Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In
1 2 3 4 5
Quote# 113457

[OP of the thread "was Hitler too soft on jews ?" - All formatting in the original source]

We know that jews in occupied Palestine do not shy away from ultra harsh punishment for minimal "offenses" or whatever excuse jews quote for their mass murder of the Arab man.

Now Hitler in 1933 was very restrained in his measures to stop jew crime inside of Germany proper.

When Hitler started the boycott of jews on April 1st 1933, Judea had already declared war on Germany weeks earlier.

Should Hitler have been stricter with jews to make them understand that there would be zero tolerance on jew crime & terrorism?

Some historians argue that Germany would have been better off with a zero tolerance policy against jew crime.

It does make sense in the light of events in Palestine!

* What you think?

von Ribbentropp, Stormfront 29 Comments [10/8/2015 4:50:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 16
Submitted By: JeanP
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113455

Dress her like a girl. Let her have long hair. Let her wear lace and ribbons. Do not let her wear that which pertaineth to a man. Deuteronomy 22:5 says, "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." The parent who wants to make a young lady of a daughter should see to it that she does not wear revealing clothes, but that she dresses modestly. I Timothy 2:9 and 10 says, "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety: not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works."

This must be started early in the life of a girl. If she never wears pants for the first time, she will always wear skirts. If she never wears mini-skirts for the first time, she will always wear skirts of a modest length. In these days of hot pants, mini-skirts, and pant suits, may God give us some old-fashioned mothers and dads who well rear some sweet, feminine ladies for our boys and dress them accordingly.

jack hyles, JESUS IS SAVIOR 34 Comments [10/8/2015 3:54:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 11
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113454

Women who wear pants do not love their neighbour, because they are selfishly causing men to struggle with lust (and thus causing marriage problems for other women).

David J. Stewart, JESUS IS PRECIOUS 32 Comments [10/8/2015 3:50:35 AM]
Fundie Index: 13
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113453

If you don't care how you dress and don't see the harm in wearing pants as a woman, then you are a part of the problem.

David J. Stewart, JESUS IS PRECIOUS 14 Comments [10/8/2015 3:50:27 AM]
Fundie Index: 11
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113452

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 2 Timothy 4

"The purpose of this paper is to address a few of the many theological implications surrounding transhumanism, especially in regard to its consistency with a Christian worldview. Transhumanism is an international movement that seeks to break through human biological limitations to radically redesign humanity. The topic is so broad that it can be best addressed paradigmatically by examining its foundational technologies and philosophies. This presentation will first give a brief summary of the topic and then a broad overview of the technologies involved. As the technologies are discussed a few specific criticisms will be raised and Christian responses offered. Then it will turn to theological matters. First it will analyze the philosophical underpinnings of the movement and then interact specifically with the more visible proponents who attempt to reconcile it theologically with Christianity. The main points offered in defense of the thesis are that promoters of Christian transhumanism are driven by an unbiblical anthropology, a Pelegian view of sin, and a profound misunderstanding of the Christian life characteristic of theological liberalism. The first point of analysis will be anthropology which naturally leads to one’s position on the biblical creation account and original sin. The denial of scriptural authority on the issues of origins and sin results in an embrace of the naturalistic worldview and leads one open to ideas like Christian transhumanism. This will be revealed as initially hubris and potentially grave sin. Finally, some suggestions will be offered as a Christian response. This paper will demonstrate that while there are some who claim to be Christian transhumanists, transhumanism is an anthropocentric worldview based on naturalistic presuppositions that is incompatible with orthodox biblical Christianity."

The Doctrine of Man: A Critique of Christian Transhumanism By Cris D. Putnam
"A future where all mankind’s problems are solved (no tears, no pain, no struggle for existence, no conflict between each other), new, perfect bodies and minds, eternal life. Sounds great doesn’t it!? The only problem is that transhumanism is based on a lie; evolution. All transhumanist’s hopes and dreams are built on a foundation believing “molecules to man” evolution being a real thing.

