Quote# 141622

Confessions of a “Transphobic”

I never had a chance to read Gavin McInnes’ article “Transphobia is Perfectly Natural,” since Thought Catalog has taken it down. (But we can read outraged reactions from around the web.) McInnes has apparently been hounded out of his job as chief creative officer of something called Rooster, which I am too unhip to have heard of.

I am sure McInnes’ article is somewhere out there on the web, and I am sure someone will send it to me eventually. But I don’t want to read it until I have written my own take on the subject matter. Frankly, I am jealous that McInnes wrote on this first, since I have been kicking a similar idea around for years. I did not write it out, because up until May of this year, I was living in San Francisco, and the trannies there are far scarier than the antifa. Like the lesbians of Berkeley, they can reduce a man to a skeleton in under 30 seconds.

“Transphobia,” like “homophobia,” is an inherently dishonest term. “Phobia” derives from the Greek “phobos” or fear, and phobias are by definition irrational fears. But transphobia is neither irrational nor a fear. It is an emotion, of course. But it is a completely natural, normal, and healthy emotion. Which is as rational as any emotion gets.

Specifically, transphobia is a perfectly natural feeling of revulsion at men who have their dicks chopped off and women who have their tits chopped off — among many, many other things — in order to “change their sex.” Of course, one’s sex is determined by one’s chromosomes, so “sex changes” do not change anyone’s sex. They merely transform a man into a butchered simulacrum of a woman, or a woman into a butchered simulacrum of a man.

Again: sex-changes are futile, because one cannot change one’s chromosomes. One can only butcher and drug one’s body to look like someone of the opposite sex. And when many transsexuals finally awaken to the horror and futility of what they have done, they kill themselves.

The revulsion I feel toward transsexuals is not based on “meanness” or “ignorance” as liberals would have it, but on sympathy. When a healthy person sees another in pain, he recoils in horror because he feels the pain of others (which is the literal meaning of sympathy — suffering with others). I love my penis, and the thought of losing it fills me with horror. And when one sees self-inflicted suffering, it is natural to feel loathing and anger as well, because it didn’t have to happen. And by hurting themselves, self-mutilators hurt the rest of us as well. I am a bit overly sensitive, perhaps, but I even cringe at the sight of tattoos, partly in pity, partly in revulsion.

The kind of people who don’t feel sympathy and horror at radical forms of self-mutilation are, frankly, sick. They lack elementary sympathy for the pain of others. They may even take pleasure in the pain of others. Or, like most liberals who champion trannies as the next great minority crusade, they take pleasure in the discomfort that sexual mutilation causes “those people” — conservatives, Christians, rednecks, hicks, etc. — the hated others of the liberal loveys. Trannies and other freaks are just tools in the culture war. But in this case, the enemy is not the Right side of the culture, but nature herself — mental and moral health, which apparently drives today’s Left to paroxysms of sadistic rage. Because they’re evil, of course.

After a healthy person feels sympathy-based revulsion at sexual self-mutilation, the first thought that pops into his mind is, “These people must be crazy.” But let’s just withhold judgment for a bit and ask the transsexuals themselves what they think. Interestingly enough, they too claim to suffer from mental illness, namely the feeling of being a man trapped in a woman’s body, or vice versa. So the real issue here is not whether these poor people suffer from a mental illness — they admit it themselves — but rather what sort of treatment they should seek. Self-mutilation is not the cure for mental illness, but just another symptom.

If a man thinks he is Jesus, we do not crucify him. If a man thinks he is Napoleon, we do not crown him emperor. If a man thinks he is a woman, why then should we go along with it? Shouldn’t we try to help him get over his desire to mutilate himself, just as we help anorexics to stop starving themselves, and cutters to stop carving themselves?

And since when is it consistent with the Hippocratic oath — the “First, Do No Harm” part — for doctors to mutilate healthy bodies and turn them into parodies of the opposite sex?

What would I do with transsexuals? First of all, let me say that I have actually known two people who have embarked upon this path. To all appearances they were good-looking heterosexual men who dropped out of sight and then re-emerged as not-so-good-looking women. But all their likable traits and shared interests were disconcertingly intact. So transsexuals are not some abstract other. They are very real to me. This is me being real: having a real reaction to real people undergoing real, drastic transformations. I feel compassion and revulsion toward the transsexuals themselves, and righteous indignation toward the people who enable and exploit them.

So what would my policy be?

