person on the planet. In fact, you hate people who you don’t even know. What kinds of feelings come to mind when you hear the termsmolesters, murderers, pimps, and drug lords. How about Nazis, genocide, and terrorists? Can you honestly say that there’s no hardness of heart happening when you read over the daily news and learn about man’s cruelty to man? We humans are constantly passing judgement on each other and condemning each other. We’re constantly defining ourselves as better than someone else. The guy who cuts you off on the freeway and nearly causes an accident—did you forgive him to the degree that you want God to forgive you? Or did you just flash him a hostile hand signal and eventually forget about him?

Ignoring someone does not constitute forgiving them. Forgiveness is when we fully acknowledge the scope of the violation, take an honest assessment of the damage that has been done, and say “I’m choosing to be merciful about this and have justice withheld from me for your sake.” True forgiveness is very difficult for us humans to pull off. That’s why we’d all end up in Hell if Yahweh took us seriously when we prayed The Lord’s Prayer at Him. As serious Christians, we need to stop rattling off these religious mantras and start being a lot more thoughtful about what we say to our Gods.

Anna Diehl, The Pursuit of God 11 Comments [7/16/2015 1:59:24 PM]
Fundie Index: 10

Quote# 110848

When my father died i was young, i was his only son. My mom never married anyone else, she loved my father. In my mind, women were pure like my mom. When i got to college, it was a break in my reality, it was my red pill. A bitch broke my heart, betrayed my feelings. She friendzoned me and had sex with a friend of mine.

Now, i cant stand with women, i just want to rape them, i hate them all. I want to make them suffer. I want to torture them.

Most of incels are like me, they were raised in a lovely family, them, they woke up the matrix.

The irony is that after going full misogynist, women started to show sexual interest in me. But now, i just hate them. I lost my virginity with prostitutes, i just cant stand women, i keep dreaming in killing women, in torture them.

psycl0n, Reddit /r/PhilosophyOfRape 53 Comments [7/16/2015 1:56:08 PM]
Fundie Index: 38
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 110847

Atheism is a fad cult whose followers worship Richard Dawkins instead of God. It is most notably the only religion that is self-deluded enough to claim to be backed up by science. Its followers are even more ignorant, dogmatic, and fanatical about their chosen spiritual path than they claim Muslims, Christians, Hindoos or Jews to be. They use science as their excuse for said dogmatism, and, unfortunately, some of them truly believe their own bullshit in this regard. Ironically, atheism is the most fundamentalist religion known to man. Atheists are hypocritical enough to think that killing 5 billion theists equates to world peace, or, more precisely that as long as people don't agree with them humans still possess the ability to hurt each other.

However, there is a key difference. People who convert to Islam or Christianity do so because they want to have a more fulfilling life, or because they had a genuine religious experience. People who become atheists do so because they got picked on in high school. Rummage through an atheist's emotional baggage and you will find a pile of leftover teenage angst, a few cases of repressed rage at mommy and daddy, and an overpowering urge to feel superior wrapped around a stupendous amount of self-loathing. Ultimately the "atheist movement" is just another Internet fad, mostly made up of attention whores, sycophants, stupid arrogant twats, bigots, assholes, and demagogues.

anne frank, Yahoo! Answers 29 Comments [7/16/2015 1:53:58 PM]
Fundie Index: 20

Quote# 110845

"Why is God, rather than the universe, the only thing allowed to exist without a cause?"

He is not. If the universe were past eternal, then the universe would NOT require a cause. Sadly, for you, the evidence of the last 150 years (Big Bang, cosmic background radiation, 2nd Law of Thermo, positive inflation rate of the universe, and BGV Theorem) has gone away from an eternal universe and toward our universe having a beginning. (That is why Premise 2 is not being attacked as much by a-theists these days as it was 40-50 years ago in my youth.)

"Virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time all around us."

No they do not! Actual particles, quarks and stuff, go into and out of existence due to the rearrangement of QM fields, which are NOT nothing. They have a cause.

"Even if the universe had a cause, why would it have to be God? What's your evidence?"

