1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20 25 27 | bottom
Quote# 133472

One time, I cast out a demon that gave me its name. I looked it up online, it was listed in a pokemon monster directory. The demon had many of the same traits as the pokemon. Some Christians have said pokemon is from the devil. I think this is true.

albertjrich, r/TrueChristian 13 Comments [10/26/2017 2:45:43 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 133471

If I were to come out to someone as zoosexual right now, the first thing they would say is, "you rape animals?" This misconception is far too common now, and we as zoosexuals need to put a stop to it. Here is why animals in fact can consent, and why zoosexuality is not about forced sex with non-human animals.

Consent to an action does not have to be given verbally. In the event that verbal expression of consent is not possible, other forms of consent are used. Non-verbal consent, also known as implied consent, is an alternative form of consent where the sign of consent is derived from someone or something's actions, emotions and the context surrounding the event. When an animal chooses to mount a human, the consent is implied, as the animal's expression of choice implies approval of the action the animal has taken. Enticing your dog with peanut butter is, similarly, an example of implied consent.

-__-_-__-_-, r/zoosexual 15 Comments [10/26/2017 2:45:33 PM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 133468

It should be illegal to have to do work with Stacy's and Chad's in a college class as an incel. All they do is flirt with each other while I have to do all the work. I've never had a girl talk to me about anything but class work in college.

It's fucking over and college is straight torture watching all the girls try to get the hottest guys and completely ignore me because of shit I can not control. Someone give me a rope.

uglyguy12, r/incels 16 Comments [10/26/2017 2:43:44 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 133467

18-year-old girl rapes 13-year-old boy at Church of Christ in Tennessee

Absolute nonsense. Children, preteens, young teens, middle teens will all experiment and explore sexually. I am surprised how many uptight, frigid, rigid, dried up prunes and sexually inert beings exist on this site. Hell has a special place for those who will punish this young woman for her innocent and natural physical love. I cherish the memory of a certain 19 y.o. young woman who "helped me out" when I was 15. I had been hoping for a close encounter for a couple of years.

Rape laws are about protecting women and girls from FORCED sexual intercourse. Other activity should be called something else. This young woman did not rape this boy. There is no such thing as female on male rape. At most She should be shamed for her lustfulness.

So if a 40 year old woman, a friend of the family let's say, goes into a 12 year old boys bedroom one night, quietly performs sexual acts on him while he's asleep, or outright climbs on top of him and performs sexual intercourse, then to you that isn't rape?[quote]

Completely different scenario than the case at hand. No it is not rape. A woman cannot rape. Maybe sexual assault. This sounds like Jewish logic to try to use a scenario that happens in real life about as often as pigs flying.

[quote]If that isn't rape then what is?

'Natural physical love' sounds like something certain people say to justify thoughts they know they shouldn't have.

There has to be some natural instinct for sexual behavior besides your statute laden bureaucratic gobblygook. Just for the record I don't consider homo's to be natural or rewarded by nature. Forced Sodomy on children should be met with death.

JacobFire, Stormfront 10 Comments [10/26/2017 2:42:33 PM]
Fundie Index: 11

Quote# 133463

Forza Nuova Against The Dams: “History Is Serious, Homosexuality Is Not

A course in the History of Homosexuality, one that will take place at the Dams of Turin, with the possibility for students to attend optional classes and get six training credits. One first absolute for Italy that after the announcement it would not attract political criticism and controversy.
To speak against the course that will be held by Maya De Leo contract professor and that the rector will be officially presented at a press conference on October 26, are first of all the Forza Nuova militants, who argue “History is a serious thing. “, with a sign posted on the night at the gates of Palazzo Nuovo, the historic seat of the Turin University.

The sense of this initiative of Forza Nuova Turin militants is clarified, with more details, by a note.

The story is a serious thing, says the note of Forza Nuova, and you can not play with these terms. We urge the Rector to eliminate training credits in order to prevent this from becoming a way to give students a “politically correct” gift. “Forza Nuova militants also invite students who recognize in their views” not to follow this course, not legitimize these ideas without any formative foundation “

Forza Nuova Turin, Forza Nuova USA 7 Comments [10/26/2017 12:09:05 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: hydrolythe

Quote# 133452

First thing you need to understand is that.... there is such a thing as secular spirituality independent of religion. Hmmm..difficult?! Thought so.

Once you get past that...you need to get off your rocking chair and start doing some Yoga, Pranayama and meditations. Not necessarily in the Himalayas but in you own town will do. Also, some charity work, fasting, preferably move towards vegetarianism.

After some years of that...you can take up study of Samkhya and Yoga philosophies. Maybe also Vedanta, Jainism and Buddhism while you are about it.

Once you are through with all this...you will automatically understand what I am talking about.