First, I would simply say “No.” Every decent society should provide healthcare for the mentally and physically ill. When people are mentally ill, they cannot make responsible decisions for themselves. Thus a decent society needs to exercise paternalism in the interests of the mentally ill. And the primary interest of the mentally ill is to get better, to triumph over their delusions, not to be humored in them, much less aided in radical and futile forms of self-mutilation. Again, self-mutilation is a symptom of mental illness, not a cure. Compassion and responsibility require that we simply say “no.”

Second, the mutilation of healthy bodies is contrary to the proper aim of the medical profession. Thus every doctor who performs sex change operations should be stripped of his license and drummed out of the profession. Sex changes should be outlawed, and any doctor who performs them should be jailed. Indeed, the same treatment should be meted out to doctors who perform any and all forms of genital mutilation.

Third, we must keep a sense of perspective. I don’t hate transsexuals. (I am rather proud of my book Confessions of a Reluctant Hater, so if I did hate them, I would have no problem admitting it.) Transsexuals aren’t evil or threatening. They are not “sinners.” They are simply sick people who should be cared for, not hated or harmed.

The truly evil people are those who exploit these unfortunates for gain: the doctors who mutilate them for money and the Leftists who use them as the latest totems of diversity, progress, and enlightenment — thereby revealing that their true enemy is not injustice or inequality but nature, health, and sanity. Craziest of all, though, is a society that consents to be ruled by such monsters.

Greg Johnson, Counter-Currents 5 Comments [12/20/2018 12:27:15 PM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 141574

I am POSITIVE that God would not allow a Catholic Church to guard the Ark....

NTEB [MOD], Now The End Begins 7 Comments [12/20/2018 11:08:55 AM]
Fundie Index: 0

Quote# 141807

People dont care if its not your fault that you have shit life or you are ugly, they just want to communicate with high value successful people

When you open news site and you see an article about a guy in wheelchair having problems entering his appartment block or getting on the bus by himself, you barely if at all read it and close asap and forget, you cant really relate and life is too short to deeped into other's people problems when you have your own.

Thats the mindset and logic of nearly everyone. We are egoistic creatures, we care about our own well being.

Nobody gives a shit if you have failed due to your ugly looks or something else, you just a loser and thats it. They forget about you and move onto the higher value ones.

subhumanpermavirgin, r/Braincels 11 Comments [1/2/2019 11:09:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 141737

When the planes flew into the towers in New York, and I was interviewed, and people would ask me, "Where was God in this?" and I said, "Well, God could've very easily blown those planes off-course by a little puff of wind, and he didn't do it. Therefore, God was right there, ordaining that this happen, because he could've stopped it just like that", and everybody who believes in God should say that because that's how powerful he is, and Jesus said the wind obeys him, and so just a simple wind by the command of Jesus would've blown those planes away, and they would've crashed, and 60 people would've died instead of thousands of people. But he didn't do that.

Why is it comforting to believe that? And the answer is, because there are 10,000 orphans who wonder if they have a future. Will they have a future if God isn't powerful for them? I'm coming to those families, and I'm saying, when they ask me, "Do you think God ordained the death of my daddy?" I'd say "Yes. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord. But the very power by which God governs all evils enables him to govern your life, and he has total authority to turn this and every other evil in your life for your everlasting good, and that's your only hope in this world and in the next, and therefore, if you sacrifice the sovereignty of God in order to get him off the hook in the death of your daddy, you sacrifice everything. You don't want to go there."

The sovereignty of God, while creating problems for his involvement in sin and evil, is the very rock-solid foundation that enables us to carry on in life. Where would we turn if we didn't have a God to help us deal with the very evils that he has ordained come into our lives? So yes, absolutely, I believe in the sovereignty of God, and I believe in its comforting effects.

John Piper, Youtube 15 Comments [12/30/2018 11:00:06 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 141761

(In response to: Did God prefer Adam and Eve as they were before their eyes were opened by the fruit of knowledge, or after?)

A Christian Perspective

I don't see how that is even a question.

They knowingly disobeyed Jehovah.

They chose Satan as their God.

They were executed.

Michael Tracey, Quora 11 Comments [1/1/2019 2:15:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 141777

Ownership and domination is a concept that developed on Mars...
...they destroyed their world using science...their refugees were
welcomed in Atlantis...where they brought great destruction upon that nation.

Ownership is NOT something a enlightened civilization
who lives in Oneness such as Lemuria would practice. All lives belong to Mother-Earth.