We know that since space, time, and matter had a beginning at the Big Bang, this Cause MUST transcend space, time, and matter. In other words, the Cause must be spaceless, timeless, and non-material. We also know that this Cause MUST be immensely powerful, right, in order to create 100 billion galaxies out of (literally) nothing?!? We can also surmise that this cause must be personal, in some sense, as It has chosen to create, and only personal agents can create, to our knowledge. Moreover, this Cause has chosen to create (or allow the creation of) persons (that's us!) - indicating strongly that It is personal.

This Cause is also self-existing, right? We know that either the universe (or multiverses, if they exist) are self-existing OR the Cause of same is self-existing. (Those are really the 2 options we have.) But, since the secular data points toward the universe having a beginning (and overwhelmingly so), then we must conclude that the First Uncaused Cause is self-existing. There is also a way to argue that this Cause is immutable or changeless. Let's not get into that too much, but it's worth thinking about on your own, OK?

So, we have: spaceless, timeless, non-material, immensely powerful, personal free will, self-existing, changeless. All we are really missing is omnispresent, omniscient, and holy. There are arguments there as well, particularly for the first two. But, we have Something that looks a LOT like the Judeo-Christian God.

"Moral values exist without God just fine."

We are talking about OBJECTIVE moral values and duties. No shifting the goalposts.

"The fine-tuning of the universe only appears so because we evolved to fit it."

Not true: the fine-tuning argument shows the improbability of life of any kind evolving in this universe, whether we evolved or not.

"Since the vast majority of our universe is uninhabitable to us, it's not very fine-tuned anyway."

Also false. Both galactic habitable zones and circumstellar habitable zones show that these are necessary for the existence of any life whatsoever just here on earth. The currently uninhabitable portions of the solar system, galaxies, and universe still feed the other portions - in terms of necessary conditions for life here on earth. Our moon, while currently uninhabited, stabilizes the tilt of our rotation. The Sun, while not habitable at all, is quite useful - it is the perfect star for us to be orbiting - in terms of size, type, power output and stability, and distance from us. Jupiter does an excellent job of sweeping asteroids out of our way and also of helping keep our planetary orbit more stable, as its gravitational effect on us is not inconsequential. Moving out into the galaxy, we need those heavy elements from supernovae, but, of course do not want to be too close to them when they occur. Our location in the outskirts of the Milky Way is perfect! Many galaxies are largely uninhabitable due to their star densities, but do a great job of feeding other galaxies with stellar material - absolutely essential to life here.


WorldGoneCrazy, Christian News Network 17 Comments [7/16/2015 1:53:38 PM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 110844

So you like being overburdened by your womanly duties such as having kids, cleaning house and cooking all the while getting harassed at work by your boss? You like slavery? Why wouldn't you want an easy life where the only thing you care about is loving your husband? I don't understand your slave mind. Think woman, eventually you will get older you will begin to lack the energy to do it all. And your marriage will end in divorce.

I for one refuse such slavery. You are just as bad as Christian fundamentalist, homophobic pro-lifers to be honest. No longer will the TWRA's allow for women such as you to enslave us into doing male duties.

Feminists managed to ‘liberate’ women by making it easier for women to become sluts (premarital sex). Thus, reducing the importance of chaste and pure women as a result, men have no inventive to marry and women are used as nothing more but mere sexual commodities. When women finally tire of the promiscuous lifestyle, they find that no man wants to marry them. Men who do not shun marriage tend to marry virgins so the feminist promiscuous sluts are left to age by themselves. Or they settle for less well to do men and are subsequently are exploited by these men for monetary purposes. This is because the career of the promiscuous woman finally begins to take off exponentially after the investment she put forth in her 20’s and 30’s.

In the end, she misses out on marriageable men and wastes it on a useless career that essentially fails to fulfill her. Not only is the woman used for monetary and sexual purposes by her less successful (Mangina) husband who refuses to support her. He also exploits her when it comes to housework and child rearing. As again, the woman is made to do it all while the husband comfortably relaxes on a coach after a days work. Nevertheless, a working woman’s day never ends she not only is forced to have a job outside of the home she must do everything inside of the home. This includes everything from childcare, housework chores and servicing her husband sexually; indeed what a great day for the liberationist elite. To see women toil and suffer in the hands of an egalitarian society and at the hands of an emasculated husband who seeks to use and abuse the woman for all that she is worth. Feminism has made women lower the standards for men greatly. It has told women that they can be successful by themselves, however feminists failed to take into account the unfair distribution of labor in the household. In addition, the woman begins to resent her husband for making her work outside of the home and do everything inside of the home. This leads to fights and divorce, and thus after a divorce a woman seeks to gain the best financial advantage from the husband. Through alimony, some lucky gals manage to take revenge on Mangina husbands that way. However, most women are left destitute. As shown by the increasing poverty rates of single mothers.

