Quote# 71264

Some things can not be explained by science. Take for example, rainbows. Rainbows are a mystery and you can not touch them, just like god. Despite this fact, they are still there even though there is no scientific explanation for them. So next time you find yourself doubting your faith, think of god as a rainbow. I know that this can be a difficult concept for some of you to grasp. It is just like air you can't see it but you know its there

Dro, Yahoo Answers 260 Comments [3/2/2010 2:05:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 358

Quote# 141618

Graham Kerr:
Madison, like Jefferson, never thought government should be protected from the church, but the exact opposite. Remember, the Church of England was one of the things they objected to.

So you claim Jefferson and Madison "never thought government should be protected from the church, but the exact opposite"? Do you have a primary source for that claim?
The notion that Madison's and Jefferson's wall between religion and government works in one direction only – i.e., it serves to protect religion from government, but not government from religion – has no basis in history, law, or even common sense.
The very idea is self-contradictory: If ANY religious group is free to encroach upon and control government and thereby achieve a privileged status, all others are at risk of falling into disfavor and facing government discrimination and even persecution. One of the primary objectives of the First Amendment was to prevent arming any religious group with the force of law. A government controlled by religion is the very definition of theocracy - and that is precisely what the founders wished to avoid.

Graham Kerr:
"The notion that Madison's and Jefferson's wall between religion and government works in one direction only – i.e., it serves to protect religion from government, but not government from religion – has no basis in history, law, or even common sense."
Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists.
The aforementioned Church of England.
I'm not a product of the 21st century public school system, so I'm not quite as stupid and easy to manipulate as you think I am.
Peddle your lies somewhere else.

Jefferson's "wall of separation" between religion and government means exactly that - a barrier that divides two things into distinct domains. A "usurpation by one side or the other" (to use Madison's phrase) would be a breach of that wall. Government can no more encroach upon religion than religion can encroach upon government.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed since 1879: "Separation means separation, not something less. Jefferson's metaphor in describing the relation between Church and State speaks of a 'wall of separation,' not of a fine line easily overstepped... 'The great American principle of eternal separation' - Elihu Root's phrase bears repetition - is one of the vital reliances of our Constitutional system for assuring unities among our people stronger than our diversities. It is the Court's duty to enforce this principle in its full integrity. We renew our conviction that 'we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion.' McCollum v. Board of Education, 1948.

Graham Kerr:
If you read the aforementioned letter, you'd know what Jefferson had in mind was protecting church from government. To imply anything else is a lie.

From Jefferson's letter: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
How does "building a wall of separation between Church & State" protect only religion from government and not also government from religion? Read James Madison's 1817 "Detached Memoranda - Amendment I (Religion)" where he discusses "the dangers of encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies" as being a violation of the First Amendment. He further states that religious liberty is only safeguarded when you have constitutional "separation between Religion & Govt." He then discusses several historical examples of "encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies" and the "danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government." I don't how the founders could have been any more explicit in their writings that government and religion should be kept separate:
"The settled opinion here [in the United States] is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both." (Letter to Edward Everett, Montpelier, March 18, 1823).

Graham Kerr:
The thing is, you wish for it to be the case, and yet, it is clear the Jefferson letter doesn't make it so.
Why do you think the Constitution says freedom OF religion and not from it?
It's nothing but a lie to assert any of our founding fathers were against acknowledging God in a public venue. God is mentioned on the SCOTUS building, for Pete's sake.
If you want to campaign for a Godless America, do it at a website better suited for that sort of garbage. Because you are not impressing anyone, you're just trying to make yourself look important.

FYI, the Constitution does not contain the words "freedom of religion" as you claim, but Amendment 1 does prevent government from "prohibiting the free exercise thereof. " Embodied in the concept of freedom of religion is freedom from religion. The government cannot dictate to us which god we must have, how many gods we must have, or that we must have any god at all. That is most certainly freedom of, and freedom from religion. As Justice John Paul Stevens explained in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985):
"Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all."

Graham Kerr:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Notice the words, "freedom from religion" don't appear. Period. Saying it does is just a wish of yours.
So far, you are zero for two.
If you dislike religion so much, move to China.

Graham Kerr, Christian News Network 10 Comments [12/20/2018 12:26:20 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 141591

The King James Bible is God's crimson book—God's blood-sprinkled, pure, perfect, infallible, inerrant, inspired, dependable, eternal, Book. Every page of this King James Bible is crimsoned with the blood of its Author!!! King James Bible is crimsoned with the blood of its Author! All 66 books of this holy inspired Bible is crimsoned with the blood of Jesus Christ. All 1,189 chapters are crimsoned with the blood of Jesus Christ! All 31,175 verses are crimsoned with the blood of Jesus Christ! All 810,697 words are crimsoned with the blood of Jesus Christ. All 3,568,489 letters are crimsoned with the blood of Jesus Christ!!!!!!! It's a blood-sprinkled Book! The blood of the Lamb streaks every page!!! This King James Bible is signed and sealed by the blood of its Author!!!