Diamond-flame of the Holy Spirit, Y! answers 16 Comments [1/1/2019 3:03:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 9

Quote# 141738

Today's Laugh 12-28-18



TRANSCRIPT
First frame, text identifies an illegal pointing a gun at a policeman. A large caged animal labelled "Media" does nothing.
Second frame, text identifies Trump addressing soldiers in Iraq. The large caged animal labelled "Media" snarls.



Mick Williams, Disqus - Faith & Religion 20 Comments [12/30/2018 11:00:44 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 141736



How would you act if given absolute power over an alien civilization?



There is an episode of the Twilight Zone called the Little People where a couple astronauts get stranded on a distant planet and while repairing their ship, they stumble upon a race of tiny humans a who are sophisticated enough to build houses, boats, trucks, cities, and appear in all aspects to be identical to the humans in every way except their size.

You can probably guess what happens next. An alien version of Conrad's Heart of Darkness. One of the astronauts decides he's going to be their God and begins to dominate the little people through fear and cruelty, based on no godly qualities except the advantage of having evolved to be massively bigger than them. It was a cool episode.

Anyway, what's interesting and possibly shocking to some, is I don't think I'd act very differently from that guy in his circumstance. I could see myself becoming a tyrant to them and enjoy every second of it. If I somehow came across a planet of tiny little aliens that were the size of ants to me, I don' think I'd have much of a problem with crushing a few of their towns, provided that that no one (or at least no one who mattered) would find out or try to punish me for it. I'd actually think it's hard to blame a guy like me for taking advantage of the size difference. I would love the chance to be revered as a god, even if I'd very much be an old testament god. Well, except that instead of meting out discipline with lightning, I'd be tyrannizing the little aliens by squashing dissenters with my giant stinking feet. If they needed me to press a giant sneaker-shaped footprint in the middle of their capital to remind them to worship me, then that's fine. Actually, I'd probably do that anyway.

Here is where you may disagree, but to me it seems like nature taking its course and I don't think I can fault some giant alien who came to Earth doing this either. In the immediate moment he's planting a huge foot down on NYC, I'd probably think the alien was a giant jerk, but looking at the big picture, I know I'd be too insignificant to this being to even get his attention, much less communicate in any meaningful way. And does Godzilla care about the humans he steps on? Besides, I already step on bugs all the time, often purposely.

In spite of what I'd do in the above situation, I wouldn't consider myself to be evil, immoral, or unethical. Rather, I'm generally considered to be an all-around great guy by friends and coworkers. I help people all the time for nothing in return, have donated to charities, given people rides, and I even volunteer as an EMT when I can. I run competitively, coach track for no pay. I've never been arrested, vandalized property, or wanted to hurt anyone.

What do you think of the behavior I described? How would you behave when in a situation where you gain absolute power over others? Would you be kind or cruel? Or would you walk away from the situation? Try to stay respectful of one another!

Jakeyjake, The straight dope 20 Comments [12/30/2018 10:59:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 141751

something and it was really stupid. Some people seem to argue that the act of having sex with a dog is "wrong" or should be illegal or is a good law if already a law becauseletting your dog be "the boss" is a risk to health between humans and stuff... and stuff like that.

Look, I am AGAINST abuse. However, consent is the only valid argument here, and if it's true dogs don't consent to having sex with humans, then it's bad, however if a dog goes right behind a human and does that toward the human, then I can't really say the dog was being raped, especially if the human didn't want that.
And that's a consent argument, and the debate about consent in this example is probably the only thing that matters.

But whenever I hear people use any argument OUTSIDE of that, I just cringe.
And let me kinda once again state this: I am against hurting any living being, and for example when you had sex with a dog without the consent of such dog for example, then I have a problem. Not sure about insects though, I might be fine with killing some with a napkin. Haha

But it's this dumb "fear" argument or "bad for your health" argument that pisses me off, and this argument alone is bad for anything involving law.

"It's good to have laws against sex with animals because letting a dog be boss could lead to problems to your health. And could make the dog and/or any similar behavior style non-human animal act crazy in the future!"
No, it's good to have laws if there is any abuse for example. And we should have laws against sex with any living being that lacks consent.
If a human WANTS to let their dog be boss, knows the risk of health toward the human person knowing, and allows it anyway, and the dog and human consents, then the person should have that right in privacy. It's not a legal excuse, but I'm trying to argue morally here. As for risk, there is MANY other ways that could lead a dog to being the boss, yet I have a feeling those are considered fine by many. That health and danger argument is just another bias argument that probably lacks any care about the non-human animal just so they can cause humans to suffer. I could be wrong, but this is ridiculous.
Yet, if a dog feels boss, does that mean it can't be handled? No! A situation like that could probably be control beyond such event, and one bad relationship is not evidence that it's bad for everyone.