Just like the Technocrat Thorstein Veblen, they have designed their theories around the “positivist science” of Darwinian evolution. (Positivism is the philosophy that the only authentic knowledge is knowledge that is based on actual sense experience. Since Darwinian evolution has not been observed (so isn’t scientific in the sense of being repeatable) and that positivism itself is not derived from a sensory experience, these ideas are based on a completely false foundations to begin with. It is the same old deception from Satan saying “ … you will be like God … ” back in the Garden of Eden.

Have you been assimilated?

The concept of evolution is being constantly implanted into the consciousness of mankind. Similar to the victims of the Borg in Star Trek where the truth of who the victim was rewritten over the individuals true identity, once someone has been implanted with the concept of evolution, they can quickly get assimilated into an anti-God philosophy and be hard to lead back to truth.

Mankind’s greatest hopes and dreams can indeed be achieved, but not by himself. People can be free one day of all tears, pain, mourning and even death. They will have a new incorruptible body and will live in paradise, but not because of what we will have done, but because of what our Savior Jesus Christ has done.

But this promise will not be given to everyone. It will only be extended to those that have repented of their sin and put their faith in Jesus Christ, the Creator, Sustainer and Redeemer of the Universe."

Transhumanism—mankind’s next step forward? Will mankind evolve into a perfect being? by Calvin Smith

beccaj, The Christian Post 18 Comments [10/8/2015 3:46:08 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113451

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world." (Psalm 19)

It's been only about 100 years since mankind found out that there are numerous number of galaxies in the space. Thank God the Earth (the solar system) is located in such a part of the Milky Way Galaxy where outside view is possible. Otherwise, we'd not know the existence of other galaxies or even survive if located in gassy parts on Milky Way. Micro worlds are another universe mankind cannot reach in tangible ways. There are no exactly same sand grains or exactly the same snow flakes. The number is truly staggering in our world which God created for us.

As amazing as the universes are around us, more profound and vital and eternal is the Holy Bible, the word of God. Why does Earth's mankind have it? We could have only myths that we can dismiss, but the Holy Bible and Israel stand forever on Planet Earth and none of them comply with the atheists or sugar (false gospels) lovers. In that sense, both behave like God's physical worlds. What is made by God never submits to natural men. And wonderous things happen here through the Church on Planet Earth. The Son of God was upon the Earth once before, He will do that again, changing the structure of all the universes including the Heaven.

Grace Kim Kwon, The Christian Post 17 Comments [10/8/2015 3:45:44 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113450

Pastor James McConnell shouldn't have been singled out. So many people do far more horrible things against Christianity in the West. The Western nations have double standards against the Christians. They think it's okay to single out the gentle harmless all-time-loving Christians for bullying but protect others as if such gross partiality is something noble, although they are being far better-off on earth only because of what their Christian ancestors had created. People desire Europe and America only because the European Christians have created superb nations for everyone to live in. Children who are bad to their own good parents are actually not being good to anyone. UK should stop taking advantage of Christianity but show more respect to the Christians

Grace Kim Kwon, The Christian Post 8 Comments [10/8/2015 3:45:05 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113448

Obama: Gay “Marriage” Over Religious Freedom

In a recent address to the LGBT community, US President Barack Obama made several startling claims that only highlight the continuing animosity and intolerance towards Bible-believing Christians. He said that “Freedom of religion isn't reason enough to deny any American their constitutional rights,” referring, of course, to gay “marriage,” and he added that “it's important to recognize that some parts of the country remain uncomfortable with same-sex marriage and that it will take time for them to catch up to the majority of Americans who support such unions,” according to CBS News.

The President went on to say, “We affirm that we cherish our religious freedom and are profoundly respectful of religious traditions . . . . But we also have to say clearly that our religious freedom doesn't grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights.” This is the same President who, in 2013, addressed Planned Parenthood, a child-killing machine (i.e., by abortion, which is the murder of children; an estimated 55 million lives have been taken by abortion clinics since Roe v. Wade in 1973), and said “Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”

Frankly, President Obama cannot be talking about the same God of the Bible that I worship! Now, he has been known to selectively quote from the Bible when he gives some of his speeches, but he neglects so much of the Bible. For example, if he quoted Christ in Matthew 19, he would have to tell people that our Creator and Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, taught clearly that true marriage was one man and one woman. And if President Obama quoted Romans 1, he would have to admit that homosexual behavior is sinful because of “vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting” (Romans 1:26–28).