Why should we believe that the King James Bible is inspired? Because it is a blood-sprinkled Book!!!
Why should we believe that the King James Bible is perfect? Because it is a blood-sprinkled Book!!!
Why should we believe that the King James Bible is infallible? Because it is a blood-sprinkled Book!!!
Why should we believe that the King James Bible is inerrant? Because it is a blood-sprinkled Book!!!

The King James Bible is a blood-sprinkled Book; therefore we:

We obey it, because it's God's sprinkled Book!
We love it, because it's God's sprinkled Book!
We trust it, because it's God's sprinkled Book!
We read it, because it's God's sprinkled Book!
We study it, because it's God's sprinkled Book!
We preach it, because it's God's sprinkled Book!
We proclaim it to be God's sprinkled Book!

THE BOOK is a crimson (the color of blood, i.e., blood) sprinkled Book...

Its veracity is established, because it is a crimson Book!
Its purity is established, because it is a crimson Book!
Its dependability is established, because it is a crimson Book!
Its truth is established, because it is a crimson Book!
Kept pure BY THE BLOOD!

If you don't have a King James Bible, you have a Devil's Bible!!!!!!

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Precious 10 Comments [12/20/2018 12:15:39 PM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 141650

In response to a chart of which countries have the highest percentage of people who don't want neighbors of different races

Wait... why are all the top racist countries in the world non-white??

I thought white people invented racism? I thought only white people could be racist? This is all very confusing.

Lauren Southern, Twitter 16 Comments [12/20/2018 12:35:31 PM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 141540

Why do atheistic evolutionists conclude that Christianity is false? Basically, they rely on the following argument.

The Atheistic Evolutionist Argument
1) If evolution is true, there was no first, historical Adam.
2) If there was no first, historical Adam, there was no Fall.
3) If there was no Fall, the sinful condition of humanity is not an inescapable condition.
4) If the sinful condition is not an inescapable condition, moral and religious categories like ‘sin’ and ‘salvation’ are irrelevant or unnecessary, as evolution will take whatever course it takes by chance].
5) If salvation is irrelevant or unnecessary, there is no need for a Saviour.
6) The heart or fundamental claim of Christianity is that it is necessary for Jesus to come as the Saviour of the human race
Conclusion: If evolution is true [i.e. there was no historical Adam], then based on (5) and (6), Christianity is false.

The Theistic Evolutionist’s Blocking Strategy

The theistic evolutionist may try to block the atheistic evolutionist’s conclusion by arguing that even though we cannot solve the mystery of the origin of evil (however defined in evolutionary language), nevertheless, it is an undeniable empirical observation that ALL humans are born in ‘sin’. The need for a Saviour remains.
Unfortunately, for the theistic evolutionist – If God used the evolutionary process to create what appears to be a ‘sinful’ world, the absence of a Fall would suggest that God himself is solely responsible for the sinful condition of this world.

This disturbing conclusion should sober up many ‘progressive’ Christians who adopt theistic evolution along with the denial of a historical Fall of Adam, as any doubt about the goodness of God is fatal to the truth claim of Christianity.
For this reason, evangelical Christians insist on the doctrine of the historical and historic Fall of Adam as it preserves the insight that sin is an act of human free will, with the consequence of death to the human race. Sin is both universal (the sinful condition of humanity) and personal (it is my sin). The Fall is the reason why it is necessary for
a sinless, Second Adam to save the world through His death and resurrection.

Raptor, Premier 11 Comments [12/19/2018 11:11:32 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: I

Quote# 141541

JoKing: I don't subscribe to your caricature of theistic evolution.
Taking the account of the Fall as a true, allegorical, interpretation of the event, gives us the Fall, human sin and sinfulness, and the role of a Saviour. No problem.
You see, you cannot think my thoughts for me.

Martin: You can't have something that is true and allegorical at the same time. And no, you haven't solved the problem.

JoKing: You can. I have, along with many others, better educated than you and I, and humbler too..

Martin: No you can't, either the Fall is a real historical event or there is no reason for sin and judgement. Your theology fails.

JoKing: Historical, but not literal, expressed in allegorical language.

Martin: Rubbish. You're simply trying to avoid the obvious conclusion that Genesis records the events.

Martin, Premier 10 Comments [12/19/2018 11:11:52 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: I

Quote# 91914

Creationist Textbook, io9.com 101 Comments [1/5/2013 5:51:44 AM]
Fundie Index: 327

Quote# 83832

A Little More on Bullying

I mentioned in a recent post that, like Bonald at Throne and Altar, I actually support bullying under certain circumstances. Let me flesh that out a little more.

Actually, let me just state my rule for bullying: if it's used as a means of enforcing normative behaviors, I'm all for it. And yeah, that means giving shit to fairies and tomboys and so on.

Normative behaviors exist for a reason. Like tradition, social norms tell us provide us a measure of what is good and just, especially for those who are too stupid to figure it out on their own. Social disapproval of immoral behaviors (like homosexuality, adultery, etc.) is often a more powerful disincentive to commit them than legal consequences; there are limits to others' ability to probe into your legal indiscretions, but the stench of a social brand in some degenerate's ass can linger in a community's collective hindbrain for generations. And so it was that, for a long time, it was wholly unnecessary for governments to police morality: communities did it their own damn selves.