That health and risk argument is one of the most dumbest and non-sense arguments I've seen, and even if I agreed that no non-human animal on this planet can consent with humans even though evidence may exist suggesting the opposite of such idea, that argument will always be a stupid argument in the same realm where "It's gross" or "it violates my religion" is used as if it's an "excuse".

Using ANY argument that has nothing to do with actual morality, means you're against freedom. And remember what I said about freedom, I think it's a right to enjoy life as long if no other creature is directly violated and isn't threatening to.
THAT'S WHY for this case, consent in awareness of sex should I think always be the the argument here and as long if such consensual act doesn't 90 to 100% lead to abuse in the future.

_______________

That being said, I remember seeing amazing arguments involving this taboo, and quite honestly, I think it was time to address these two arguments.
Again, this is about me having such a problem with people making up dumb excuses like this to decide something should be "wrong" and/or illegal. It should depend on consent for a case like this, and the same must be said for other sex stuff for example.
For example: Having sex with children is wrong because children can't consent. Using "Oh that is wrong because it's against a bible." is not a good argument to say it's wrong, however using "Children can't consent." and since it that statement is true is a valid argument. Get what I'm saying? Of course even if no one said the argument, it's still wrong because children can't consent.

I really hate it when someone who agrees a non-human animal has consented, but then decides to use a invalid argument after. That just shows they don't care about natural rights.
Again, as a person who questions popular beliefs a lot, this really needed to be said.




But what's the point? Even if I put out my damn disclaimers, some people are gonna go out and rant about this as a "WWWAREA DEFENDS BESTIALITY!" and will probably miss the point and promote false claims. Don't do that, it's really not cool. It's true, I do believe there is evidence of consent maybe, but still.

wwwarea, Deviantart 5 Comments [12/30/2018 11:05:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: FSM

Quote# 141753

Lady Checkmate's headline: "Religious Liberty: Militant Homosexual demands Christian Group accept him as a leader or lose it's University Registration...A violation of the Group's First Amendment Rights per the DOJ"

The DOJ supports a college Christian group, the Business Leaders in Christ, at the University of Iowa after a militant Homosexual college student targeted the Business Leaders in Christ and demanded the Christian Group accept him as Vice President, a leader in the group (ignoring their Statement of Faith and Christian beliefs) or lose it's university registration. When he was told that he could remain a member, reinformed of the groups Statement of Faith, which he refused to comply with, he was denied a leadership position.

The student then went to university officials and specifically requested that the Christian group be forced to make him, a practicing reprobate, a leader of Christians or that the University revoke the group's campus approval which also takes away any funding they were receiving - hateful, targeted persecution for standing for biblical Truth.

Unfortunately, the University of Iowa sided with the hateful student, ignored the Christian Group's rights and revoked the Business Leaders in Christ's approval-violating the Christian Student Group's First Amendment Rights. An act the DOJ does not approve of.

We must take note that it was not enough that he was allowed to join the group as a member and hopefully learn biblical-Truth that could set him free from his sins and abominations and save him through Jesus Christ. He wanted to actually lead the group away from biblical-Truth, it's Statement of Faith and Jesus Christ - which is a tactic of the enemy...to infiltrate Christian organizations and destroy them from within. Everyone knows that you don't join a group to change it, you join groups because you support their mission and want to be a part of what they're doing, not because you hate them and want to destroy them and stop what they're doing. But, that is exactly what the hateful alt-left does. If they can't change what a person or a group believes, then they do their best to destroy it - just like their father satan, who seeks to steal, kill and destroy. There's nothing new under the sun.

The point-Christians have rights and it's time we demand our rights: freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Justice Department Files Statement of Interest in Student Group’s First Amendment Case Against University of Iowa

The Justice Department today filed a Statement of Interest in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa supporting the claim of a student group, Business Leaders in Christ, that the University of Iowa violated its First Amendment rights when it de-registered the group for requiring its student group leadership to sign a statement of faith. The government argues in its Statement of Interest that the University violated BLinC’s First Amendment rights to free association and free speech.


https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-statement-interest-student-group-s-first-amendment-case-against

Don't forget to RECOMMEND. Lets get the Truth out so that Light may shine bright in this dark place and Jesus Christ may be glorified. Even if the discussion is closed, please still RECOMMEND. May God bless you and keep you.