So, according to the President of the United States, gay “marriage” is more important than religious freedom for Americans. Now, what the President—and many other leaders who support gay “marriage”—don’t seem to understand (or refuse to care about) is that those who are forced to condone gay “marriage” against their religious beliefs are having their First Amendment constitutional rights denied. If Christians aren’t allowed to act on their beliefs, such as their Bible-based belief that gay “marriage” is sinful, as God’s Word clearly states and as Jesus clearly teaches us, then what kind of religious freedom is that? It’s no freedom at all! In the end, all that happens is Christians giving up their constitutional rights—protected by the First Amendment—as the government tramples on their liberties.

Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis 23 Comments [10/8/2015 2:37:58 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Chris
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113447

(Are you okay with the vast amount of suffering in nature?)

I think the reasonable solution is to redesign nature in a way which eliminates wild-life suffering. For example, we can make all animals herbivores. Or create mindless prey animals (I don’t think p-zombies make sense but “animals” that have some simple algorithm instead of a mind can work). Or make it so that the mind of an animal caught by a predator is immediately removed from its body and re-instantiated in a new one.

Antiquark, Tumblr 23 Comments [10/8/2015 2:37:49 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Ivurm
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113445

Scott carefully steers away from the obvious (i.e. HBD) explanation – i.e. that something just prevents East Asians from climbing to the top, just like it’s an unlikely there were be non-West African descdended winners of sprinting events anytime soon. It’s more surprising that the Lord of HBD does likewise. ;)

The Japanese and South Korean teams are nothing to write home about either. The US, a country that at least until recently had the reputation of being unintered in football, and which excels in dozens of other major sports, still manages to have a better team than any of them. (Note that in football, population size pretty much ceases to have an effect once you go past 20mn or so: The Portuguese and Dutch teams have almost always been world class, and even 2mn strong Croatia traditionally makes a very strong, competent showing).

Football requires a combination of speed, disciplined teamwork, and artistry. Africans, Germanics, and Latins all consistently do well on it. East Asian teams tend to have the second factor down, the Japanese do at any rate, but the first and probably the third will always be a stumbling block for them.

Anatoly Karlin, Unz 8 Comments [10/8/2015 2:36:35 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113441

Interesting to note ppl who have never studied the sciences contained in Genesis Chapters 1 and 2, making definitive statements.
There is no variance between the Bible and Science when we are presented with a true and proper translation of the Text, and CURRENT, UPTODATE science.
And not that pseudo science they force feed students, even today.
Having studied Genesis 1 and 2 for a year now in the original Hebrew, I had to learn maths, astronomy, nuclear physics, quantum physics, biology, and so forth.
Needless to say I had a steep learning curve.
As a sceptic, It took me by surprise to find evolution is a lie, current DNA results have been published and debunked Darwin's stolen idea, and that most ppl mean ADAPTION, not evolution.
Yes, Darwin was in court many times for intellectual property theft.
Do your research and be UPTODATE with CURRENT science before you nay Sayers go off half cocked with inadequate assumptions, that merely highlight your ignorance.
Even Hawkins States at the end of his lecture, " And remember ladies and gentlemen, it is still only a theory".
Yes. The Theory of Evolution. An idea that was around before Darwin's grandfather. What Charles Darwin tried to do was introduce the creation model into the existing theory of evolution. He tried, and failed.
Just as you who rubbish the science found in the bible have failed to impress me with any intelligent argument.
Study it for yourselves, you may be amazed at what you'll find.

Gee300, FSTDT comments 30 Comments [10/7/2015 5:54:38 PM]
Fundie Index: 15
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113437

Whether you realize it or not, men look at certain portions of the body; and it doesn’t matter whether you think that is good, bad, or otherwise, they are going to do it. And if you wear clothing that attracts attention to that, you are just helping them in their sin. That’s why a dress, unless it’s too tight, is better than pants; because a dress does not draw the attention to that part of the body that people look at and lust after.

bruce, Mom of 9's Place 35 Comments [10/7/2015 5:53:16 PM]
Fundie Index: 12
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113436