This is the great liberation that feminism gave women. It has made women into thrash. It has made men disrespect women it has led to a nation of emasculated men who further thrive on the oppression of the feminine women. These men fear feminine women who seek protection and objectification of their men. They are scared to take responsibility, be the leaders in their families, and lead their wives. These men thus cause resentment in women. Then women act out in desperation. The modern woman is forced to be the “Escrava Isaura” of our time. She is shunned, thrashed and spit on; she becomes a sexual commodity to be used by many men. Additionally, she continues to be exploited after marriage by a husband who refuses to undertake the breadwinner role and makes her work outside of the home. Feminism has created a nation of deluded Isaura’s who insist on the doctrine of feminism, yet knowing that something is not right. Deep down she knows she is being exploited by the system she knows that it is unfair. Yet without a voice for women, she remains gullible and easily swayed toward the belief that egalitarianism is good.

Edita, Libby Anne 25 Comments [7/16/2015 1:52:08 PM]
Fundie Index: 15

Quote# 110843

Regarding MRAs vs. TWRAs; these ideologies are oppositional to each other. Indeed a large part of the TWRA identity is based on opposition to MRAs. A Men’s Rights Activist is focused on “men’s rights;” namely they are the male version of feminists. Just like feminists focus on “women’s rights” MRAs focus on “men’s rights.” Feminism and MRAs are counterparts of each other; feminism representing female narcissism and female supremacy and MRAs representing male narcissism and male supremacy. Both MRAs and feminists are egalitarian and claim to promote “equality” between the sexes. TWRAs are specifically against equality and anti-egalitarian. MRAs are derivative of feminism and are therefore a variation of feminism and are naturally aligned with feminists; TWRAs are opposed to both feminists and MRAs because it is equality itself that TWRAs are opposed to.

TWRAs are Traditional Women’s Rights Activists; the focus being on restoring the rights of the traditional woman. Feminists are in favor of women’s rights, MRAs are in favor of men’s rights, TWRAs are in favor of Traditional Women’s Rights; the key point being the rights of women that are connected to women’s traditional role. The problem with the concept of “rights” as conceptualized by both feminists and MRAs is that the “rights” these groups assert are disconnected from responsibilities. Feminists and MRAs seek rights and privileges while at the same time denying their responsibilities and duties towards others; this is what makes both feminists and MRAs gender supremacists of their respective gender and narcissists who place themselves above others. TWRAs however only assert the rights that women are naturally entitled to based on and connected to women’s natural role in society. This is what makes the TWRA position honorable and noble; that there is a connection between the rights being demanded and the obligations towards others those rights are meant to serve.

TWRAs place a strong emphasis on the male duty of Chivalry and in particular insist that Chivalry is unconditionally owed to all women under all circumstances by all men. If you know anything about MRAs you know that MRAs hate Chivalry and all duties that men owe towards women. When pressed an MRA will often concede that Chivalry is a good thing but then they insist that Chivalry is a contract and only honorable women should receive Chivalry. This is totally not true; Chivalry is an unconditional obligation that men owe to women simply based on the man’s gender role. Many MRAs will claim that they support patriarchy while at the same time rejecting Chivalry. This is completely outrageous because Chivalry is a fundamental part of patriarchy. The TWRA demand that men owe women Chivalry unconditionally is a key part of the TWRA philosophy; this demand serves to keep manipulative MRAs out of our movement. MRAs want the privileges of the traditional man while rejecting the duties and obligations of the traditional man. This is intolerable; before a man can join the TWRAs he must first demonstrate his respect for women by acknowledging the Chivalrous duty that he owes to women, that he owes to all women.