Lady Checkmate, Disqus - Faith & Religion 8 Comments [12/30/2018 11:06:19 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 141755

(=Note: I am not sure if this is a fundie qoute in on itself but it is a description/review of a popular fundie play taken from a Christian Universalist blogging site, but even then they express extreme views=)

Heaven's Gates, Hell's Flames - Maybe the most satanic play ever

Have you ever heard of the play "Heaven's Gates, Hell's Flames"? I have never, ever withnessed such blasphemy what I withnessed about half a year ago! I had no idea that the tradition of middle-ages still lives so strong!

In the beginning of the drama, Jesus is crucified. Then the play shows us different people, who die during the play and are accepted to heaven or sent to hell depending on if their name was on the Book of
Life.

The thing which angered me most was that how the play was emphasizing hell and the eternal torment. Those, who have not reached the True Gospel are probably in great distress. I, although I know that God will not torture anyone for eternity, but chastens and makes everyone learn righteousness, I felt myself very, very uncomfortable. I don't remember last time when I have felt so terrible.

The play went on about an hour and during that hour the Satan took many souls into the depths of hell, where they shall be burning eternally.

In the play, Satan was portrayed as the master of hell and torture which is totally unscriptural, because Bible tells us that Satan will be thrown into the Lake of Fire and he does not rule it! Even the actor who played Satan admitted to me after the show that it is God's
hell, not Satan's (but still he took part of the play KNOWING that it wasn't actually scriptural!)

Immediatly after the play, when the play has scared the hell into the people (pun intended), the show's director climbs to stage and tells people to come and take Christ to their lives.

There is nothing wrong with taking Christ to your life, but these poor people do not take Christ into their people because of their faith and knowledge of the truths, but more because of the fear of eternal torture.

I ask myself now, how can the show's director ask people to step forward and take Christ into their lives if they do not know the true nature of Christ and God? God wills ALL to be saved and Christ is the saviour of all! ("For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach because we trust in the living God, Who is the Saviour of ALL men, especially of those that believe" - I Tim. 4:10)

Instead, they taught that damnable heresy of eternal torture. That God
allows and WILLS (because nothing will happen if God doesn't will it!) 99,9% of people to suffer for ETERNITY!

And now I have a need to mention few of the Satanic Highlights of the play.

In one scene there was a boy, whose father said that there is time to attend to church and give your life to god. Then the boy and the father died and they were both judged to hell, the father because he hadn't given his life to Jesus and the boy simply because HE BELIEVED HIS FATHER!

Is it really the boy's fault if he believed his father? Is the boy to blame? Do we believe that God of Love will punish and torture this boy ETERNALLY? The boy didn't even think he did anything wrong, because his father told him to do so and without better judgement, the boy did what almost anyone of us would have done in that age: he listened his parents, in this case the father.

The Last Judgement includes the word "to judge" and I have all my life believed that judging includes righteousness and God is righteous, more righteous than any human. Who believe that it is a fair judgement
to judge that boy to the eternal torture? Can anyone of you call it justice? No, I think no-one can call that justice. That is the justice what was taught on the play and I am overwhelmed how deeply Satan has deceived those poor people who believe in a god like that! How deeply are those people deceived who call the eternal torture of people justice!

I know that God has many great plans of us, but none of those plans include Eternal Torture! They are plans of Love, plans of Justice.

If you think logically, would eternal torture be a plan of Satan or the plan of God of Love? Well, it is the plan of Satan of course!

And the play also included a scene where were a non-believing mother and a teenage girl, who had her name written on the book of life. After they died, the Satan and his demons took the mother into the depths of hell and torture. The girl sobbed "mother" for few times, but when Jesus came, she suddenly started to smile and was happy.

How can one be happy when your mother or someone dear will be tortured for eternity? Would you be happy? NO Would anyone you know be happy? NO! So would there be a single happy person in heaven if almost all of their friends and family members are tortured? I would say "No" but there are many people who say that it's just the opposite and that is, I say, utter maddness!!

Here are some quotes from "christian" leaders concerning hell and eternal torture. (links not allowed)

They really believe that people don't feel any saddness because of the eternal torturing of their loved ones, but in fact they say that people will rejoice because such thing happens!

But the very post was to tell you another tale of maddness.