Thus, when a woman with bobbed hair and a rebellious heart comes to pray, angels who are near and see her head and see her heart are tempted to sin; are tempted to commit the sin which such women commit, the sin of rebellion against authority. Because of the angels, every woman should wear long hair and be careful that she does not have a rebellious heart lest she should be a curse to the angels God has sent to be our ministers and guardians.

david j stewart, jesus is savior 26 Comments [10/7/2015 5:52:52 PM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: undie not fundie
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113435

It shouldn’t be a secret that women’s sports promote immodest attire. The pressure to be immodest is just one more reason women should avoid sports, and in many cases we shouldn’t even watch women’s (and sometimes men’s) sport competitions. The Apostle Paul often referred to how athletes ran races “unencumbered” (i.e. nude), because of the Greek influence in sports during his day. Based on what Mr. Eldridge writes, the question of whether or not women should participate in sports should be easy to answer.

Given that sports may very well foster pagan and humanistic attitudes, I urge parents to think deeply about this issue and about whether or not any members of their families should participate in organized sports programs. As a minimum, I hope you will agree with me that we should keep our daughters away from competitive sports a

Scott Jonas, jesus is savior  21 Comments [10/7/2015 5:52:43 PM]
Fundie Index: 16
Submitted By: undie not fundie
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113433

Let’s make sure we start asking brides what they intend to do after the wedding. The bible is clear- women should be “keepers of the home.” If the bride is career minded or dislikes housework, just tell her “no cake for you!” because you wouldn’t want to endorse a lifestyl

Benjamin , patheos 17 Comments [10/7/2015 5:52:25 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: undie not fundie
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113431

Demons are not myths or fairytales. They aren't something we like to think about, but they are real and we need to beware of them. Jesus knew the reality of demons and cast many out of people who were possessed. Jesus is the ultimate authority, so since He says demons are real, then they are real.


God is the only protection against demons. Even a Christian can be oppressed by demons if you embrace sin instead of submitting to God. Some of the ways to open yourself to demons are using drugs, participating in any kind of witchcraft, horoscopes, tarot cards, Ouija boards, meditation, contemplative prayer, embracing any sin, yoking yourself with those who are not of God, and the list goes on. Anything that encourages you to "empty your mind" is satanic. Many "Christian" groups embrace these practices and therefore invite demonic forces to enter the congregation. Yes, Satan is bold enough to enter a Christian gathering. There is no such thing as Christian yoga and none of these Eastern mystic activities have any place in a Christian's life.

Necromancy is another way to invite demons in. It is defined as the conjuring of the spirits of the dead and always involves demons. Their intention is not to communicate truth or wisdom, but pure lies.


Today children usually aren't placed on the red hot arms of Moloch, but babies are sacrificed through abortion. This is a demonic practice that opens portals to demons.


Most people today shrug off any idea that demons might actually be real. Hollywood has an agenda to make demons seem entertaining or cute. The desensitizing of the populous to demons has been very successful and most folks give them no more thought than smiling at the little ghouls and goblins making ready to trick or treat on Halloween. Yes, our little ones begin at a very early age to make friends with demons. A little devil costume is so cute on Billy and Susie is adorable in her witch hat and black robe. Is this just harmless fun? No.


As we see Halloween approaching, stores are filled with demonic costumes. Parents will buy their children costumes that will identify them with demons. Adults will also dress up in costumes that glorify Satan. It's all in good fun, right? As a Christian, why would you dress up in satanic costumes and identify yourself with the enemy? [...] When Christians refuse to believe Satan and his minions of evil are real, they've fallen for his lies. Demons aren't just costumed pranksters wearing masks; they are pure evil amassed to destroy humanity.

Ron Graham and Nathele Graham, Rapture Forums 20 Comments [10/7/2015 5:51:47 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113429

Both heterosexual sins (e.g., fornication, adultery) and homosexual sins (men with men, women with women) result in separation from God. God is no respecter of persons regarding "the wages of sin." Yet there is a major difference. Homosexuality is an assault against the way God made things - His creation order. It goes far beyond disobedience to His instructions; it is an affront to the Creator of nature by glorifying His creatures, by exalting humans, and by corrupting natural sexuality. It is a sin (although that is vigorously denied by many "within" the church) of such consequence that should the LGBT community achieve its goal of worldwide acceptance of its practice of sex as an "alternate lifestyle," it would sound the death knell for the human race. Men do not procreate with men, nor do women have babies with women.