Of course, one can say, "Well, who are you to force the norm of traditional family on, say, some good-hearted, hard-working single mother?" But one would be an idiot for saying that, given the abundance of studies (at least one by no less-respected a medical journal than The Lancet, a casual Googling revealed) demonstrating that childen raised in single-family are worse off in pretty much every way: they exhibit higher rates of mental illness, suicide attempts, injury, alcoholism, drug addiction, and all-cause mortality, even after adjusting for socioeconomic status and parents' health. Traditional societies knew and understood that children did best who were raised in a norm-conforming household; it is only in our (supposedly) enlightened modern society that we make virtuous angels out of the sluts and cads who ruin their kids' lives so that they can find themselves (or whatever). That's why traditional societies ostracized such people while modern societies make movies about them while ignoring all the evil they bring into the world. Likewise with the destruction of traditional gender roles (in the form of flamboyant homosexuals, cross-dressers, and transgender freakazoids).

So to the extent that people bullied today are serial violators of perfectly rational social norms, they ought to be subject to social disapproval -- even quite severely so. Those who imagine there is a "right" to attend a school without being bullied are deluded: one never has a right to behave however one wishes without consequences. Accepting this fact is a key step toward maturity. I'm torn on the extent to which this ought to entail physical bullying (certainly, I think it's justified when one is being an asshole about defying social norms, as in the case of the transgender abomination that got his/her ass unceremoniously pummeled into a seizure at a Baltimore-area McDonald's recently for belligerently insisting on using an occupied women's restroom), but I see nothing wrong with quite persistent verbal ribbing.

But to the extent bullying represents mindless, irrational cruelty (for instance, assaulting those whose only crime is being skinny, awkward, smart, or whatever), it ought to be brought under control. Unlike defiance of social norms, being skinny or fat or awkward or smart really doesn't hurt anyone -- and there's no sense in punishing them for it. It's intrinsic to the nature of demographics, after all, that not everyone can be ripped, engaging, and of modest intellect). Of course, that's no reason to have to associate with them (and awkward people really shouldn't have any friends until they learn to go out and make some on their own), but again, it's no reason to subject them to punishment, either. An Unmarried Man has a good post on the topic related to fat (and pregnant) women; it's worth a read.

One may object to my characterization of bullying in defense of social norms as not only valid and reasonable but right and good as fighting fire with fire. It is, of course -- but sometimes that's perfectly advisable, as when one stops the spread of a firestorm by burning away the flammable brush in a certain circumfrence around it. It's worth bearing in mind that the same liberals who decry bullying are perfectly content to bully in defense of their own social norms, at the expense of Christians and non-sexual deviants and so on; FIRE is dedicated to fighting these types of bullying in universities, where it has the potential to devastate a person's future to an extent routine beating-up-fags stuff doesn't . If there is, in fact, something like a war going on to determine whose social values ought to be ascendant, I see no reason why one side should be expected to unilaterally disarm.

Even for the sake of the children.

Proph, Collapse: The Blog 191 Comments [9/15/2011 3:56:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 331
Submitted By: Zosimus the Heathen

Quote# 141594

(In a thread titled "Why are antifa such a big bunch of faggot crybabies?")

Everyone under democracy is a bunch of effete (note: the word "faggot" is a sad substitute for this) crybabies.

The solution is eugenics + monarchy + nationalism + traditionalism + a caste system

Any fucking questions?

diversity_is_racism, Reddit - /r/antifa 5 Comments [12/20/2018 12:16:34 PM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 141647

can't believe I am wading in to this, but here goes...

I am a public defender representing mostly juveniles; including several juvenile sex offenders. I have two small children, and most of the prosecutors I work with have small children. We often discuss what we would do if we caught our kids acting out sexually. And it is a fucking quagmire.

Let me say, with some authority, that going the court route can be helpful. With the right combination of prosecutor, judge, attorney, probation officer, therapist, parents, race, socioeconomic background, and resources, there can be some real success with juvenile sex offenders. And the recidivism rates are much lower than with adults. HOWEVER, the stars do not usually align that way. Take any one of those factors out, and things can get bad really quickly.

Let's assume Josh was caught in my jurisdiction. He is 14. He had multiple victims, with multiple incidents, and some as young as 5. He is white, with involved parents, so maybe the prosecutor would not automatically jump to certifying him as an adult. But they might try. He could not go home, so unless the family could afford residential treatment, he would be in juvenile detention. His psychosexual eval (with the facts we know) would put him at a moderate to high risk level to recidivate. If he's lucky, he escapes with no felony convictions. If he's not, he gets juvenile felony convictions and the juvenile registry. He is at risk, however, for being certified as an adult, prison time (in adult prison) and the adult sex offender registry. Life over. Game over. Done. And don't forget what CPS might do with all the other kids in the home that Mom and Dad were not able to protect.