The description of the play says: "It is a dramatization of the reality of heaven and hell, showing the grace, mercy and love of God, and shows the choices we make"

Grace, mercy and love of God was NOT part of the message of the play! The more true description would be: "It is a traumatizion with a lie of eternal torture, showing God as the God of Torture, God of No Mercy and God of Hate, and teaches the heresy of Free Will."

Have any of you ever heard about this play? How do you feel about this? Isn't this almost as sick as it can be? The man who played satan knew that bible doesn't teach that way, but he still took part in the play, because "it is for the good cause". I would dare to say that Christ doesn't reach people with that kind of play. It's a play of satan, a play of fear, not of God and love!

Original Playwrite Unknown, Bible Truths 12 Comments [12/30/2018 11:07:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 0

Quote# 141778

Science favors Christianity. Heck, Christianity INVENTED science, and as a discipline, science makes no sense outside of the context of the Christian worldview.

John C. Wright, John C. Wright's Journal 20 Comments [1/1/2019 3:03:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: David

Quote# 141796

(AnyGoal)
Calvinism explains our suffering - they considered Chads to be 'elected' from God.

Unconditional election (also known as unconditional grace) is a Lutheran and Reformed doctrine relating to Predestination that describes the actions and motives of God in eternity past, before He created the world, where he predestinated some people to receive salvation, the elect, the Chads and foids, and the rest he left to continue in their sins and receive the just punishment, eternal damnation.

this was how they translated the blackpill back then. this is where the saying 'you have been blessed with good looks' comes from. they considered Chads to be 'elected' from God.

(Iaintmadatya9)
You finally found out the truth. Now go look at a bunch of Near Death Experience videos. All the ugly men experience NDE versions of hell, while all good looking people go to heaven usually lol.

(hamrspace)
The longer I live, the less put off I am by the concept of predestination. Predestination in the afterlife seems cruel, but there are so many more factors in the world that are out of our control than factors we can control. Predestination is no different.

AnyGoal, Iaintmadatya9 & hamrspace, r/Braincels 8 Comments [1/1/2019 10:58:46 AM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 141763

Make no mistake the US is currently in a revolution.

1. unfettered illegal immigration
2. caravans being organized and funded to storm our borders and invade with deep hatred for all the US stands for.
3. President Trump is under attack like no President ever.
4. Kavanaugh will continue to be under attack.
5. Capitalism is under attack.
6. The founding prinicples of this country are under attack.
7. Gaining control of media outlets like news (to include Fox News) and social media outlets like facebook, youtube, and google.

These are all elements of the current revolution we are under. Right now it is one sided. Should Trump be removed it will not longer be one sided. From there it may lead to civil war.

Revmitchell, BaptistBoard 12 Comments [1/1/2019 2:16:44 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: Klagg

Quote# 141552

Please explain how the Universe came into being. Tell me what caused the Universe to exist? After that, tell me if you are in favor of cancer research, or support do you support feeding and clothing the hungry? If you do, you're a hypocrite. You are interrupting Evolution. As a Christian, I fully support medical research, and feeding and clothing people in need, because I believe that God created everything, and He tells us to have compassion for our fellow human beings. Not that I understand everything, but to assume that if you do not understand the "why" of certain situations, it can't be true, is the height of hubris. In doing so, you attempt to bring God down to the level of humans. God is Supernatural. He is separate from His Creation, but intimately involved in His Creation. His reasons are beyond our understanding.

Bob Jones, Christian News Network 20 Comments [12/19/2018 11:14:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 141433

Normal people are not defined by sexuality but "the homosexual" is defined by homosexuality. Its important to understand the difference between a human being and a homosexual, they are two completely different things.

James Bell, Barbwire 10 Comments [12/19/2018 11:06:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 141564

(=This is an example of Anti Christmas fundies =)
You know when something is wrong when the world celebrate what is supposed to be a Christian celebration. The world do not want anything to do with Christ?


Mike A, Youtube 4 Comments [12/20/2018 11:07:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: Christopher

Quote# 141599

Have Western media given up duty of objective reporting?

Time magazine recently published an article about Mihrigul Tursun, a Uyghur woman who claimed she came from a Xinjiang vocational training center, and tweeted a video clip of her testimony of alleged torture with tears and sobs.