Sriram, Religion and Ethics 12 Comments [10/26/2017 7:25:09 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: NearlySane

Quote# 133450

IMO many of the atheists (New and Old...what's the difference?) are not just repetitive bores but they also lack vision and insight. Intelligent perhaps but no wisdom. Sorry guys...no offence... :D

Britain in particular, being one of the pioneers in Science and modern thinking...seems to have gotten stuck in its own success and glory. Science is the new 'religion'. Britishers seem to be resting on their laurels and wallowing in their atheism as though it is some sort of a path breaking new find that no one has thought of before.

This is a pity because atheism is as old as the hills but lacks any true insight or comprehensive perspective. It lacks integration and a big picture view. Most recent atheists are looking out of a window that someone like Dawkins or Harris have shown them and believe that the little window gives them access to all the world, beyond which there cannot possibly be anything else.

I guess it will change in the coming decades.

Sriram, Religion and Ethics 17 Comments [10/26/2017 7:23:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: NearlySane

Quote# 133449

The Crucifixion was Necessary

The crucifixion of Jesus Christ was good for us in that God in His great love and mercy offers through Jesus and His death for our sins the forgiveness of sins and the gift of everlasting life.

The crucifixion of Jesus was evil on the part of all of us whose sins caused Jesus to be crucified. Your sins and mine drove those nails through His hands and feet, put that crown of thorns upon His brow, drove that spear into His side, and all of the other awful things done to Jesus at Calvary.

So, the crucifixion of Jesus is good for us, but was bad because we were the ones who caused Him to go to the cross. Thank God His great love overcomes all the bad for every person who repents of his sins and turns to Jesus.

In Philippians 2:5-7 we see that Jesus, as God, took upon Himself “the likeness of men.” Thus, Jesus became the one and only “God-man,” He was totally God and totally man at the same time. This is called the Hypostatic Union and is difficult to understand. But Jesus Christ, as the God-man died on the cross for our sins.

So, God the Son did die for sinners. It had to be this way because Jesus has always been God and always will be God. He could not have put away His deity to die on the cross even if He wanted to, because He is God. And He had to die as God, being perfect, to be a satisfactory sacrifice for us in the eyes of God the Father.

Jesus Christ also died as a man. This identified Him with all of us in the human race. He was “made in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7) and therefore, He could be tempted in all things as we are and remain sinless (Hebrews 4:15). We praise God for this wonderful truth. Jesus Christ is now our high priest who can sympathize with our weaknesses, because He knows exactly what we are going through.

God the Son is a person and as a person He died as God and as man He bore our punishment. Isaiah 53:5 says, “He was wounded for our transgressions: he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.”

In this chastisement Christ experienced what no other man has ever experienced. He became sin, taking on Himself our sins. And when He took upon Himself our sin on the cross, God the Father had to turn His back on God the Son, because of our sin which He had taken upon Himself. Thus Christ suffered the awful punishment of separation from God the Father at that time.

Dr. Elmer Towns, BibleSprout 14 Comments [10/26/2017 7:22:49 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 133448

[=Comment on "Would You Rather Have a Gay Child or a Dead Child ?"=]

"...parents asking their kids to change something inherent, something that son or daughter can’t change...." But that is the problematic issue, isn't it? the jury IS still out on whether it is a "born with..." issue. And yes, you can jump all over me, but an objective look at the studies cannot come to any other conclusion.

So, that being out of the way, the really important thing is how a deals with a child that is different. And by different I mean in any possible way. My child will always, no matter what the circumstances, be my child, and therefore loved by me. Even should my child turn out to be a a Bundy or a Dahmer. I will love.
But loving does not mean that I will support ar approve every kind of behavior. And that is where problems arise.

I believe the Bible clearly teaches that homosexual behavior is sin. I do not believe that homosexual behavior is acceptable to God when "two people really love each other..." We do not make that exception in any other relationship (Well, it's okay for a 25 yr old to have a sexual relation with a 13 year old. After all, they love each other). Or polygamous relationships. We do not accept the same excuse!

Unfortunately, homosexual behavior is in the spotlight (currently). The law in the US does not allow polygamous marriages, no matter how much the woman loves her three husbands. Biblically, we have the same condemnation. Whether we like it or not, we cannot invent reasons why God should (and would) allow relationships He has forbidden. Not once, not twice...

From a personal point of view, I do not have the right to change what God has written to fit my desires. And from a personal point of view, I would love my child - but will not accept or condone behavior which is not Biblical, be that sexual or any other kind of behavior. That is part of the price of our convictions. We may not be liked and may even be ridiculed or called names or lambasted on a public forum. But that, too, is part of the price of my convictions.