Knowing all this... what would I do? If my sweet kid did something unspeakable to my other sweet kid? I don't know. I would do everything in my power to protect both children.

llcoolbj77, The straight dope 8 Comments [12/20/2018 12:34:57 PM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 141644

(Regarding Near Death Experiences and cherry-picked data on "Hellish Experiences")

Unfortunately to you, what Mr. Rawlings wrought is theological sound: Jesus said that fewer people will go to heaven than those that will go to hell! And the reason you do not see too many hellish NDE is because they are simple not allowed to return! Jesus said in the parable of the rich man in hell, that he wanted come back and preach to his brothers, but he wasn’t permitted to do so! For sure, you have already somebody whom new you and are in hell right now, praying that you will not land there! You should not rely on opinions, either yours or somebody else in regard of your eternal soul, but read and follow what the Word of God say about eternity, because the Bible is the ultimate authority on those matters, and it say that if you don’t have Jesus as your Savior you’r done! May God bless you.

Wilson Baird, Dancing Past The Dark 7 Comments [12/20/2018 12:33:48 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: CC

Quote# 141611

Fear is a twofold word

The Bible says "Fear not, for I am with thee. Genesis 26:24. But the Bible also says Fear the Lord. Fear is a twofold word. One kind of fear is being afraid, we all are afraid from time to time.

The fear of the Lord is not to be afraid of Him. This kind of fear is to treat God with respect and trust . We reverence God for who He is, What He has done, what He is doing, and what He is going to do.

If we truly fear God with our whole heart, then we have nothing to fear.

"And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul." Deuteronomy 10:12.

God doesn't want us to be afraid of Him. He loves us and He wants our love in return.

The fear of God means that reverence for God which leads to obedience when we realize His power.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Psalm 111:10.

Patsy Lambert, Newberry Observer 4 Comments [12/20/2018 12:24:08 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Thanos6

Quote# 141617

Tom Walker: "What we observe is not Evolution, even in a small scale"
Yes, it is. I understand it and the body of evidence well enough to tell you it is. You don't. Out of more than 100 million scientifically educated folks with advanced degrees, a few thousand think you are right and the rest mostly ignore you as being insane.
When the world's experts tell you it is, and you deny it thinking that you know better than they do, that is a) almost certainly wrong and b) incredibly arrogant. Delusional by definition (delusions of grandeur).
You followed this up by telling me that you do accept evidence. No, you don't. I bet you hardly know the evidence and I further bet that you exclusively rely on religious sources or authors (including some scientifically degreed ones) for your scientific information. When you think that you can decide what evidence is good and which is not, you have broken the line between reality and delusion.
YOU do not get to decide which data is good. Data is just data and it does not respond to opinion.
The evidence I rely on is understood by me from the first experiment to the last, with years of study at the college level. I do not re-interpret it to make it fit what I think, I model what I think based on the data. When the data is updated my "beliefs" are updated whereas yours are not. That should be a clear sign of a problem - but it is one that I bet you can't see.
You likely think all Catholics and the Pope aren't Christian (they are and they out number you by a lot) and that the Bible is a great source of real world information (it isn't.) You might think the Bible is inerrant (which is insanity writ large). Such a framework is delusional when compared to real world material. Look up "cognitive dissonance" and think about this: If proof was a rock and it was set on the table in front of you - and you agreed it was real data and correct - would you be able to leave your belief system and adapt? Probably not. You could not leave a crafted world view behind, nor could you risk family, friends, peers and community over it. Look up Kurt Wise. Church and anti-evolution religious sites say in advance that their minds cannot be changed, which is stupidity on a plate.
Scientifically minded people do not operate that way. They change what they know in keeping with best current data. Prove me wrong and I will THANK YOU for it and update my world view.
That I can do that and you cannot should be a loud siren of warning

Martin: Tom
So demonstrate Evolution. Start with the LUCA and create the variety of life we see.
There is not one iota of evidence to support Evolution, you are whistling in the dark.
BTW, the reason I can say the Pope isn't a Christian is because the Bible says salvation is by grace through faith alone and the Pope rejects that.

Martin, Premier 7 Comments [12/20/2018 12:26:11 PM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 141598


It should be noted that all the facts used by the Christian in the above hypothetical conversation are true. Yes, God is the first cause, the designer of life, the resurrected Christ, the Author of Scripture, and the Savior of Christians. Yet the way these facts are used is not decisive. That is, none of the above arguments really prove that God exists.

Some of the above arguments are very weak: appeals to personal experience, vicious circular reasoning, and appeals to a first cause. While the facts are true, the arguments do not come close to proving the existence of the biblical God. Some of the arguments seem stronger; I happen to think that irreducible complexity and information in DNA are strong confirmations of biblical creation. And predictive prophecy does confirm the inspiration of Scripture. Nonetheless, for each one of these arguments, the atheist was able to invent a “rescuing device.” He was able to propose an explanation for this evidence that is compatible with his belief that God does not exist.

Moreover, most of the atheist’s explanations are actually pretty reasonable, given his view of the world. He’s not being illogical. He is being consistent with his position. Christians and atheists have different worldviews—different philosophies of life. And we must learn to argue on the level of worldviews if we are to argue in a cogent and effective fashion.

The Christian in the above hypothetical conversation did not have a correct approach to apologetics. He was arguing on the basis of specific evidences with someone who had a totally different professed worldview than his own. This approach is never conclusive, because the critic can always invoke a rescuing device to protect his worldview.1 Thus, if we are to be effective, we must use an argument that deals with worldviews, and not simply isolated facts. The best argument for the existence of God will be a “big-picture” kind of argument.

