Quote# 135931

The question here is simple. What would you have done if you were in the same position as Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, where several of your daughters told you that their 15-year old brother had been openly touching them on the breasts and genital areas both when sleeping and awake?

I find it a bit odd that all these condemnations of the Duggars seem to completely ignore the fact that - as far as anyone can tell - the approach they took actually worked.

[FTR and FWIW, I'm pretty sure I would not report my kid to the police in a situation like this. I agree about watching him like a hawk, though.]

I'm not even sure I would take the victim kids for therapy. Besides for the fact that therapy in general is not necessarily effective, there's also a serious risk IMO that by doing so you would magnify the significance of the incidents in their minds and by this itself cause them all sorts of trauma that might be avoided if you used a lighter approach.

I would definitely speak to the kids about it and let them know if they were troubled by what had happened we could get help from professionals, but if they seemed fine with parental reassurance that they had nothing to feel bad about then I would probably leave them be.

You think this is a minor thing? A five year old gets molested and you think it's nothing?

No need to exaggerate here. I didn't say it was "nothing" and I can't think of a legitimate reason for you to pretend that I did.

What I do think is that a big portion of the trauma that abuse victims feel is the result of connotations created by society and culture, and to the extent that the matter is highlighted as a Terrible Thing it would tend to magnify that aspect. IMO. Feel free to disagree without pretending that I've said five year olds getting abused is "nothing".


Fotheringay-Phipps, The straight dope 5 Comments [1/14/2018 5:14:39 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 135928


[A cheesy ClipArt image of a man in a straitjacket making a crazy facial expression. To his left there is a caption reading:" Whites are oppressors, non-whites are victims. But race doesn't exist, yet I love racial diversity and I celebrate our differences because we're all the same. So let's destroy diversity by mixing together... but only in white countries".]

transcend_honk, Twitter 11 Comments [1/14/2018 5:12:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: The Reptilian Jew

Quote# 135927

The last resort
"Were you to glance up from the deserted beach below, you might mistake Tranquility Bay for a rather exclusive hotel.
...
Inside, 250 foreign children are locked up. Almost all are American, but though kept prisoner, they were not sent here by a court of law. Their parents paid to have them kidnapped and flown here against their will, to be incarcerated for up to three years, sometimes even longer. They will not be released until they are judged to be respectful, polite and obedient enough to rejoin their families.
...
Parents sign a legal contract with Tranquility Bay granting 49 per cent custody rights. It permits the Jamaican staff, whose qualifications are not required to exceed a high-school education, to use whatever physical force they feel necessary to control their child. The contract also waives Tranquility's liability for harm that should befall a child in its care.
...
Before sending their teen to Tranquility, parents are advised that it might be prudent to keep their plan a secret, and employ an approved escort service to break the news. The first most teenagers hear of Tranquility is therefore when they are woken from their beds at home at 4am by guards, who place them in a van, handcuffed if necessary, drive them to an airport and fly them to Jamaica. The child will not be allowed to speak to his or her parents for up to six months, or see them for up to a year.
...
Watched by chaperones, you read prescribed course books, take notes, then sit a test after each chapter. Two or three Jamaican teachers sit at the back of the room in case you get stuck, and they may be able to help. But to mark the tests, they have to use an answer key sent down from the States.
...
You may also write home to your parents, and though staff can read your mail, you may write what you like. But Tranquility's handbook for parents warns them not to believe anything that sounds like a 'manipulation', the programme's word for a complaint.
...
Tranquility is basically a private detention camp. But it differs in one important respect. When courts jail a juvenile, he has a fixed sentence and may think what he likes while serving it, whereas no child arrives at Tranquility with a release date. Students are judged ready to leave only when they have demonstrated a sincere belief that they deserved to be sent here, and that the programme has, in fact, saved their life. They must renounce their old self, espouse the programme's belief system, display gratitude for their salvation, and police fellow students who resist.
...
When most children first arrive they find it difficult to believe that they have no alternative but to submit. In shock, frightened and angry, many simply refuse to obey. This is when they discover the alternative. Guards take them (if necessary by force) to a small bare room and make them (again by force if necessary) lie flat on their face, arms by their sides, on the tiled floor. Watched by a guard, they must remain lying face down, forbidden to speak or move a muscle except for 10 minutes every hour, when they may sit up and stretch before resuming the position. Modest meals are brought to them, and at night they sleep on the floor of the corridor outside under electric light and the gaze of a guard. At dawn they resume the position."


That's enough quoting for one OP, but please, read the article. The second page describes the flimsy reasons that parents send their kids to this re-education camp, and the eerie, Stepford behavior of some of the "students".

It's not a school, it's a brainwashing facility. The "teachers" have more qualifications in torture than in education.

How can this possibly be legal? Parents would never be allowed to subject their kids to this here in the U.S., yet apparently they have no legal problem with sending their kids overseas to do it:

Rarely do I read a thread that makes me as nauseous as this one. Not because I'm disgusted with this post or that post but because the wounds are still fresh and painful.

However, I feel it is something of my duty to respond, fighting ignorance and all that.

I am one of those parents who have placed heir child in a 'boot-camp' type of home for troubled teens. This one was in the United States. (It never occurred to me to look outside of the U.S.A.)

For those of you who condem me or call me evil or assume I/m some kind of wierd, bible-thumping, frothing at the mouth loon, well, sorry, I'm not.

I agree that it could seem to be inhumane. I thank God that your home life/childhood/children was such that you are so far away from the anguish of this descision that you cannot imagine being here. Be grateful. (I am at work, so be patient)

When loving parents are faced with this it gets down to a "Sophie's choice" basically. For those who never saw the movie, Sophie was a WW2 Jewish woman who had to choose which child she would take with her to the Nazi work farm and which would be sent to the gas chamber. Horrifying. That's how it felt for his mother and me.