I did an experiment: Sending the link to ordinary Chinese I know. Most of them laughed when they heard Tursun's testimony. "It's nonsense," was their first reaction. Why did they react this way? The question should be left for editors from Time magazine to answer. If they treated her testimony more skeptically, figured out how outdated was the language she used and whether her remarks were reasonable, then the magazine wouldn't have made such a fool of itself. China has made enough explanation. But those editors are still unimaginably ignorant of China. Will more explanation work?

Similar reports and interviews with Tursun can be found in many other Western media outlets. Western media love her, as if they hit the jackpot and finally seized the testimony of a witness to attack China, while being so indifferent to all the loopholes in her words.

Some foreigners buy Tursun's stories as they have a severe misunderstanding of China which stems from ignorance. Quite a few Westerners still believe that China is generally an underdeveloped country where its people work in sweatshops and have very little freedom. Does China have cars? Does China have electricity? Do Chinese love freedom? These are the tip of the iceberg of questions raised on the Quora question-and-answer website in 2017.

It is supposed to be the mainstream media's responsibility to answer these questions with objective and comprehensive information. Sadly, editors from Time have no basic knowledge of China and they have become the creators and spreaders of rumors.

Their mind-set is still stuck in the Cultural Revolution. Before publishing relevant articles, they might have hardly had any chance to actually visit China or talk to a real Chinese. How can people trust their reports?

Tursun's stories alike are hardly new. It happened more than once that the testimonies given before the US Congress were found to be false with fabricated stories. The purpose was to support US political and military actions.

It is unfortunate to see Time magazine, which enjoys an influential readership among US intellectuals, degenerating into one of the media that focuses more on selling eye-catching, groundless stories rather than proven facts.

At least these reports showed some insights into the US perception of China. Why did the trade war occur? Why are there always radical thoughts against China in the US? Why is there constant untrue speculation about the number of Muslims who have been sent to vocational training centers, which can be 1 million today or 2 million tomorrow? One can't help but wonder if the Western media have given up their responsibility to objective reporting.

Ai Jun, Global Times 4 Comments [12/20/2018 12:17:25 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 141464

I went to a Barnes & Noble to look at religious books and was sickened to find hundreds of books on witchcraft. I wasn't looking for them, I just ran across them. They were next to the religious section. I distinctly remember a "Witchcraft Kit for Teens." It boasted to include "everything necessary" to empower a teen to cast their first spell. How sad! The devil is really working overtime for our young people's souls. In the next book isle I found a book on the "rapture." Again, I was saddened as I looked up and realized that I was in the "Religious Fiction" section. How sad that so few people genuinely believe the Bible anymore. Our society has become too big for it's own britches, too educated to believe in Biblical fairy tales, too logical to believe in abstract and illogical concepts. The Bible must be accepted by faith! This is true of evolution as well. Friend, there is not one shred of proof of evolution! It is a mere theory wickedly accepted by Christ-rejecters as a fact. Yet, the Bible stands true, never to be disproved. There is much evidence against evolution. Satan has duped the multitudes.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Savior 12 Comments [12/19/2018 11:08:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 141762

(about the subreddit r/TraaButNoCommies, a subreddit for transgender people who aren't communist.)

this is hilarious, im trans and every trans person i know is a communist of some kind. its almost as if a marginalized group supports a system where we wouldnt be marginalized. i cant even imagine how you could be trans and a capitalist



Tezcatzontecatl, Reddit - /r/ShitLiberalsSay 9 Comments [1/1/2019 2:16:08 AM]
Fundie Index: 0

Quote# 141614

David it really does. Let me ask you something, if we were to stand before someone who knew absolutely nothing about God or this wicked earth we live on and you came with your Bible and the attitude of it is full of errors and you can only believe the words of Jesus without a decent argument for why the whole Bible is wrong except those words and I was to stand before them advising this is the only manual God gave us to learn about him and it was true and accurate, who do you think they are going to believe?
I put to you those who say it is full of errors and dismiss massive chunks of the Bible are the ones more likely to be manipulating scriptures to suit their lifestyles. You all say about our literal reading of the Bible is something to be ashamed of but I am not. I know the books such as psalms and proverbs are poetry therefore I don't pray for children to have their heads hit off a rock but I do believe in an all powerful God who was able to create everything we see, to create enough water to have a world wide flood, to create a fish large enough to swallow Jonah and keep him alive, to create all that happened to job, to part the red sea and to bring about the plagues of Egypt.
I find it quite sad you don't believe in such a God.