God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists


The Bible teaches that atheists are not really atheists. That is, those who profess to be atheists do ultimately believe in God in their heart-of-hearts. The Bible teaches that everyone knows God, because God has revealed Himself to all (Romans 1:19). In fact, the Bible tells us that God’s existence is so obvious that anyone who suppresses this truth is “without excuse” (Romans 1:20). The atheist denies with his lips what he knows in his heart. But if they know God, then why do atheists claim that they do not believe in God?

The answer may be found in Romans 1:18. God is angry at unbelievers for their wickedness. And an all-powerful, all-knowing God who is angry at you is a terrifying prospect. So even though many atheists might claim that they are neutral, objective observers, and that their disbelief in God is purely rational, in reality, they are strongly motivated to reject the biblical God who is rightly angry with them. So they suppress that truth in unrighteousness. They convince themselves that they do not believe in God.2 The atheist is intellectually schizophrenic—believing in God, but believing that he does not believe in God.3

Therefore, we do not really need to give the atheist any more specific evidences for God’s existence. He already knows in his heart-of-hearts that God exists, but he doesn’t want to believe it. Our goal is to expose the atheist’s suppressed knowledge of God.4 With gentleness and respect, we can show the atheist that he already knows about God, but is suppressing what he knows to be true.

Exposing the Inconsistency


Because an atheist does believe in God, but does not believe that he believes in God, he is simply a walking bundle of inconsistencies. One type to watch for is a behavioral inconsistency; this is where a person’s behavior does not comport with what he claims to believe. For example, consider the atheist university professor who teaches that human beings are simply chemical accidents—the end result of a long and purposeless chain of biological evolution. But then he goes home and kisses his wife and hugs his children, as if they were not simply chemical accidents, but valuable, irreplaceable persons deserving of respect and worthy of love.

Consider the atheist who is outraged at seeing a violent murder on the ten o’clock news. He is very upset and hopes that the murderer will be punished for his wicked actions. But in his view of the world, why should he be angry? In an atheistic, evolutionary universe where people are just animals, murder is no different than a lion killing an antelope. But we don’t punish the lion! If people are just chemical accidents, then why punish one for killing another? We wouldn’t get upset at baking soda for reacting with vinegar; that’s just what chemicals do. The concepts that human beings are valuable, are not simply animals, are not simply chemicals, have genuine freedom to make choices, are responsible for their actions, and are bound by a universal objective moral code all stem from a Christian worldview. Such things simply do not make sense in an atheistic view of life.

Many atheists behave morally and expect others to behave morally as well. But absolute morality simply does not comport with atheism. Why should there be an absolute, objective standard of behavior that all people should obey if the universe and the people within it are simply accidents of nature? Of course, people can assert that there is a moral code. But who is to say what that moral code should be? Some people think it is okay to be racist; others think it is okay to kill babies, and others think we should kill people of other religions or ethnicities, etc. Who is to say which position should be followed? Any standard of our own creation would necessarily be subjective and arbitrary.

Now, some atheists might respond, “That’s right! Morality is subjective. We each have the right to create our own moral code. And therefore, you cannot impose your personal morality on other people!” But of course, this statement is self-refuting, because when they say, “you cannot impose your personal morality on other people” they are imposing their personal moral code on other people. When push comes to shove, no one really believes that morality is merely a subjective, personal choice.

Logical Inconsistency

Another inconsistency occurs when atheists attempt to be rational. Rationality involves the use of laws of logic. Laws of logic prescribe the correct chain of reasoning between truth claims. For example, consider the argument: “If it is snowing outside, then it must be cold out. It is snowing. Therefore, it is cold out.” This argument is correct because it uses a law of logic called modus ponens. Laws of logic, like modus ponens, are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities. They are immaterial because you can’t touch them or stub your toe on one. They are universal and invariant because they apply in all places and at all times (modus ponens works just as well in Africa as it does in the United States, and just as well on Friday as it does on Monday). And they are abstract because they deal with concepts.


Laws of logic stem from God’s sovereign nature; they are a reflection of the way He thinks. They are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities, because God is an immaterial (Spirit), omnipresent, unchanging God who has all knowledge (Colossians 2:3). Thus, all true statements will be governed by God’s thinking—they will be logical. The law of non-contradiction, for example, stems from the fact that God does not deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13). The Christian can account for laws of logic; they are the correct standard for reasoning because God is sovereign over all truth. We can know some of God’s thoughts because God has revealed Himself to us through the words of Scripture and the person of Jesus Christ.

However, the atheist cannot account for laws of logic. He cannot make sense of them within his own worldview. How could there be immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract laws in a chance universe formed by a big bang? Why should there be an absolute standard of reasoning if everything is simply “molecules in motion”? Most atheists have a materialistic outlook—meaning they believe that everything that exists is material, or explained by material processes. But laws of logic are not material! You cannot pull a law of logic out of the refrigerator! If atheistic materialism is true, then there could be no laws of logic, since they are immaterial. Thus, logical reasoning would be impossible!