Jesse Powell, Libby Anne 18 Comments [7/16/2015 1:51:49 PM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 110842

I will add in here, Chivalry is the main means through which women are protected and valued as women. The basic ethic of Chivalry is that men are to provide for and protect women. Men having authority over women is part of men protecting women and so is part of Chivalry. Women’s well being is directly tied to the strength and effectiveness of Chivalry. Chivalry can only be maintained and function properly when it is under men’s control. Feminism tries to hijack and corrupt Chivalry by placing it under women’s control. This then leads to Chivalry being exercised incompetently and being something that is abusive to men leading men to withdraw from Chivalry thereby weakening Chivalry. This weakening and corrupting of Chivalry is then the primary harm that feminism causes to women.

When Chivalry is hijacked by women through feminist assertion there are two different responses a man can make to this situation to keep himself from being further abused. He can either withdraw Chivalry entirely so that the woman can no longer use Chivalry as a weapon against him; this is what the MRAs do. The other alternative is that the man can assert himself so that Chivalry is once again under the man’s control as it should be; this is what the TWRAs advocate. Once Chivalry is under men’s control then Chivalry will be strengthened and society will return to its proper order. As things are going now the feminists are getting more and more aggressive with their manipulation and misuse of Chivalry and this is leading to an ever greater backlash against Chivalry itself by the MRAs. This is the road to the complete abolition of Chivalry which would be disastrous for women.

To prevent the further erosion of Chivalry which can only cause women greater harm men must reassert their control of Chivalry so that men can dedicate themselves to the Chivalrous ethic again. The resurrection of Chivalry is the resurrection of Traditional Women’s Rights and of patriarchy. Patriarchy is in essence Chivalry. Chivalry is to the benefit of women, it is your friend. Those truly concerned for the welfare of women must support men when they seek to embrace their better natures by providing for and protecting women and such men must not be attacked or ridiculed for being “controlling” or “oppressive;” instead such Chivalry must be met with appreciation and deference in order for the reestablishment of Chivalry to take hold in the male mind once again.

Jesse Powell, Love Joy Feminism 23 Comments [7/16/2015 1:51:25 PM]
Fundie Index: 15

Quote# 110841

I am very glad I am a heterosexual; that I was born male and am romantically and sexually attracted to women. This is natural. This is healthy. This is the way it should be. It would have been very harmful to me if I had detoured into homosexuality at any point in my life and would have been particularly bad if I had embraced homosexuality as my identity rather than a shameful dysfunctional disorder to struggle to escape from in order to become normal and healthy and heterosexual again.

During my time growing up; born in the early 1970s and going to high school in the late 1980s; I was definitely harmed by the feminist attack against my masculinity and my purpose as a man but at least I was protected and shielded from homosexuality during Middle School (7th and 8th grade) and High School (9th grade to 12th grade). Homosexuality as normal and legitimate was never taught to me in the classroom and it was almost unheard of among my fellow students (one person during Middle School confided in me that she worried she might be lesbian while no one in High School was gay). Definitely homosexuality was stigmatized and thought of as weird and sick, no one among my fellow students ever communicated that homosexuality was normal or acceptable and the teachers never brought up the subject at all except during 9th grade when I was told that AIDS, a new terrifying sexually transmitted disease, mostly afflicted homosexual men in big cities like San Francisco.

Due to the feminist attack against me as a man, in particular against my masculinity and my purpose as a man, it is true that I had some problems related to gender identity in my early 20s. In particular I saw myself as a kind of feminine sensitive man interested in mostly female occupations as a way of expressing my “sensitive side” as a man. I was part of a kind of New Age subculture in the early 90s and in this environment as a young adult I did run across actual homosexuals and the feeling that maybe homosexuality was OK and acceptable was kind of “in the air” but still only rarely explicitly stated or advocated for.

My gender bending “sensitive male” identity didn’t do me any good with the ladies and I started to get disgusted with my aimless wandering and so I shifted course looking for purpose and identity and ambition in a way that would connect me with women. In particular I wanted to connect emotionally with the woman I loved the most in High School; to become someone that she would be proud of and to make myself into a man that would be of value to her. This then led to my conversion to patriarchy and dedicating myself to traditional masculinity and my duty to provide for and protect women; this conversion to patriarchy happening in my mid-twenties.