We sent our 15 year old son to that place in December of 2002 and I just came back from picking him up. He's been home for 14 days and whether it helped or not in the long run, well, it's just too early to tell. There is some improvement. He talks to us more readily and he's not lost his temper, yet. I think he's grown up a little.

I'll answer any questions that you may have on the mechanics of the process, the behavior that led us to that point and what we knew or didn't know. I will respectfully try to ignore any comments that assume I am a monster or that are merely insulting.

I am sure that your son was not kidnapped in the middle of the night and flown out of the country.

Actually, he was "kidnapped" in the middle of the night. The advice we recieved from all quarters was that this would be the best way to prevent violence or running away. It was done at 4:00 am and it was handled professionally and safely. It took about 90 seconds from start to finish. Then they drove to the airport. No cuffs.

You didn't read the article, did you? How do you come away with the impression that it doesn't involve physical and psychological abuse?

You bring up a good point. There is physical abuse. There is psychological abuse at these camps.

The problem has 3 reasons, I only speak from my experience.

1. The kids are usually not the best behaved bunch to begn with. They are the tough kids, the mean, nasty kids, the kids who get into fights and who's heroes are the thug-like rap singers and 'ganstas'. You have to be very firm and drill-sergent like in order to be in control or they'd be having chaos.

2. The people that work at these facilities are often just in it for the job. Especially in the south, where alot of these places are, the economy is not yet back on it's feet. If you've been in the military and you need to feed your family, this might not be such a hard way to make a living. Plus, these 'instructors' might be in danger of the prison guard/policeman burnout syndrome. The kind of thinking that has them saying to themselves, "Well, since these punks are all criminals anyway, I'll not feel bad about dishing out a few kicks or punches in the line of duty, they deserve it the little rats."

3. Money. If you staffed these places with trained professional counselors at every position, lots of testing and evaluation at every level. It would cost upwards of $5000.00 a month or more, then, only the rich could afford it. The poor people would have to muddle through as best they can. This is sort of what happens now. It was a real financial sacrifice for us to do this. I wondered if I would be better off renting him an aprtment and paying his utilities until he's 18. It would have been cheaper.

Bmalion, The Straightdope 7 Comments [1/14/2018 5:11:47 AM]
Fundie Index: 12

Quote# 135924

I think both of you go too far. The OP proclaims to be a half-troll but I like his approach and much appreciate his blog so it matters less if he’s serious or not but I’ll assume you certainly are, Chinzork.

It would be a folly to just teach women to be sex slaves and prostitutes. Once feminism collapses there will be millions of sluts and feminists who will be just that for a loaf a bread and a glass a water a day and, believe me, you will not have to teach the first generation anything about fucking and sucking anyway.

But in order to maintain the current level of industrial civilization in a non-feminist society (which will soon be surpassed once male creative energies are released and sexual frustration and PC are no longer a hindrance) you’ll need women for jobs like teaching, maids, nursery, probably even doctors. I agree that they shouldn’t be allowed into basically any STEM fields because they just create dissension between men and exchange sexual services for career advancement but they must do some jobs as well.

What’s really important, even more than the STEM thing, is that 1. they get no right to vote – it is impossible to have a civilization with this 2. are married off to good men young 3. aren’t socializing with men outside of families.

With this you have already solved 99 percent of the problem.

Btw, daily, is there any way to donate to you? Loving your blog !

caamib, Dailyantifeminist 18 Comments [1/14/2018 5:05:54 AM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 135942

I rather be an Incel than a cuck

Let's take a hypothetical situation into an account, where an used up cum dumpster approaches me and makes a proclamation of love towards me saying how it wants to date me and so forth. Now the question stands: would I date it or not? Well, truth be told, I would honestly reject the slut's offer in a heartbeat, without any regrets.

I absolutely refuse to date a femoid who has gotten railed by multiple men. A creature like that will never fucking be girlfriend/or wife material - and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fucking retard. Why do I say such a thing? Simple really, a cumrag who has engaged in rampant promiscuity for most of its life will never be able to stay in a stable monogamous relationship in the long run. The bitch will always have an insatiable desire for wanting to get dicked down by various other men. So knowing all that, why would I want to put myself into a position where I settle down with a slut knowing deep down that not only the bitch isn't really into me, but also would cuck me when the time comes? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Also, this "a cuck at least gets laid" argument need to fucking die. Yes, a low T cuck will be able to get laid once or twice a month, depending if he's lucky enough. But honestly, is it worth? Is getting laid once a month worth it knowing that your whore of a partner is fucking other men behind your back? Is getting laid once a month worth it knowing that your getting someone else's sloppy seconds? Is getting laid once a month worth it knowing that your skank of a partner is only providing you sex because you beg it from it? I think not.

Just because we are Incels that doesn't mean we have to low our standards to a point where we should settle down with a STD riddled bitch with no morals whatsoever. Just fuck that. Call me a fakecel or a volcel if you want, but I rather be an Incel for the rest of my life than date some disgusting, used up, cuntrag.

Lookismisreal, incel.life 18 Comments [1/13/2018 8:05:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 135938

If you serve on a jury, vote to acquit "rapists" of unmarried girls

If a man rapes a virgin, she is then ruined for marriage unless it is that same rapist who marries her. Therefore, instead of imprisonment for him, there should be a shotgun wedding between the two of them, so that he can be forced to provide for her, and so that she can be forced to continue having sex with him, thereby forming the basis for a stable home. In this way, there is justice, because proportionate force is being applied to both of them. Yet there is also still a healthy degree of male dominance, because he still gets to fuck her whenever he pleases.