Laws of Logic

No one is denying that atheists are able to reason and use laws of logic. The point is that if atheism were true, the atheist would not be able to reason or use laws of logic because such things would not be meaningful. The fact that the atheist is able to reason demonstrates that he is wrong. By using that which makes no sense given his worldview, the atheist is being horribly inconsistent. He is using God’s laws of logic, while denying the biblical God that makes such laws possible.

How could there be laws at all without a lawgiver? The atheist cannot account for (1) the existence of laws of logic, (2) why they are immaterial, (3) why they are universal, (4) why they do not change with time, and (5) how human beings can possibly know about them or their properties. But of course, all these things make perfect sense on the Christian system. Laws of logic owe their existence to the biblical God. Yet they are required to reason rationally, to prove things. So the biblical God must exist in order for reasoning to be possible. Therefore, the best proof of God’s existence is that without Him we couldn’t prove anything at all! The existence of the biblical God is the prerequisite for knowledge and rationality. This is called the “transcendental argument for God” or TAG for short. It is a devastating and conclusive argument, one that only a few people have even attempted to refute (and none of them successfully).5

Proof Versus Persuasion

Transcendental Argument

Though the transcendental argument for God is deductively sound, not all atheists will be convinced upon hearing it. It may take time for them to even understand the argument in the first place. As I write this chapter, I am in the midst of an electronic exchange with an atheist who has not yet fully grasped the argument. Real-life discussions on this issue take time. But even if the atheist fully understands the argument, he may not be convinced. We must remember that there is a difference between proof and persuasion. Proof is objective, but persuasion is subjective. The transcendental argument does indeed objectively prove that God exists. However, that does not mean that the atheists will necessarily cry “uncle.” Atheists are strongly motivated to not believe in the biblical God—a God who is rightly angry at them for their treason against Him.


But the atheist’s denial of God is an emotional reaction, not a logical one. We might imagine a disobedient child who is about to be punished by his father. He might cover his eyes with his hands and say of his father, “You don’t exist!” but that would hardly be rational. Atheists deny (with their lips) the biblical God, not for logical reasons, but for psychological reasons. We must also keep in mind that the unbeliever’s problem is not simply an emotional issue, but a deep spiritual problem (1 Corinthians 2:14). It is the Holy Spirit that must give him the ability to repent (1 Corinthians 12:3; 2 Timothy 2:25).

So we must keep in mind that it is not our job to convert people—nor can we. Our job is to give a defense of the faith in a way that is faithful to the Scriptures (1 Peter 3:15). It is the Holy Spirit that brings conversion. But God can use our arguments as part of the process by which He draws people to Himself.

Sierra Wright, Quora 5 Comments [12/20/2018 12:17:09 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 141290

As the country gets ever closer to its destruction, expect to see more anti-Christian hate speech in the media, colleges, and various other places. Until these people realize they are lost sinners in need of salvation, they will not stop these attacks. Just another sign of the end of this country and the end of this age. When sexual deviant life styles become the norm it is not long there after that a country self destructs and is usually overrun by some other country/group. Like Islam.

Richard O. Mann, The Daily Wire 5 Comments [12/19/2018 11:01:47 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 141566

Perhaps you haven't read Leviticus - where God tells us about how He destroyed Aaron's two sons for doing the exact same thing you are doing every Dec. 25. God says they offered Him "strange fire" - and says it was something that He "commanded them not". So for that He sent fire from Heaven and killed them both on the spot - for trying to worship Him in a way that He had not commanded them to.
As well .....
Okay - let's look at this in truth and spirit:
God makes it clear that no liar shall enter Heaven. He also makes clear that anyone who brings harm to one of His precious children, it would be better for a millstone to be hung around their neck and tossed into the sea.
Okay - with that in mind - what is the very first lie told to an infant/child? The "santa/xmas" lie, correct? And who is the one who tells that child that very first lie? Their parents.
So do you think that God is okay with a "tradition" of ours that is responsible for the very first LIE told to one of His precious children?
Those children get older - they find out - or are told - that their parents have lied to them the moment they were born - then when that same parent tries to tell them about Jesus and God's Holy Written Word - do you not think that the child will doubt/question whether their parent is lying to them again?
Do you honestly believe that God is up there thinking "Hmmm - well, I know what I said about the whole "lying" thing - and about not bringing harm to one of my precious children .... but - okay, I get it - yall are lying to one of my precious children to keep them happy - to make them smiles with all sorts of goodies up under a tree - I know I mentioned in my Word that I didn't want yall cutting down a tree and decking it in silver and gold, yeah, I said that didn't I - but hey, since it's all for the kiddies - and their happiness ... I guess I can let that lying thing slide - and the tree part too- and the bringing harm to my precious children."
So see - that is exactly how Satan has successfully gotten his foothold in from the very beginning of these babies/children's little minds - AND created division between that parent and child - right from the start.
As well - xmas supports, causes or advocates for just about every single SIN mentioned in God's Holy Word. Do you think He is okay with xmas now?
Sexual sin
Blasphemy (against Him)
Drinking excessively/drunkeness
Depression (not a sin but still not a good thing)
Sadness (not a sin but still not a good thing)
Stirring up family fights
Proud eyes
Sorcery (magic reindeer, santa, etc)
Disobedience to God
Sowing discord
Not being content with what you have
Defrauding others
Flattering for gain
Graven images
Rioting (Black Friday mayhem)
Quick tempered