Homosexuality is about sexual immorality. Period. All of the propaganda circulated by the LGBT proponents is aimed at obfuscating that simple fact. It is a grievous distortion of what God created as something good.

T. A. McMahon, The Berean Call 12 Comments [10/7/2015 5:50:20 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113428

Why did I title this article "Homosexuality and the Reign of Terror"? That may seem greatly overstated right now, and perhaps "the Reign of Intimidation" would be a description better suited to what we are experiencing today. One doesn't need the gift of prophecy, however, to recognize the direction of the serious "judicial" incidents that haven taken place thus far. For example, here and in Canada we've seen the rise of "human rights commissions" that major on issues related to homosexuality, primarily prosecuting as "hate crimes" the act of writing or speaking out against the practice.


Historically, the phrase "Reign of Terror" was applied to a notorious period of the French Revolution. A few characteristics of the Reign of Terror correlate with what is developing today in the US - where the issue centers around homosexuality. It's rather stunning that the LGBT community, consisting of less than 4 percent of the US population, has had such power and influence over the media and in our legal institutions and is thereby seemingly able to force its will on the masses.

In 18th century France, the Jacobins, although small in number, took control of the government of France aided by the popular support of the Sans-Culottes (the far more numerous poor of France). The objective of the Jacobins was to coerce and conform the thinking and actions of the French people to their own ideology. Their leader, Robespierre, attempted to replace traditional Christian morals and values with his own concept of a "Republic of Virtue." This has been the chief strategy of the LGBT movement in America. One has only to consider what has been implemented in our school systems, from kindergarten through high school, and to check out the pro-gay resource materials that have been mandated for use by school boards throughout the country.

According to French history, one-time supporters of the Jacobins who began to believe that their means were becoming too extreme, were guillotined. Although that's not the case in the US, some who have fervently objected to the LGBT agenda have been fiercely targeted by the movement in order to counter their influence. Much of the LGBT propaganda has left many Christians in a confused state, particularly young adult Christians who see the church's bewilderment over how to respond. They battle accusations of being unloving, intolerant, and bigoted. The only confident response for anyone who calls himself a biblical Christian (one who desires to know in truth the instructions of the Bible and to obey what it teaches) is to abide in the Word of God.

T. A. McMahon, The Berean Call 21 Comments [10/7/2015 3:00:08 PM]
Fundie Index: 9
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113422

On the immigration issue, many Christians are rightly fond of quoting the scriptural passages that urge us to be compassionate and kind to aliens. [...] But what these same Christians fail to do is take note of what God said was to happen to immigrants after they arrived in their host country. It is clear that his spiritual standard was assimilation, and that assimilation was not just cultural but spiritual as well.


What this would mean in America's case is quite simple. We would communicate to the world that strangers are welcome here on one condition: that they be willing to adopt our God, our Judeo-Christian heritage, our Christian holidays, our Christian moral values, our Christian heroes and our Christian history.

Can this be done? Of course it can. The Constitution gives unilateral authority to Congress to establish whatever rules for immigration and naturalization it chooses. Certainly these biblically-based ideas will be considered controversial, but given the fact that three billion Muslims have immigrated to the United States over the past decade and have shown no interest in fully assimilating themselves to our culture, now is the time for the conversation to begin in earnest.

Speaking only for myself, I suggest it's time, both from a biblical as well as a practical and national security standpoint, to reconsider Islamic immigration into the United States. [...] Bottom line: it's time not only for America to embrace immigrants but for immigrants to embrace America.

Bryan Fischer, Barb Wire 31 Comments [10/7/2015 2:27:20 AM]
Fundie Index: 14
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113421

The "refugees" are mostly migrants. They are not coming to be part of any country, but to exploit it and then conquer it and rule it. They are not bound by any moral or ethical code that we understand.

Their advocates talk about "human rights", but in Muslim culture there is no such thing as human rights. Their cultures are tribal. There are no universal rights, only responsibilities to members of kin groups. When those kin groups remain intact, then members will prey exclusively on outsiders. When they fall apart, as they do during immigration and migration, then mass rapes and murders take place.