In this way, incels have a chance at pussy. You would have no reason to want to rape a virgin unless her father refused to give her to you, maybe because she pleaded with him, "I don't want him; he's so repulsive." But if you were strong and clever enough to find a way to rape her anyway, then you deserve her pussy not just when you initially rape her, but for the rest of her life. And if she left herself vulnerable to being raped by you, then chances are, the reason she told her dad "I don't want him" was that she didn't want to be given to you voluntarily; she wanted you to take her by force because that would make for a more exciting love story to tell her friends, and it would turn her on more.

So don't get in the way of love. Vote to acquit even the rapists of virginal girls who were saving themselves for marriage, because guess what, that rapist turned out to be the one she was saving herself for. He had the gumption to take that matter into his own hands and make it happen. What could be more romantic that wanting her so badly that he would diligently stalk her and ultimately force himself upon her? That's so sweet of him, and takes way more effort, and is way sexier, than, say, a surprise proposal at a ball game.

On the other hand, if a girl is feral and hanging out at men's parties and getting drunk off her ass and then gang-raped, she probably wanted it in that case too, so why send those men to prison for giving her what she wanted? Gang-raping a girl together is a classic male bonding activity, and we should be encouraging this form of brotherhood in which they all join together in experiencing the holy rite of baptism by pussy.

Here is a guide to serving on juries and keeping defendants from getting convicted.

Nathan "Leucosticte" Larson, incel.life 23 Comments [1/13/2018 8:05:17 AM]
Fundie Index: 29
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 135936

REALITY CHECK--THERE IS NO "CHRISTIANITY" ("CHRISTIANITY" IS AN ARTIFICIAL DESIGNATION); TRUE CHRISTIANS BELONG TO THE KINGDOM OF GOD--THE KINGDOM OF GOD COMETH NOT WITH OBSERVATION, BUT IT IS REAL AND IT IS POWERFUL



Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.



The Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles preached the kingdom of God; there is not a word in the Bible about something called, "Christianity". The kingdom of God is that region where God reigns--where his subjects hearken to his word and obey it.

KINGDOM, noun [king and dom, jurisdiction.]
1. The territory or country subject to a king; an undivided territory under the dominion of a king or monarch.
2. The inhabitants or population subject to a king.
4. A region; the place where any thing prevails and holds sway.
5. In Scripture, the government or universal dominion of God.
11. Government; rule; supreme administration.

In the kingdom of God--

King: God

Region: heaven and earth

Laws/Commandments/Precepts/Ordinances/Statutes: the word of God, the holy Bible (the Authorized Version of 1611 -- the work of nations and ages)

Citizens: Those that have been born again. They fear God and obey his word as it is written. They are called saints, disciples, lambs, sheep, Christians, servants of righteousness (Romans 6:18), servants of Christ (Ephesians 6:6), servants of God (1 Peter 2:16), etc.

They are

a peculiar treasure unto God,

a kingdom of priests,

an holy nation (reference Exodus 19:6),

a chosen generation,

a royal priesthood,

an holy nation (reference 1 Peter 2:9-10).

God's people are

a peculiar people; that they should shew forth the praises of him who hath called them out of darkness into his marvellous light (reference 1 Peter 2:9-10),

as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house,

an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ (reference I Peter 2:1-5),

made kings and priests unto God by the Lord Jesus Christ who loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. (reference Revelation 1:5-6)

Type of Government: Commonwealth of freemen (see Ephesians 2:12), holy and living under God's word (The fear of God causes them to depart from evil, therefore they do not steal, etc., they are self-governed under the law of God). The saints are subject to every ordinance of man (rulers that are sent by God for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well) for the Lord's sake (see 1 Peter 2:13-14).

How men gain entrance into the kingdom: Through the blood of Jesus. Men must REPENT of their sins (Matthew 9:13), and BELIEVE the gospel--that Christ died for their sins, was buried, and rose again the third day (1 Corinthians 15:1-4), and OBEY his word (Hebrews 5:9) [Article: How to Get to Heaven (for more information).]

In the kingdom of God, there is only one body, consisting of likeminded individuals who have, by one Spirit, been baptized into one body, the body of Christ. We are to have one mind, the mind of Christ. We have his word (the Authorized Version of 1611) and we have his Spirit. God's people are one people, having gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us. We purge ourselves of evil ways and, being fit for the Master's use, find our place in the kingdom and, by God's grace, we work. The gifts--including prophesy--are real, they effect real results.

---

Unfortunately, in this time when the end times are upon us and the seals of Daniel and Revelation are being opened, they are being opened before a visible church that, for the most part, is disobedient. Even those that consider themselves "Bible believers" often do not believe in prophesy. Many, many are the persons that are holding on to doctrinal peculiarities and heresies that define the church division to which they cleave--whether Baptist, Calvinist, etc. Some may consider themselves "Bible believers" but they do not even know what prophesy is.* It is here--in this visible arena of church people cleaving to heresies--where one encounters what has been improperly/blasphemously called "Christianity". In the popular mind, "Christianity" seems to be the grouping together of anybody who professes anything about the Lord or the Bible--no matter how wrong and unbiblical. This artificial grouping could include groups as diverse as Roman Catholicism's goddess worship, Mary Baker Eddy's Christian Science, false prophet Ellen G. White's Seventh Day Adventism, John Calvin's Calvinism, Lutheranism with its "consubstantiation", Baptist dispensationalism, Lutherans and Martin Luther's "consubstantiation," antinomian dispensationalist Baptist, Russellism (Charles Taze Russell's followers are now called, "Jehovah Witnesses"), etc.