I am very very glad that I always stayed on the heterosexual side of things even during my period of vulnerability in my early 20s. There never was a time when I thought of homosexuality as being “normal” or when I thought that homosexuality should be “accepted” by the wider society. I always felt that it was a good thing that homosexuality was on the fringes and not seen as “normal” even in the New Age hippie like environment I wandered into after High School in my early 20s. I felt like I should be nice and polite and “accepting” of the homosexuals in my environment but I never thought that homosexuality should be elevated to “normal” status and truthfully no social pressure was placed on me to think of homosexuals as being “equal” to heterosexuals.

Looking back on things society didn’t protect me from feminism obviously but society did effectively protect me from homosexuality or homosexual influence or homosexual normalization at least until I graduated from High School and I am grateful for that. I was “safe” from homosexual advocacy and propaganda or any social approval or acceptance of homosexuality or the idea that homosexuality was “available to me” as an option.

What bothers me the most at the gut or visceral level about the Supreme Court decision just handed down mandating so called “gay marriage” nationwide is that it now means that “homosexual equality” is a kind of official government policy and that it is now implicitly “unacceptable” to view homosexuality as being inferior to or “less than” heterosexuality. The law has a kind of implied moral authority or moral legitimacy so that if the Supreme Court says that homosexuality is OK and normal and acceptable then that kind of makes it officially so. What this means is that at the broad cultural level there is no more protection from homosexuality anymore. That I would be left to fend for myself to keep a healthy and functional heterosexual identity intact; my heterosexuality itself would be no longer assumed or taken for granted.

In general I have been quite optimistic regarding what the future of America will be regarding cultural issues. This Supreme Court decision has been expected for awhile, but it is interesting now that it is actually here, that it is official now that “homosexual marriage” is “constitutionally protected” and the “law of the land” in all 50 states. My inclination is to continue to be optimistic regarding the overall picture of American culture going forward. This is because the broad swath of social indicators is pointing towards a return to patriarchy and a return to traditional values. Social indicators are the most powerful force of all I think; more powerful than the Supreme Court. I doubt very seriously that “gay marriage” will turn the social indicators in a negative direction. The rebellion against family breakdown is already rolling in terms of people’s actual behaviors.

I do however think there is a bifurcation going on; that the bad part of American culture is getting worse while the good part of American culture is getting better. The real danger is that the ruling in favor of “marriage equality” will lead to a kind of anti-Christian anti-social conservative tyranny. Already there is some tyranny going on; bakers and florists and such being forced to serve homosexual couples for the “weddings” the homosexual couples plan. Business owners refusing to participate in these kinds of “gay marriage” celebrations have received heavy fines effectively forcing them to either serve gay customers or go out of business. There are Christian educational institutions and such worried that they may lose their tax exempt status or face lawsuits based on their “discrimination” against gays.

To claim that homosexuals are morally equivalent to heterosexuals is a very very radical thing and many religious organizations are worried that an equivalency between racial discrimination and anti-homosexual discrimination is going to be placed into the law so that current anti-discrimination rules and policies protecting blacks from discrimination will be applied to how homosexuals should be treated; this potentially criminalizing important religious practices and policies currently in place at many Christian institutions.

Nationwide Supreme Court mandated “gay marriage” is certainly a bad thing for a number of different reasons but it shouldn’t derail the cultural revival and the Christian revival already underway. Certainly Supreme Court imposed “gay marriage” will help recruitment efforts for the more conservative forms of Christianity. The real question in my mind is how the forces of feminist / homosexual advancement will react to the growing backlash against the societal destruction that feminism and homosexualism has created. How will the feminists and homosexualists respond when they start losing support and losing political power? That is the truly interesting question in my mind.

Jesse Powell, Secular Patriarchy 23 Comments [7/16/2015 1:49:37 PM]
Fundie Index: 18

Quote# 110839

The fools on the left will be getting the very Theocracy they're kicking against, by their own actions, sooner rather than later: the ultimate Theocracy, when Jesus assumes His throne here

sandraleesmith, godfatherpolitics 27 Comments [7/16/2015 1:48:42 PM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: Tony

Quote# 110837

Editor's note: When MRC Business wrote this story, the Salon byline listed Peter Finocchiaro, Salon Deputy Editor, as the author. Sometime after that, Salon changed the byline to Bob Cesca.

Being out of lockstep with climate alarmism infuriates the left, including liberal online magazine editors like Salon Deputy Editor Peter Finocchiaro.