Europeans believe in human rights. Muslims do not.
Europeans believe women are equal. Muslims do not.


Europe can either have free women, bars, churches, synagogues, cartoons, free speech, pork sausage and beer. Or it can have millions of Muslim migrants and their wide-eyed toddlers.

It can't have both. Not for long. Because there will be "misunderstandings."

Bombs will go off, women will be raped and cartoonists murdered. And we will be told to change our behavior to avoid more of these "misunderstandings". After each "misunderstanding", we will lose more of our civil rights and the invaders will have more power to dictate our behavior and our way of life.

Until finally the only way to end all these "misunderstandings" will be a submission to the Islamic State. We may finally understand then, but it will be too late.

Daniel Greenfield, Frontpage Mag 22 Comments [10/7/2015 2:13:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113420

[A group of Christian Iraqis fleeing from ISIS illegally entered and were detained in the US.]

[W]hile Christian minorities pose little threat to the United States - indeed, they actually bring benefits to U.S. security - Muslims all around the U.S. are supporting the Islamic State and Muslim clerics are relying on the refugee influx to conquer Western nations, in the Islamic tradition of Hijra, or jihad by emigration.


In Islamic usage, the "cause of Allah" is synonymous with jihad to empower and enforce Allah's laws on earth, or Sharia. In this context, immigrating into Western lands is a win-win for Muslims: if they die in the process somehow, paradise is theirs; if they don't, the "locations and abundance" of the West are theirs.

All the while, true Christian refugees, fleeing the same hostile Muslim forces being allowed to enter Europe and America by the thousands, are thrown back to the lions by the Obama administration.

Raymond Ibrahim, Frontpage Mag 16 Comments [10/7/2015 2:13:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113416

Question: "Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2?"

Answer: Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Later, in Genesis 2:4, it seems that a second, different story of creation begins. The idea of two differing creation accounts is a common misinterpretation of these two passages which, in fact, describe the same creation event. They do not disagree as to the order in which things were created and do not contradict one another. Genesis 1 describes the “six days of creation” (and a seventh day of rest), Genesis 2 covers only one day of that creation week—the sixth day—and there is no contradiction.

In Genesis 2, the author steps back in the temporal sequence to the sixth day, when God made man. In the first chapter, the author of Genesis presents the creation of man on the sixth day as the culmination or high point of creation. Then, in the second chapter, the author gives greater detail regarding the creation of man.

There are two primary claims of contradictions between Genesis chapters 1-2. The first is in regard to plant life. Genesis 1:11 records God creating vegetation on the third day. Genesis 2:5 states that prior to the creation of man “no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground.” So, which is it? Did God create vegetation on the third day before He created man (Genesis 1), or after He created man (Genesis 2)? The Hebrew words for “vegetation” are different in the two passages. Genesis 1:11 uses a term that refers to vegetation in general. Genesis 2:5 uses a more specific term that refers to vegetation that requires agriculture, i.e., a person to tend it, a gardener. The passages do not contradict. Genesis 1:11 speaks of God creating vegetation, and Genesis 2:5 speaks of God not causing “farmable” vegetation to grow until after He created man.

The second claimed contradiction is in regard to animal life. Genesis 1:24-25 records God creating animal life on the sixth day, before He created man. Genesis 2:19, in some translations, seems to record God creating the animals after He had created man. However, a good and plausible translation of Genesis 2:19-20 reads, “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.” The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals.

By considering the two creation accounts individually and then reconciling them, we see that God describes the sequence of creation in Genesis 1, then clarifies its most important details, especially of the sixth day, in Genesis 2. There is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device describing an event from the general to the specific.

Got Questions Ministries, Got Questions 18 Comments [10/7/2015 2:12:22 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113415

[Intro to a website claiming to refute the Skeptic's Annotated Bible]

By chance I stumbled upon the Skeptics Annotated Bible. Obviously a lot of work has gone into this. And the website is done quite well. But I have to disagree with the premises as expounded in the preface. The first is:

"Yet few of those who believe in the Bible have actually read it."