Unfortunately, today when a person wants to know God, he is often going to encounter one of these groups and that group's particular errors. Notwithstanding this grievous and troubling situation, the seal of God standeth sure; the Lord knoweth them that are his. May no true sheep get loaded down or stay loaded down with errors that they learned in a false church.

_{*We are to desire to prophesy (reference 1 Corinthians 14:1). The prophet speaks unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort (reference 1 Corinthians 14:3). He tells men what God wants them to hear. In the scriptures, they often say, "Thus saith the Lord."}

(unknown), Jesus -is -Lord.com 10 Comments [1/13/2018 7:38:37 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 135934

Your friend wants you to help them hide a body. No info provided. They "don't want to talk about it". Do you help?

Depends on which friend it was. There's like.. one person who I'm not related to in any way that I would blindly help.

Even with no information at all?

I think I'd help, but keep asking, and if they still wouldn't tell then I might need to consider my next move.

I trust this particular friend with my life. If he needed help, I'd help him.

What if it's the body of say....a child, like 5/6yo?

What if you'd heard one was missing in your local area and the parents were doing tv appeals?

Not wanting to be confrontational or a dick, just wondering how far your unconditional support goes...

At what point might you demand info?

But I know my friend well enough. It wouldn't be any of that. And if it was, of course id have questions and I would ask..but I'd still help him. God forbid I find myself in some kind of situation and would need his help. He'd help me just liKe I'd help him. He's a good person. Id trust him.

I probably would give him a day before I was demanding info.

G33kchic, Reddit 8 Comments [1/13/2018 1:23:45 AM]
Fundie Index: -3

Quote# 135933

The question here is simple. What would you have done if you were in the same position as Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, where several of your daughters told you that their 15-year old brother had been openly touching them on the breasts and genital areas both when sleeping and awake?

This whole thing was blown out of proportion to the point of being beyond rediculous. 14 year old boys are perverts! 1st offense you don't call the police, you don't call a counselor, you have stern talk with both of them. You relieve the girl of any guilt and teach the boy a lesson in self control and then watch him closely for an extended period of time.

I know first hand of many cases of minor incestuous acts where brothers humped on their sister while wrestling, or copped a feel here and there and 20 years later counselors told them how bad it fucked them up. They in turn took it to the family and fucked up the whole family over something that occured as children. The News should be held accountable for this one.


I really don't know anything about the Duggars. My response was based more on general touching by siblings durring early teens. Every little glitch that boys and girls go through in life does not have to be life changing. I would agree that a boy who acts out in this way should be watched and monitored closely as it does point to some scary tendencies but I would also hazard to guess the the vast majority of boys that have done this grow up to be normal responsible men. His life doesn't have to be ruined over an incident and neither does the girls.

I never trusted older boys around my kids period. Boys are prone to making bad decisions when they are going through puberty. Yes it is wrong but it has been happening since the stone age and doesn't seem to be stopping as of yet.


I have spent the past 25 years doing volunteer work with recovering addicts and alcoholics. The great majority of these people have suffered from abuse and molestation to one degree or another.

One thing I find interesting is that amoung the ones who truly do recover and move on in life many of the women have changed their stories. They often admit to being awake and playing asleep because they enjoyed the attention. They admit to being casualy seductive and making the boy feel it was all his idea. Kids are kids, screw guilt. Parents need to step up to the plate and deal with things like this as they come up. Explain to the kids that things like this might happen but should never happen again.
. I said for best possible outcomes families in most cases could best handle it themselves. When you involve social workers who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground and have an agenda going in you are flirting with disaster worse than the molestation.

HoneyBadgerDC, The straight dope 11 Comments [1/13/2018 1:22:38 AM]
Fundie Index: 9

Quote# 135932

The question here is simple. What would you have done if you were in the same position as Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, where several of your daughters told you that their 15-year old brother had been openly touching them on the breasts and genital areas both when sleeping and awake?

Having been the victim in this situation (although only 3 years younger than my brother), I can say with complete and utter confidence: I don't have a fucking clue.

It's easy to say "Separate! Boarding school! Police!" when you're not looking at a son you love who has done a heinous thing. When you're not holding a hysterical younger child begging you not to send her beloved big brother away.

Therapy? Absolutely, for all of us. Like, real, documented, legit therapy. Beyond that...I just don't know, and pray I never have to figure it out.

I'm not even sure I would take the victim kids for therapy. Besides for the fact that therapy in general is not necessarily effective, there's also a serious risk IMO that by doing so you would magnify the significance of the incidents in their minds and by this itself cause them all sorts of trauma that might be avoided if you used a lighter approach.

I would definitely speak to the kids about it and let them know if they were troubled by what had happened we could get help from professionals, but if they seemed fine with parental reassurance that they had nothing to feel bad about then I would probably leave them be.

I (again, having been there) actually agree with this to a point. Far more damage was done to me by the adults freaking out and telling me I "must be" damaged/hurt/scared/fucked up than was done by the abuse itself. Dragging me against my will to therapists for months did not help; there I was told that I was being too brave and hiding my pain and would have to keep going back until I felt it. When the grown-ups keep telling you you're doing it wrong until you start crying, and then praise you for your tears, it sets up some really destructive emotional and behavioral habits.