Finocchiaro lashed out at Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, on July 10, with at least eight nasty names or adjectives including “goon,” “loony,” “buffoonish” and “marble-mouthed” because Gohmert had the audacity to say that Pope Francis had been taken in by global warming alarmists.

“Since when does science not allow opposing viewpoints,” Gohmert asked July 8, during an appearance on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal. “Well, they didn’t allow Galileo to make an opposing viewpoint. There were a lot of accurate opposing viewpoints that weren't allowed at the time that were later allowed to come in.”

That was too much for the Salon editor who responded by attacking the congressman’s “anti-science gibberish” and caricaturing his argument, saying that “Gohmert clings to this notion that he’s just like Galileo and that his version of science is actually correct.”

He hurled another insult saying, Gohmert “probably can’t spell heliocentrism, much less define the scientific method.” Insults against the congressman’s intelligence were pervasive in Finocchiaro’s article about Gohmert’s “‘Dumb & Dumber’ philosophy of climate denial.” How scientific.

Finocchiaro either decided to ignore or failed to understand Gohmert’s critique of consensus-driven science, since he slammed Gohmert for “desperately grabbing onto a statistically minuscule number of scientists whose theories run contrary to the other 97 percent” of scientists. That statistic is a popular, but highly misleading alarmist “myth,” that was defined so weakly it includes many of the scientists Finocchiaro would name-call as “deniers.”

Joseph Rossell, MRC Business 13 Comments [7/16/2015 1:48:25 PM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 110836

That's fine, and it make's complete since to me. What I mean by that is, if you have a religion that worships satan, why Not embrace homosexuality, they all worship the same god. This should be an easy transition for the Muslim religion. Their all going to follow what Obama wants anyway.

knowledgeisgood, MRC Culture 20 Comments [7/16/2015 1:48:00 PM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: Yuu

Quote# 110835

Reza Aslan’s advice to Muslims in the U.S. that aren’t all-in for gay marriage? Get over it and get on board.

Previously, Muslim ‘scholar’ Aslan has been a controversial figure for his interpretations of other religions, like the time he called Jesus a Marxist. Now it seems he’s moving on to rogue interpretations of his own religion and the Constitution.

In an open letter to the Huffington Post, Aslan explained, “With all the rainbow-flag waving and self-congratulatory pats on the back this country is giving itself right now, you don't need another reason for Americans to dislike you,” which is a great reason to believe something – groupthink at its best.

But that’s not enough, Aslan reminded American Muslims that their rights are guaranteed along with LGBT’ers: “After all, the constitution that just ensured the rights of LGBT communities is the same constitution that protects our mosques and community centers…You can't celebrate one without the other.”

Well … except that freedom of religion was explicitly outlined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, while gay marriage is a right invented out of thin air last week.

According to Aslan, “You can't pick and choose which civil liberties apply to which people. Either we are all equal, or the whole thing is just a sham.” But you can – and the Framers did, picking religion, press, speech, etc., and it certainly hasn’t looked like a sham for the past two hundred years.

And don’t forget the Quran’s ringing endorsement for gay marriage! Aslan quotes: "’Believers, stand firm for God, be witnesses for justice. Never allow the hatred of people to prevent you from being just. Be just, for this is closest to righteousness (Quran 5:8).’”

And apparently this is case closed. Aslan explains, “It doesn't get any clearer than that. You may think LGBT rights is a new conversation, something that's only recently come into contact with modern Islamic thought, but trust us, it's not.”

Well it may not get any clearer than that, but you don’t have to be a Muslim scholar to figure out that gay marriage is not what Muhammad was talking about there.

His conclusion from these shaky points: “[Muslims] have to do more than tolerate. We have to embrace. We have to fight for the right of others to live their lives as freely as we want to live ours.”

Toleration isn’t enough, active support is necessitated.

CNN is set to run a new show, Believer, on world religions with Aslan. With demonstrated hyper-progressive views toward religion, he’s undoubtedly their ideal candidate.