Jane Dough, Youtube 3 Comments [12/20/2018 11:07:34 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Christopher

Quote# 141572

"These prophecies were kept by priests who were the descendants of those Jews who were held captive by the Babylonians, and who had migrated from Babylon to distant lands where 'the kings of the East' dwelt. This is a clear reference to the lands of the Far East, possibly India, Tibet, or China. When these clerics reached an area chosen by God, they were instructed by Him to build a temple dedicated to His glory and to house these prophecies until the time of 'the one who held the words and ways of Isaac and Ishmael.' My parents, who are devout Christians, are of Jewish and Arabic origins, and they believe this is in clear referral to someone who is the descendant of both these races.

"The fascinating thing about this is the location of this temple, which in these writings is said to exist nowhere and everywhere and can only be seen by mortal eyes for 50 days every 50 years and in a different location. The priests are said to have been afforded extraordinarily long life and are much like the warrior monks of Tibetan and Shaolin backgrounds. This temple is said to be further protected by a legion of angelic warriors.

"Needless to say, the location and how to find this temple, if it truly exists, is an endeavor for which my parents have put a considerable amount of scholarly and financial resources into and in the process they have uncovered many things once thought lost, legend, or exaggerations of the truth. One of these is the existence of Atlantis, Lemuria, and other lands thought to be myths."

Without any pretense or deception in him, Jonathan continued, "During the time of Daniel, they had access to records that are now lost to antiquity, but these scrolls and parchments describe accurately the locations of these lands, along with star charts that correlate exactly the positions of stars and constellations, solar and lunar eclipses, and other celestial phenomena that have been verified with 100% accuracy. The details of these writings are far too numerous to go into detail during this lecture, and the contents will be published in several weeks from now. It is necessary to say that the words of the Old and New Testament are unequivocally and without a doubt factual. These scrolls contain the proof and reasons for the Great Flood which decimated the planet and changed the entire biosphere and geography of the planet. It also sets the age of this world to be no older than 12,000 years, give or take a few centuries.

Minister R. A. Artis, The Celestial Knights: the Advent of Go’El, the Avenger of God (book) 2 Comments [12/20/2018 11:08:25 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 141584


About 600 years before the birth of the Messiah, the Prophet Isaiah made this great prediction:

Therefore JEHOVAH himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin (Heb. almah, Gr. parthenos) shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14).

The Prophet Micah predicted that the birthplace of Immanuel would be in Bethlehem:

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall come forth unto me he that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting (Micah 5:2).

Daniel the Prophet gave the exact year when Shiloh would be manifested to Israel:

Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks (483 years): the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks (483) shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself. and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined (Daniel 9:25-26).

That great prophecy was fulfilled to the letter around 4 BC when the Messiah was born in Bethlehem.

And she (Miriam) brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room in the inn (St. Luke 2:7).

Lucifer the devil diligently studied those 3 great prophecies, and he was determined to either kill or create a counterfeit "Messiah." He almost succeeded when the Edomite tyrant King Herod ordered a massacre of all the babies in Bethlehem.

A statue and tombstone inscription of Tiberius Julius Pantera is in the Römerhalle Museum, in the land of Saint Martin Luther.

Satan the devil, in a mocking parody and counterfeit of the virgin birth, used a Roman soldier named Tiberius Julius Pantera to rape a young Jewish woman named Miriam.

Tiberius was stationed in Israel; he adopted the illegitimate son born to Miriam, and gave him the Latin name JESUS!!

During the ministry of the Messiah, the Satan possessed Pharisees constantly accused him of being illegitimate:

Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Miriam? and his brothers, Jacob, and Joseph, and Simeon, and Judah? (St. Matthew 13:55).

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Miriam, the brother of Jacob, and Joseph, and Judah, and Simeon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him (St. Mark 6:3).

And they said, is not this Jehoshua, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? how is it then that he said, I came down from heaven? (St. John 6:42).

During the ministry of the Messiah, the Satan possessed Pharisees constantly accused him of being illegitimate:

Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Miriam? and his brothers, Jacob, and Joseph, and Simeon, and Judah? (St. Matthew 13:55).

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Miriam, the brother of Jacob, and Joseph, and Judah, and Simeon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him (St. Mark 6:3).

And they said, is not this Jehoshua, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? how is it then that he said, I came down from heaven? (St. John 6:42)

In 313, Emperor Jesus Constantine made the change from Joshua to Jesus official

In 313, Emperor Jesus Constantine changed Romulus and Remus to Saints Peter and Paul, and he also made the change from Joshua to Jesus official.

Saint Paul—a Hebrews of the Hebrews—and a Roman citizen, planted Christianity so firmly on the Rock at Roma that it took centuries for the Great Apostasy to develop.

As the Apostasy slowly developed, images of baby Jesus in the arms of his mother appeared.

Concurrently, images of an effeminate-looking Jesus with long hair appeared.