Whynot, The straight dope 4 Comments [1/13/2018 1:17:08 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 135930

Lady Checkmate's headline: "‘There Are More Than Two Genders,’ Tortured Employee Forced To Say In Darkened Room At Google Headquarters"

(cust-and-pasted from Babylon Bee, link here: https://babylonbee.com/news/two-genders-tortured-employee-forced-say-darkened-room-google-headquarters/)

Lady Checkmate:
I love Babylon Bee...clearly, we Christians have a sense of humor :)

Lady Checkmate, Disqus - Faith & Religion 15 Comments [1/12/2018 3:18:50 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 135926

Dumbocrats don't know who they want to run against POTUS Trump in 2020. Do they go with bitter hateful racists like Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey? Do they go with the touchy feely Serial Molester Joe Biden???Either way you're still getting ran over by the Trump Train# MAGA



Elder Lansing, Twitter 16 Comments [1/12/2018 1:35:04 PM]
Fundie Index: 9

Quote# 135921

Note the language you choose to discuss the issue, and ask yourself why that feels natural to you…

“Deviancy”.

You didn’t say “variety”, which would be a more neutral way of saying the same thing, and it indicates that at some level, you’re disturbed by some of the behavior you’re typifying as “deviant”. Why is that? You could have said “mal-adaptive”, for example, and not come across as disapproving, but here we are.

Follow-on from that is the question of why that term, “deviant”, resonates so well for so many of us when discussing this stuff. No matter how “tolerant” you think you are, most of us would still be choosing to frame this as “deviant”. Why?

I’m not saying you’re wrong, either. Just pointing out how most of us frame this stuff.

I think there’s a reason for this, and it’s rooted in the fact that most humans instinctually shy away from other people who are displaying behavior patterns we identify as being out-of-the-norm, and thus, dangerous. We all like to watch the dancing bears, as they do their tricks out on the stage, but when the night ends, who do we go home with, turn our backs on, and go to sleep next to? It ain’t that “dancing bear” who was up on stage, displaying the entertaining and aberrant behavior, now is it? That individual, outside of the controlled realm of our night-time carouse, is often someone we would not willingly associate, or trust in any deep sense. And, why is that? Because we identify that behavior as being “off”, and something to avoid outside of carefully controlled and limited doses.

A lot of the problem we have today is that the aberrant are trying to force their way into the inner circles of trust in society, and that’s only going to be allowed to go so far, before a reaction sets in. You wonder why the old theme of gay-bashing got going, and was so well-established? Witness the insistent-on-normalization of the new transsexuals. They’re not satisfied with being tolerated, they now insist on being normalized, and that just isn’t that likely to happen. What is more likely is that the experiment with tolerance is going to be ended, and we’re all going to recognize why there are so few societies around the world where this sort of thing is a norm and freely accepted.

What’s so damn sad about it is that when it all comes crashing down, a lot of these folks are only going to have themselves to blame for what happens, because they will have provoked their own pogrom through their demanding behavior. If they can’t be lived with, they won’t be.

Kirk, According To Hoyt 9 Comments [1/12/2018 11:24:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Yamamanama

Quote# 135904

Crunch:

Relative to there being slavery, you need to get your head out of the Cathlic sand and read the Christian Bible! In our Bible, word "slave" appears only twice, and both times it is ascribed a negative connotation, duh! Relative to the slavery as existed in the United States of America, whereby Blacks from Africa were kidnapped by the carpet pilot Mooslim and sold to the Cathlic for transportation and resale in the Americas, our Bible explicitly prohibits such modus operandi! To wit, "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." Exodus 21:16. Therefore, the only thing that was needed, and is still needed, to stop slavery is for the Christian to start implementing true Christianity and Bible based morality.

So can we count on you to support a real Christian crusade to Middle Eastern deserts and other Moohamadan lands to liberate them from slavery in the name of Jesus the Christ, or are you just another armchair quarterback?

Tony Demarcus, Ph.D., D.D., Disqus Grace and Truth 17 Comments [1/12/2018 11:22:46 AM]
Fundie Index: 148

Quote# 135897

Lady Checkmate's headline: "Trump has Canada worried he'll pull US from NAFTA"

I say pull it. Canada turned from God years ago. We should NOT be in league with those who hate God and openly rebel against Him.

Lady Checkmate, Disqus - News Network 15 Comments [1/12/2018 11:20:51 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 135919

Lady Checkmate's headline: "Trump should explain his remarks, Haiti and some African nations say"

(Fox news cut and paste: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/12/trump-should-explain-his-remarks-haiti-and-some-african-nations-say.html)

Lady Checkmate:
Fake news. I don't believe Trump meant any offense. Those countries aren't asking because they're NOT buying into the fake news. The alt-left trouble-makers are just trying to drum up more trolling of our potus. RIDICULOUS and PATHETIC as usual!

Lady Checkmate, Disqus - News Network 19 Comments [1/12/2018 11:20:36 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 135874

If the Bible is true (and I believe it certainly is 100%), then all Christ-rejecting atheists will go to Hell. Sadly, Rod Serling (an atheist who produced The Twilight Zone series) is now burning in the torments and fires of Hell beneath. So also is Charlie Chaplin (atheist), Leonard Nimoy (Judaism), David “Bowie” Jones (Buddhist), Gene Roddenberry (atheist), and Steve Jobs (Buddhist). For any person to deny the deity of Jesus Christ effectively makes him or her an atheist, because Jesus is almighty God (Matthew 1:23; John 1:1-3,14; John 10:33; John 14:1; Revelation 1:8 - All references only to trustworthy King James Bible).