Andrew Miller, MRC Culture 7 Comments [7/16/2015 1:46:55 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Yuu

Quote# 110834



The left-wing sycophants of the Democrat party are wading in that cesspool of crime, murder, drugs and gang activity along with their mentors. Also throw in racism, bigotry, intolerance, hypocrisy, and pure and simple out and out lying! The Civil War was to end slavery (Democrats claim it was economic reasons, but that's a nice way of saying slavery). What Democrats and their sycophants like Madcow here totally ignore is that the South was run by the southern Dixiecrats...a party that faded away into the Democrat Party!!! That it was the rich, Dixiecrat plantation owners who fought to keep slaves. And that it was also the Democrats who came up with the bright idea of forming the KKK!!!

Every single thing the Democrats have ruined in history, they twist it to blame the conservatives/GOP. They take no ownership of their history because their history is no different than their present: they are racists, bigots, intolerant and hateful human beings who lie and manipulate facts in order to keep their minions (the poor, the illegals, the black misfits) enslaved in their socialist policies. They are a despicable group. Donald Trump recognizes their despicability and doesn't turn away from it...he tackles it...and it's scaring the hell out of them!


AmericanBelle1, MRC Newsbusters 18 Comments [7/16/2015 1:46:20 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Yuu

Quote# 110833

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Thursday spent 22 minutes covering the removal of the Confederate flag from South Carolina's state house. The liberal anchor obsessed on minor Republican opposition in the state, minimizing the overwhelming GOP support to remove the flag.

Maddow vaguely insisted, "They put that flag up at the state capital in South Carolina in 1961. It hasn't been flying since the Civil War. They put it up in 1961. They put it up months after a group of activists were jailed for their sit-in to try to integrate an all white lunch counter in Rock Hill, South Carolina." Who's "they?" "They" were the Democratic governor in the state and the Democratic legislature.

Maddow declared, "That flag was put up in 1961. It was kept up thereafter as a rejection for civil rights for black people in South Carolina in the 20th century." Who made that rejection? Maddow didn't say. She also ignored a point made by the Associated Press: "[Republican Governor David] Beasley lost his bid for re-election in 1998 after advocating for [the flag's] removal."

Maddow focused on Republican attempts to save the flag, highlighting: "But the strategy of the Republican Confederate flag defenders, people who want to keep the flag up, their strategy was to pile amendments on the bill, to slow down, ultimately try to stop it. It was not clear until very, very late whether or not that strategy would work."

She didn't note that the South Carolina State Senate voted 36-3 to remove the flag. The State House voted 94-20. Overwhelmingly, both Republicans and Democrats chose to remove the flag. Republican Governor Nikki Haley led the charge.

Instead, Maddow highlighted a battle in Congress over Confederate flags in national parks.

RACHEL MADDOW: On Wednesday, John Boehner had a freak out on his hands from his own Republicans. Nobody wanted to say who it was specifically but some Republican members of the House from the South apparently decided they were outraged by this plan and they demanded that it be undone. And so, John Boehner tried to undo it. Yesterday, he put up another amendment that would restore Confederate flags to national parks.

In June, the networks also omitted how the Democratic governor of South Carolina raised the Confederate flag.

On the June 22 Special Report With Bret Baier, the anchor explained

BRET BAIER: It's important historical context. I mean, the flag was raised over the state capitol by Democrat Fritz Hollings – then governor, in 1961. It was taken off the state capitol by Republican David Beasley after pressure in 1998 and put on the state grounds.

Scott Whitlock, MRC Newsbusters 9 Comments [7/16/2015 1:46:10 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Yuu

Quote# 110830

1) Multi-culturalism is bigger and worse than merely accommodation of our OWN INTERNAL differences. Multi-culturalism means "multi-others minus own culture", i.e. it means suppression or elimination of our own culture and bringing various FOREIGN cultures instead.

2) Multi-culturalism denies our own national identity as an exclusively Judeo-Christian nation, and it wants to replace it with anything-in-the-world identity.

3) Denying our national and cultural identity as set by the Founding Fathers, Multi-culturalism promotes Socialism and NWO.

4) We're not the Soviet States of America. And we're not the United States of America any more. Since June 2015, we are the United in SODOMY America, an illegal entity which had challenged God, the entity which will be Judged and cursed.

5) We are NOT "Out of many, one" any more. We cannot and must not share the same nation and breathe the same air. SECESSION is the only solution, so that God fearing remnants of America could gather the pieces of our great heritage at least at a smaller area.

Alexander Gofen, WND 57 Comments [7/16/2015 3:18:43 AM]
Fundie Index: 21