As no proof is cited of this, and the author only quotes from his personal experience, I feel free to do the same. I grew up in a Dutch Christian family, where we actually read through the Bible year after year. Every time after a meal, three times a day, we would read a portion of the Bible, continuing where we had left before. And now, in my family, I do the same. Everyone in my church did this, as did everyone at the Christian school I attended. Currently I'm living in New Zealand and at the Church we attend people read through the entire Bible as well. My denomination is Scottish, and everyone from our churches in Scotland does the same. So it's actually not uncommon among Christians to read through the entire Bible.

The author makes another claim, namely that the clergy quote very selectively. My experience absolutely cannot support that claim, as many Bible passages the author finds troublesome in one way or another, are quoted or refered to at various times. I have to admit that this is in Churches were people are expected to know the Bible very well. In Churches where that isn't the case, quoting might be more selective, and that is quite understandable. If you are curious to know William Shakespeare, are you going to read his all his works? Or just the most well-known?

But to support my case even further consider these three things:
Many commentaries have been produced in the past, some especially targeted at laymen.
In the churches I know, pastors frequently use the Wednesday evening service to preach from a single book or a prolonged story in its entirety. They usually treat more popular items like Jacob or Joseph, Ruth or Esther, Elia or Elias, but they don't skip. They treat every single detail.
Some preachers are known for preaching through the entire Bible, every Sunday continuing where they left off. Their main reason was just to avoid being selective about the Bible, the very thing the author accuses them of. Take Luther and Calvin:
The Reformation: A Return to the Primacy of Preaching:
For 36 years then, Luther expounded the Bible in Wittenburg, first in the little chapel, and then in the great city church. He preached often: at least two times on Sunday, and usually three times a week, in the morning. And his method was to preach systematically through the Bible.
Calvin Courier Newsletter Fall 1997, Number 20:
He followed lectio continuo, preaching from the Bible one book after another, chapter by chapter, verse by verse.
Given the limited time and attention span it is understandable that most pastors don't preach through the entire Bible anymore. But I still find it regrettable. Pastors should do this more, just to avoid bias. The entire Bible is the Word of God, not just the parts that happen to be the most well-known. There might also be another reason why pastors avoid certain parts: new translations are so vivid and written in such plain newspaper-like language, that they are no longer suitable to be read in Churches where children are present. This is unlike the original Hebrew and translations like the King James, where restraint is always exercised in describing horrid situations.

The second premise I disagree with is:

But if so little of the Bible is actually used, then why isn't the rest deleted? Why aren't the repetitious passages -- which are often contradictory as well -- combined into single, consistent ones?
We currently have had two thousands years of the Bible as it is accepted by Christians. The author probably realises he isn't the first to see "contradictions". In my possession is a Dutch book, written by Johannes Polyander. I'm not aware of any English translation, but translated the title is "Apparent contradictions in the Bible explained" and was written in 1621. No doubt it is easy to find such books in the entire 2000 year history of the New Testament Church. A recent list of books that treat apparent contradictions can be found at Bible Contradictions and Other Bible difficulties

The author's `solution', deleting parts of the Bible, is wrong. As the author notes a few paragraphs below:

But to the Bible-believer the entire Bible is inspired, and has God as its author. To him each passage contains a message from God that must not be altered or deleted.
He has at least read those portions of the bible correctly! Let me quote this passage (Rev. 22:19):

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
So I agree with him that this is not the solution. And I will set out to show that it is not a necessary solution.

Having said this, I do not believe the approach of the SAB author to reading the Bible is a-priori invalid. As a protestant I firmly believe that everyone is allowed to read the Bible. One is encouraged to examine the Bible (Acts 17:11):

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
And you certainly don't have to be an expert in Hebrew or Greek as some people seem to have said. That's why a reliable translation has been valued always so much by protestants, up to this day. I even urge Christians to study contradictions raised by the SAB, for example at school. It might be very good for them to encounter things they cannot (easily) refute. Humility is good!

I intent to discuss all issues raised by the SAB. The SAB even encourages this ‘dialogue’ (asking for reciprocal links). I will do this by study each book in the Bible, picking a random one each time and going over the things SAB comments upon. As I'm embarking on this quest, I expect to be able to refute many of them. The ones I can't I leave to God. Faith in the Bible doesn't stand or fall with me being able to refute every apparent contradiction. As the apostle said (2 Peter 3:16):

As also in all his (Saint Paul's) epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
I just don't believe that what I don't understand is not true. I don't understand Quantum Gravity, is it therefore untrue?