Chelleberry, Premier 4 Comments [12/20/2018 12:25:50 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: CC

Quote# 141766

“Tolerance” is not about acceptance. Conservatives accept homosexuals and the sinful life they lead - inasmuch as the vast majority do not call for their extermination. The Bible tells us people will go to hell. “Tolerance,” as used by the militant homosexual lobby, really means “approval.” Which they will never get from me.

ConservaTexan, Free Republic 9 Comments [1/1/2019 2:17:27 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 141771

So long as you're a Catholic of the: abortion-loving, adulterous, fornicator, LGBT variety (take your pick) - democrats will love and welcome you. Otherwise, in their mind, you have no place in government. I fault RC bishops around the world for not excommunicating every Catholic (politician or otherwise) who supports or condones godlessness. IMHO, people like Cardinal Dolan and his colleagues prefer rubbing shoulders and being in the limelight with the likes of the Baldwins, Pelosis and Bidens of this world - than rebuke and excommunicate them.

JesusIsLord, Free Republic 8 Comments [1/1/2019 3:01:43 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 141662

So, it goes back to minimizing, denial, victim blaming, scapegoating and whitewashing. So, so gross. With much more to be said about the apologists than is getting mention.


That's the problem with your analysis though. There hasn't been any victim blaming. THe Duggars took the accusations seriously rather than resorting to denial, which is unfortunately what most families do in that situation.

It's certainly fair to say the Duggars should have done something else, but until someone can show me a real world example of a family handling it better than the Duggars did, I'm not inclined to judge them harshly. The vast bulk of situations like these are allowed to go on forever with no intervention from the family. At best, the problem is usually ignored, at worst the victim is blamed or called a liar.


I also see a lot of criticism of the Duggars' "fundie cult", but it seems to me that their cultish moral values are what led to them believing the accusers rather than trying to deny or blame the victim. When you believe that we're all sinners, ruled by desires of the flesh, it's easy to believe that your son can do horrible things. Whereas non-religious families often seem to be under the impression that their kids can do no wrong.


And again, it sounds to me like that was done. Most sexual abuse cases I've seen it's ongoing for as long as the victim lives with the perp and the family is forever broken because of it. The Duggars seem like a happy brood, relatively unaffected by what was a very short-lived problem.

Again, show me a family that did a better job. Most families do a lot worse

Adaher, The straight dope 7 Comments [12/24/2018 11:23:19 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 141637

was quite disturbed by watching John Walsh describe Foley as a pedophile. The youngest person Foley is known to hit upon was 15 years old.

Lets look at what the
pages
think about Foley


"Almost the first day I got there I was warned," said Mark Beck-Heyman, a San Diego native who served as a page in the House of Representatives in the summer of 1995. "It was no secret that Foley had a special interest in male pages," said Beck-Heyman, adding that Foley, who is now 52, on several occasions asked him out for ice cream.


Another former congressional staff member said he too had been the object of Foley's advances. "It was so well known around the House. Pages passed it along from class to class," said the former aide, adding that when he was 18 a few years ago and working as an intern, Foley approached him at a bar near the Capitol and asked for his e-mail address.
The first thing to take note of is that 18 is not to old for Foley. It is quite clear that he does take an interest in post pubescent young men.

The second thing I notice is that all the pages were made aware of his interest from the gitgo. These kids aren't victims. They are not alone as prey. They had each other and the power to take him down if they wanted to but preferred not to during their time as pages.

What strikes me is that I can so identify with these kids. In my teenage years in the small town of Niagara on the Lake, Ontario, there was a wealthy eye doctor by the name of Dr Mitchell, a community benefactor to the Shaw Festival who was well known by all the teenage boys for being a queer. He hit on a lot of us. He hit on me when I was 14 or 15. To this day I do not know if the adults were aware but all us kids knew, he was a middle aged bachelor, talked "queer" and defined the concept of homosexuality for us. None of us kids that I know of, felt like victims. We reported these incidents to each other.

When I began to hear of gay bashing in general, it is these incidents which I perceived as the reason for a few hotheaded guys who felt the need for retribution.

So lets get a sense of right and wrong here. Teenage girls get hit on all the time by older men. Young is preferred for a sexual object, hence the multi billion dollar industry for the maintenance of youth. Outside the realm of sexual harrassment, there are no penalties where no physical contact has occurred.

So why should that be any different for homosexual hitting?

Foley is not a pedophile. He is however very guilty of sexual harrassment in the work place. I think we need to keep the perspective in mind.

The flying dutchman, The straight dope 10 Comments [12/20/2018 12:31:51 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20 25 30 35 40 | top