Communism is Synonymous With Atheism

Communism is just the opposite of Christianity. It is the inevitable conclusion when a nation becomes Godless. Communism is caused by a vacuum created when we lose our faith in God. We don't need state support, if we have God-support. As we come away from our faith in God, then we turn and build ourselves a society, to offer us the same security that we used to get from God. So a person who has faith in God is completely opposite to Communism. A person who loses his faith, or has no faith in God, must of necessity be Communistic for his security. Democracy has never worked. Democracy will never work, and can never work, unless the religion of Jesus Christ is believed and honored. Godless nations must be Communistic. There is no other way.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Precious 13 Comments [1/12/2018 11:17:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 135916

If your mom doesn't want to have sex with you, it's over

It's a mom's duty to make sure her children grow up happy and healthy. Every good mom thinks her boy is the most handsome. No woman will ever love you more than your mom.

If your mom thinks you're ugly and won't take your virginity, it's over. It's common knowledge that men need sex to be happy. If even your mom won't give you access to this basic human need, it means you're hopeless.

Melinda, incels.me 26 Comments [1/12/2018 9:12:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 23
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 135903

The Destruction of the Great Tribulation (Second Half of the Seven Years)

The greatest damage to the Earth will come in the second half of the tribulation, referred to by most as the great tribulation. That is why our Lord said that He did not appoint us to the wrath. The saints of God will be home. The Bride of Christ will be on a honeymoon with her Bridegroom.

All islands will disappear and all mountains will be leveled.

Every building in the world will fall. That means the grand old castles and palaces that tourists like to visit all over Europe won't be there anymore—they will be demolished, broken beyond repair, never to be restored.

The great cathedrals will all be a heap of rubble. Many arc mere monuments to religion and were never visited by God anyway.
The great monuments of the world will no longer be there as attractions for travelers—like the Empire State Building, the Great Wall of China, the United Nations building, the new glass headquarters for the European Union, the capital building in Washington, D.C.

The parliament buildings in London will be dust in the water, as well as the Tower Bridge and the Millennium Wheel—the biggest and grandest Ferris wheel in the world.

The great statue of Christ on the mountaintop in Rio dc Janeiro will be gone.

The Panama Canal and the Erie Canal will be damaged, probably beyond use. They may have been built strong enough to withstand the earthquake until the last big one happens. The same with the great dams of the world. The dam on the Euphrates may be spared so that it can flood Israel and then dry up to aid the marching two hundred million from the North, who afterward will then perish in the final and greatest quake, the granddaddy of them all.

Oil wells will bust open and spew their crude oil in the air and probably catch fire. Pipelines and gas lines all over the world will break open and turn into infernos. In many places the world will literally be on fire.

The new temple in Jerusalem will be tramped by the gentiles. Jerusalem will be destroyed by an earthquake and flood.

The great San Francisco Bridge will collapse into the bay. as will all bridges all over the world. People will be trapped in the Florida Keys when the long bridge collapses into twisted rubble due to earthquakes and then tsunamis. Florida will be totally underwater, as will many coastlands.

Airports and runways around the world will be so damaged that planes in the air will find it difficult if not impossible to land.

All emergency services—hospitals, police departments, fire departments, and utilities—will be hampered in their ability to assist anyone other than in the very closest areas. Moving around will become very difficult and even extremely dangerous.
Most governments will become dysfunctional, unable to control the chaos. So much equipment will be destroyed that it may become Impossible to get aid to people. There will be mass rioting in the streets, with looting such as there has never been seen before. People who think the)' are entitled will steal and rob any store they can break into, or attack any individual they can find.

Communication will be hampered, but wireless devices and satellite communication will still give many people the ability to know what is going on around the world and to be able to keep the public informed. This will be aided by those with cell phones that operate solely off satellite transmission.

People will die from heat, with no electricity to try to stay cool. People will die from plagues, with no hospitals available to help them. Eventually, people will die from starvation because land will be burned up or ruined by flooding, and just the logistics of getting food gathered and distributed will be almost impossible.

Sinkholes will appear all over the world. Small villages will completely disappear.

For God's children, no weapon formed against them shall prosper (Isaiah 54:17).

In what we call, 'third-world nations." these conditions will be the worst. In some larger, more advanced nations, it might not be as bad, but it certainly will be bad enough to destroy almost everything, and life as we knew it will cease.

Those who choose to laugh at God. His Word, and the prospect of the great tribulation will be the ones who, when facing the truth, would rather blaspheme and curse God when it really happens, than admit the truth, believe and repent.

Those who choose to come to God before this begins will be the fortunate ones who will be on the first train leaving Station Earth, destination heaven, in the first rapture. This happening will be the catalyst to bring about the seven-year peace treaty between Israel and the Arab nations and Europe. The USA will always be an ally to Israel. We will continue to stand with them no matter what happens. Those who believe and leave the Earth in the first rapture at the beginning of the seven years of tribulation will be the saints who will be the bride at the marriage supper of the Lamb. The guests will be the Old Testament saints who left paradise with Jesus, the resurrected saints who join the first rapture (those of the second and third raptures), and the martyrs. The martyrs' resurrection will happen just after Jesus returns, and they will be able to witness the judgment of those who killed them.

There will be supernatural protection for those who refuse the mark of the antichrist (the beast). Jesus will make many people invisible and provide shelter. They will see miracle after miracle of provision and protection.

Those spared who become believers will be able to touch the injured and see supernatural assistance and miraculous healings.
What the earthquakes don't destroy, the angry mobs will. The lands will be full of lawlessness that leads to mass, deliberate destruction. Mobs will become predators.

There will be great destruction of government buildings and national monuments.

Those who can find it will do drugs, or drink continuously to be able to numb themselves to the horror around them. But their anger at God will only grow. They will not repent, but become fools instead.