It's not my goal to convince SAB followers or other atheists. It doesn't work that way. But my goal is to help those who sincerely study the Bible, and have questions about issues raised by the SAB. It's my prayer that God will bless my endeavours.

Berend D. Boer,  Skeptic's Annotated Bible answered 20 Comments [10/7/2015 2:12:14 AM]
Fundie Index: -11
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113413

“If there was an omnipotent Supreme Being, why would He use such a fallible device of communication--a book written by men, selected by men? Why not just communicate directly?”

God did communicate directly with human beings. When He gave the Ten Commandments, the nation of Israel was so fearful that they thought they would die. He has chosen to give us His written Word telling us how to find everlasting life, and we are to simply do what it says.

Ray Comfort, Ray Comfort's blog 22 Comments [10/7/2015 2:07:04 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: Chris
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 113410

you CANNOT escape your genetic DESTINY

I firmly believe that your life with women is determined from the moment you'r conceived. I mean there are guys who do NO gym, who are misogynists, job less, smoke weed and they pull hot girls, regularly.. why? genetics. Genetic destiny. It is all taken care of by nature. Only 10% or even less of the men are meant for breeding, the rest are for structural support, that is natures intention. The things is, this was always the case, but no one ever knew it so CLEARLY like we do today, thanks to science, media, and general awakening of the masses.

Because even though the betas are not meant to breed, we still have the same inbuilt fundamental desire to procreate... So life becomes a hell. Its like being a fish that's allergic to water. You have to constantly watch attractive woman, and even women BELOW your league, ALL walking by ignoring you in favour of the Alpha, while you rip your hair out over it. You hit the GYM HARD, while Alpha eats pizza. Girls look at your gymcel body and think "ewww what a try hard" while they look at the chad and think "i love him, he just does what he wants, not even concerned about the whole bodybuilding thing". But in reality it is all in the face, in the pheromones, in the frame, in the depth of the voice, in the facial stubble.

That's what girls are SOLD on. When the imagine romantic partners, THAT is what they imagine being ravished by. You can even be an AVERAGE guy, 6 even a 7 out of ten and STILL be completely over looked. In this day and age, there is no such thing as good enough for women. Women are getting more and more choice and validation and its either CHAD or NOTHING. It is FUTILE to looks max, if you are not ATLEAST a 7 out of 10. futile.

Not only that but when you finally get a strong physique like me, and you realize girls STILL dont like you while they will fuck the high T, skinny weed smoker. That's when you start to resent all your own hardwork. Its like dammmm man, DAYUM, I did 3 years of gym, got fucking abs, just to for this? hahaha. Im hysterical... This is genetic destiny buddy boys.

By the way, MONEY and STATUS are MINIMAL in their affect, romance is ALL about looks, always. And in particular the FACE is what matters. I'm 23 now, i've approached over 9000 women in all sorts of ways in the last 3 years. Justin Wayne bootcamp, Zan perrion coaching, Arash Dibazar, I heard them ALL. I know the dynamics of game in and out. I've had sex with atleast 2 7+ white hot girls and like 2 more 6/10 white girls. But man the amount of effort I put in is out of this world. I applaud myself for the solid effort. But to me this journey is not worth it. And guess what? I started out as a 6 and it was this hard for me to get some. I can't imagine life for a sub 6, you guys are royally FUCKED, it is literally IMPOSSIBLE. Go to thailand, become escortcel, amass wealth, or do something productive like helping children in Africa. Hey man atleast they will LOVE you for helping them, atleast they will appreciate. Do not waste time entertaining the idea that you can somehow make it.

Elliot Rodger was deluded, he didn't even TRY to make it work. But in the end I have to agree with him, it is indeed utterly hopeless and utterly unfair to beta males. Nature is a bitch.

Blackpiller2, Sluthate.com 56 Comments [10/6/2015 2:33:52 PM]
Fundie Index: 19
Submitted By: Ivurm
WTF?! || meh
1 2 3 4 5