The Babylonian Talmud teaches that Jesus was the son of Tiberius Julius Pantera!!

The Talmud (Hebrew: teaching) is a massive collection of the writings of the fake "Jews," beginning around 200 AD. Written in Hebrew, it includes commentaries on the Pentateuch and oral traditions passed down by the Babylonian "Jews" or Samaritans. It is also the official "bible" of the fake "Jews."

Scattered throughout that massive tome are many unmistakable references to Christianity and to a person named Jeshu ben Pandira or Jeshu the Nazarene.

Those fake "Jews," or Kosher Nostra, are just the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees, who were the deadly enemies of the Messiah during the 3.5-year ministry.

Patrick Scrivener, Reformation 1 Comments [12/20/2018 12:00:07 PM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: Jacob Harrison

Quote# 141299

Is the left going after @TuckerCarlson because his political ideas are too similar to theirs?

Kevin McCreary, (Say Goodnight Kevin), Twitter 3 Comments [12/19/2018 11:01:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: AJ Williams

Quote# 141456

It is a ridiculous witch hunt. A kid fondles his siblings. The parents talk to him about it first and then when it happens again send him to counseling. Unless, there is a rape or some aggravated assault offense I can't see a normal parent calling the police to handle the situation. Yet, that is what all these media experts people are claiming should have happened, even in a state with no reporting requirements.

On top of that how were these juvenile records released? If they had been truly sealed he could go on with his life. Isn't that the reason for sealing juvenile records? Why is the media so willing to run with these "sealed" records? Would they do the same to a rape victim'so records?

I guess if Josh Duggar was a great kid like Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown, the media might be more supportive.

Dawg to the bone, UGA sports 5 Comments [12/19/2018 11:08:39 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 141467

[ on Michael Brown ]

It's a tragedy that the young man got shot, but this is a young man that just roughed up a store owner, just robbed a store, and now he's going after a cop's gun...It's a horrible thing that he was killed, but he could have avoided that if he'd have behaved like something other than a thug.

[ on Duggar:. ]
No one needs to defend Josh’s actions as a teenager, but the fact that he confessed his sins to those he harmed, sought help, and has gone forward to live a responsible and circumspect life as an adult is testament to his family’s authenticity and humility...Good people make mistakes and do regrettable and even disgusting things.

Mike Huckabee, Politco 6 Comments [12/19/2018 11:09:20 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 83119

How can you say "The Bible writers were wrong" but "the scientific writers are right?"

Were both not written by humans?

If science is just a conspiracy by the Illuminati, then science can not be relied upon.

If I told an atheist, "prove to me the sun is 93 million miles away from the Earth without consulting a scientific textbook" you wouldn't be able to do it.

I find it very unfair that atheists can cite scientific books as evidence but I can't cite the Bible as evidence.

Self-Mutation, Freethought & Rationalism Discussion Board 90 Comments [8/10/2011 10:12:47 AM]
Fundie Index: 157
Submitted By: Tom S. Fox

Quote# 141308

Lady Checkmate's headline: "A teacher exposes the LGBT agenda coming into in elementary schools"


well.. if you look back it used to be taboo someone who was openly gay or was transgender but now seems like someone is either LGBT i think not everyone is really that way they just want to go along with something that seems to be popular ?
LGBT stuff doesnt belong in elementry schoools

Oxford Martyrs:
Parents need to seriously consider taking their children out of public school and either home school or place them in a Christian school. There is a war on for the minds of our children. If we lose this battle we lose our children. That is reality.

Oh ya it's coming , with democrats pushing hard

Lady Checkmate, Disqus - News Network 4 Comments [12/19/2018 11:02:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 138756

No meteor impact wiped out the dinosaurs millions of years ago, because they have co-existed with man throughout the bulk of their history since the Creation Week. See video below overwhelming proof in many forms of dinosaur and man-co-existence. Applying imagination to the superhero though, I’m sure anyone could conjure a way for Hulk to survive among dinosaurs considering we did, and still do. If you don’t know Jesus as your personal LORD and Savior, you can by simply sincerely believing by heart and confessing by mouth that He is the Son of God, who came in the flesh, died on the cross for your sins, was buried, and rose from the grave on the third day(John 3:16, Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 15:1–4). Doing so you can be saved from your sins’ consequences and receive everlasting Salvation to spend Eternity with God. Will answer any further questions if you ask.

Tyler Bryant, Quora 7 Comments [7/10/2018 10:45:01 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 141543

I am a flat earther.

The Earth is a flat disc surrounded by a dome. The other planets and stuff are round. The Sun and moon move in circles above the Earth, but they aren't as big or far away as people say they are. If you go far enough in Antarctica, you will encounter a giant ice wall keeping you from the edge. That's why God made Antarctica so cold and uninhabitable. He doesn't want people reaching the edge.

Also, either:

A. The moon landing never happened.


B. They made it to the moon (in less than 4 days), saw it was much smaller than they thought, and turned back.

The moon landing footage we saw was staged.

The government lies to us about this because they hate God. If they can "prove" something the Bible says is false, people will think God is a made up fairytale.

Crazy_Curtice, Reddit 14 Comments [12/19/2018 11:12:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 7