Corena Terral, Revelation Unwrapped (book) 20 Comments [1/11/2018 2:42:56 PM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 135901

Atheists and physical attractiveness

The English anthropologist Edward Dutton indicates that using right-wing politics as a proxy for religiosity, there is evidence that atheists are less attractive and he pointed out that right-wing politicians are more likely to have symmetrical faces according to a study.

The American contrarian blog Half Sigma declared:

...atheists are most likely to live alone.
This is not surprising. Atheists are less desirable...partners. I observed this once when I was living in Washington, DC, and I wandered by an atheist convention happening on the mall. The atheist were predominately male, and significantly uglier than average.

This is because ugly people become social outcasts, and social outcasts are more likely to be attracted to outcast movements like atheism, libertarianism, communism, etc.

Jay Fink writes:

If you are attractive and have a good social life you will generally not be interested in out of the mainstream groups or ideas. Why buck the status quo when it's working in your interests?

In the Western World, atheists have lower marriage rates (see: Atheism and marriage). In addition, compared to deeply religious cultures where an extended family and a sense of community often exists, secular countries are often lonelier societies (sSee: Atheism and loneliness).

The Audacious Epigone blog, which specializes in collecting data relative to stereotypes, writes about atheists having an above average propensity to live in single person households:

The low rates of multiple person households is part of the explanation, but the high number of lone wolves among their ranks illustrates their social marginality in another way relative to the cognitive endowments they enjoy. This does little to dispel stereotype I hold of atheists as cynical, single white guys who live in apartments downtown, work at used record stores, love George Carlin, and watch Adult Swim.

Conservative, Conservapedia 28 Comments [1/11/2018 2:42:47 PM]
Fundie Index: 10

Quote# 135900

Question: "Why did God allow polygamy / bigamy in the Bible?"

Answer: The question of polygamy is an interesting one in that most people today view polygamy as immoral while the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns it. The first instance of polygamy/bigamy in the Bible was that of Lamech in Genesis 4:19: “Lamech married two women.” Several prominent men in the Old Testament were polygamists. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (essentially wives of a lower status), according to 1 Kings 11:3. What are we to do with these instances of polygamy in the Old Testament? There are three questions that need to be answered: 1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? 2) How does God view polygamy today? 3) Why did it change?

1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? The Bible does not specifically say why God allowed polygamy. As we speculate about God’s silence, there are a few key factors to consider. First, while there are slightly more male babies than female babies, due to women having longer lifespans, there have always been more women in the world than men. Current statistics show that approximately 50.5 percent of the world population are women. Assuming the same percentages in ancient times, and multiplied by millions of people, there would be tens of thousands more women than men. Second, warfare in ancient times was especially brutal, with an incredibly high rate of fatality. This would have resulted in an even greater percentage of women to men. Third, due to patriarchal societies, it was nearly impossible for an unmarried woman to provide for herself. Women were often uneducated and untrained. Women relied on their fathers, brothers, and husbands for provision and protection. Unmarried women were often subjected to prostitution and slavery. The significant difference between the number of women and men would have left many, many women in an undesirable situation.

So, it seems that God may have allowed polygamy to protect and provide for the women who could not find a husband otherwise. A man would take multiple wives and serve as the provider and protector of all of them. While definitely not ideal, living in a polygamist household was far better than the alternatives: prostitution, slavery, or starvation. In addition to the protection/provision factor, polygamy enabled a much faster expansion of humanity, fulfilling God’s command to “be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth” (Genesis 9:7). Men are capable of impregnating multiple women in the same time period, causing humanity to grow much faster than if each man was only producing one child each year.

2) How does God view polygamy today? Even while allowing polygamy, the Bible presents monogamy as the plan which conforms most closely to God’s ideal for marriage. The Bible says that God’s original intention was for one man to be married to only one woman: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife [not wives], and they will become one flesh [not fleshes]” (Genesis 2:24). While Genesis 2:24 is describing what marriage is, rather than how many people are involved, the consistent use of the singular should be noted. In Deuteronomy 17:14-20, God says that the kings were not supposed to multiply wives (or horses or gold). While this cannot be interpreted as a command that the kings must be monogamous, it can be understood as declaring that having multiple wives causes problems. This can be clearly seen in the life of Solomon (1 Kings 11:3-4).

In the New Testament, 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 give “the husband of one wife” in a list of qualifications for spiritual leadership. There is some debate as to what specifically this qualification means. The phrase could literally be translated “a one-woman man.” Whether or not this phrase is referring exclusively to polygamy, in no sense can a polygamist be considered a “one-woman man.” While these qualifications are specifically for positions of spiritual leadership, they should apply equally to all Christians. Should not all Christians be “above reproach...temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money” (1 Timothy 3:2-4)? If we are called to be holy (1 Peter 1:16), and if these standards are holy for elders and deacons, then they are holy for all.

Ephesians 5:22-33 speaks of the relationship between husbands and wives. When referring to a husband (singular), it always also refers to a wife (singular). “For the husband is the head of the wife [singular] … He who loves his wife [singular] loves himself. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife [singular], and the two will become one flesh....Each one of you also must love his wife [singular] as he loves himself, and the wife [singular] must respect her husband [singular].” While a somewhat parallel passage, Colossians 3:18-19, refers to husbands and wives in the plural, it is clear that Paul is addressing all the husbands and wives among the Colossian believers, not stating that a husband might have multiple wives. In contrast, Ephesians 5:22-33 is specifically describing the marital relationship. If polygamy were allowable, the entire illustration of Christ’s relationship with His body (the church) and the husband-wife relationship falls apart.

3) Why did it change? It is not so much God’s disallowing something He previously allowed as it is God’s restoring marriage to His original plan. Even going back to Adam and Eve, polygamy was not God’s original intent. God seems to have allowed polygamy to solve a problem, but it is not the ideal. In most modern societies, there is absolutely no need for polygamy. In most cultures today, women are able to provide for and protect themselves—removing the only “positive” aspect of polygamy. Further, most modern nations outlaw polygamy. According to Romans 13:1-7, we are to obey the laws the government establishes. The only instance in which disobeying the law is permitted by Scripture is if the law contradicts God’s commands (Acts 5:29). Since God only allows for polygamy, and does not command it, a law prohibiting polygamy should be upheld.

Are there some instances in which the allowance for polygamy would still apply today? Perhaps, but it is unfathomable that there would be no other possible solution. Due to the “one flesh” aspect of marriage, the need for oneness and harmony in marriage, and the lack of any real need for polygamy, it is our firm belief that polygamy does not honor God and is not His design for marriage.

Got Questions, Got Questions 13 Comments [1/11/2018 2:42:26 PM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 135899

Question: "Does God hate shrimp?"

Answer: The essential argument of GodHatesShrimp.com is that we should not condemn homosexuality as a sin based on the Old Testament because the Old Testament also refers to eating certain kinds of seafood (including shrimp) as an abomination, yet Christians do not have any problem with eating shrimp or any of the other forbidden foods. Does the "God hates shrimp" argument have any validity? Yes and no.

First, it is important to note that the title "God hates shrimp" is a reaction to a particular group of anti-homosexuality protestors that are famous for promoting the saying "God hates fags." The argument is that if God hates homosexuals, based on the Old Testament Law, then God equally hates those who eat shrimp. The Bible nowhere says that God hates homosexuals, however. There are lists of things that God hates in the Old Testament (see Proverbs 6:16-19), and homosexuality does not make the list. Yes, homosexuality is a sin, and yes, God hates sin. But again, the Bible nowhere says that God hates homosexuals, or that homosexuality is any more difficult for God to forgive.

Back to the "God hates shrimp" argument - is it valid? Yes and no. First, a Christian should never make an argument exclusively using the Old Testament Law. Jesus fulfilled the Law, ending its requirements (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15). If you use the Old Testament Law as the sole argument for homosexuality being a sin, you should also declare that everything the Law outlaws to be sin: eating shrimp, wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, sowing different types of seed into the same field, etc. No, Jesus fulfilled the Law. Christians are not bound by the Old Testament Law, but rather are to be subject to the Law of Christ (Matthew 22:37-39; Galatians 6:2).

So, if the Old Testament Law cannot exclusively be used to argue for homosexuality being sinful, why then do Christians believe homosexuality is sinful? The answer is that the New Testament also clearly and explicitly states that homosexuality is both immoral and unnatural (Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). The New Testament confirms the Old Testament command against homosexuality, explains why the command existed, and argues for why homosexuality should continue to be considered sinful. What then about shrimp? Does God still hate shrimp? No. Jesus Himself "declared all foods clean" (Mark 7:19). Jesus later confirmed this in a vision to Peter (Acts 10:15). While the New Testament confirms that homosexuality is sinful, it clearly indicates the food laws to be null and void. God never hated shrimp. Rather, God disallowed the consumption of shrimp to distinguish the Israelites' diet from that of the surrounding nations, and likely due to the fact that since they are bottom-feeders, shrimp are really not very healthy.

What should be learned from the "God hates shrimp" argument is that we should use the word of God consistently, "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15, NKJV). As New Covenant believers, we are not to use the Old Testament Law as the exclusive basis for our morality. Rather, we are to study the whole counsel of Scripture and live accordingly.


Got Questions, Got Questions 10 Comments [1/11/2018 2:42:22 PM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 135898

How can anyone reasonably claim to be an atheist when man hasn't even discovered what's in 90% of the earth's oceans? Pastor John Cumming is so right... For anyone to say, “There is no God!,” you must yourself assume to be God! No human being has traveled to the ends of the universe. In fact, no human being has ever even left the Milky Way Solar System.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Precious 24 Comments [1/11/2018 2:37:18 PM]
Fundie Index: 13

Quote# 135895

Did you know that demons can follow hair weave all the way from across the ocean to your head? This is why the Bible warns us stringently about consuming things that come from pagan cultures!

"No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons." 1 Corinthians 10:20

The hair we end up getting in America, Europe and Africa in our salons and beauty stores comes from temples in India. In these temples both men and women who grow their hair to extremely long lengths will have their hair cut off and offered as a sacrifice to the pagan gods they worship.

The Bible tells us those gods are not actually gods - they're really demons. So when you buy that hair with the intent of attaching it to your own head, have you ever stopped to ask yourself if the hair still belongs to those demons it was first given to?

You need to know! Because failure to understand this could be the very reason for those migraines, nightmares and spirit husband encounters you've been having.

The Bible doesn't warn us against these things to stop us from looking our best: it's designed to keep you from inviting DEMONS into your life. I often wonder if this 'hair' isn't part of the reason why breast cancer is so high among so many women these days - especially black women?

Mack Major, Facebook 21 Comments [1/11/2018 12:29:32 PM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: Yossarian Lives

Quote# 135893

While we are at it is there even one positive reason to be in or even have a U.N. The stupid thing was originally established to eventually create a one world government. We certain do not need the filthy thing in America. Get rid of u n and all it’s stupid special interest groups automatically disappear with it, can’t get much better than THAT.

Don Spilman, Bare Naked Islam 7 Comments [1/11/2018 12:27:58 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Katie