Rudy Schellekens, Patheos 9 Comments [10/26/2017 7:22:46 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 133447

+Petter Gustafsson blacks are the hebrew israelites, the true descendants of Adam, noah, abraham, the prophets of the bible,the lineage of Christ. Christ was from the tribe of Judah and is 100% negro, I can show and prove everything to you over and over throughout the Bible, but u demon worshippers worship demons, lol... even Paul was a negro from tribe of Benjamin and he was speaking to the hebrews aka blacks that had been scattered into the Caucasian lands... Christ is 100% a negro and not a fucking Caucasian, and we ate the promised people of the bible and the only true GOD YHWH fights for us.... u lil dick white fevils, your tike yiur reign your heaven, is Over!?

a MightyAdvisor of da Hebrews, Youtube 3 Comments [10/26/2017 7:22:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: FSM

Quote# 133446

octavia, you're lost in this Caucasian demon worshipping bullshit. black people are the original hebrew israelites, and Our GOD YHWH, AND YaHaWasHi is the creator of this entire universe and dionysus and Zeus are nothing more than either deity men or hybrid nefilim abominations to the true GOD, the GOD of Abraham Isaacs and Jacob. wake up negro, this world is for the hebrews, the true hebrews, not referring to the dick sucking homos the Ashkenazi wanna be jews that are nothing more than the bloodline of evil Cain via satan, on this earth in this present time. Christ only came for the lost sheep of the house of Isreal, aka the negros from the americas the true Native Americans in the Hispanic that are really of negro decent. we were Never Africans, that's another throw off in the Devils trickery that he manipulates thru the pale no melanin race. black bitch wake the fuck up!!!!!?

a MightyAdvisor of da Hebrews, Youtube 4 Comments [10/26/2017 7:22:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: FSM

Quote# 133445

[=A comment on both Gay Christians and Unuveralism=]

Carl Longren: Would you be disappointed if you find out in the resurrection that everyone is saved??? There is nothing you or I can do to "earn" our salvation. It is a free gift. You are expecting gays to "earn" their salvation by not being gay. If you believe Hitler was evil, how much more evil do you think a god would be who would burn people for eternity. At least when Hitler killed people it was over and the suffering wasn't forever. Do you believe that the Jews who were killed in the Holocaust will only be resurrected to be sent to hell for all eternity? How horribly cruel. Please use some logic!

Rudy Schellekens: Logic steps above emotionalism. Salvation is a biblical concept. So how about using the Bible as the play book?
Yes. Hitler was evil. To think that he escaped justice on earth bothers me. To know that there will be a judgment that he cannot escape?
And that judgment will be righteous.
The greater monster is a God who WOULD let him escape justice again!

Rudy Schellekens, Patheos 8 Comments [10/26/2017 7:22:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 133443

Designating Christian beliefs as "hate" has been a goal of the left since this "we just wan't to be free to love who we love".

No one was stopping them. Their goal was to get their ridiculous and antibiological beliefs & lifestyles accept as "normal". Now anyone or anything that challenges or questions them, is a bigot, racist, hateful, blahblahblah.

I'm not a Christian but I will stand with Christians.

NativeSon, Free Republic 16 Comments [10/25/2017 3:17:32 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 133435

A Christian's life is in constant opposition to the non-Christian outlook and agenda, and as long as a person is a non-Christian, he lives every moment of his life as a rebel against God's kingdom and his people. Therefore, on this spiritual level where things really count,the Christian and the non-Christian maintain a constant hostility against each other. Although this should not translate into physical violence, this does not reduce the enmity between the two. Unthinking people regard physical violence as more dangerous or more worthy of attention, but the conflict on the spiritual/intellectual level runs much deeper, and carries greater long-term influence and significance. This does not mean that you have to be constantly abusive toward unbelievers. However, there must always be a clear awareness of what they are, so that when you interact with them, you will not operate on false assumptions about what kind of people they are and where they stand. Many Christians are often tempted to allow a sense of solidarity with men to override their obligation and allegiance to God. But God is pleased with those who will put him front and center in all that they think and do (Exodus 32:25-29; Numbers 25:3-13; Deuteronomy 13:5-16; Deuteronomy 33:8-11).

A number of hurdles in theology and apologetics exist for many believers because of this – on those issues they stand with men rather than God. Otherwise, there is no reason that a Christian should have any hesitation or difficulty in answering a challenge such as, say, the so-called problem of evil. It has never been a rational problem for Christianity, but when the objection is raised, believers sometimes sympathize with men's bitterness against God, and allow a problem to take root where there should be none. You are generally permitted to associate with unbelievers, but there are biblical restrictions and exceptions, which I cannot enumerate here. In any case, you must no longer behave toward them the way you did before, and you must abandon the idea of maintaining intimate and meaningful relationships with any of them. Since your deepest commitments are now vehemently hostile to theirs, it is no longer possible to have the deepest kind of communication and comradeship with them. Even the closest relationships between Christians and non-Christians must remain superficial. Anyone who disagrees with this either compromises their Christian commitment, or fails to understand what it is to have a truly deep friendship.

This reality finds its most acute expression in the marriage relationship. Now, of course a Christian must not marry a non-Christian, so we are considering a marriage in which one of the two unbelievers converts, or in which a Christian marries a non-Christian in defiance against God's command. Since the marriage relationship is supposed to be the closest possible relationship between two human beings, this is also the closest possible relationship between a believer and an unbeliever, but because such a relationship is doomed to come far short of what marriage is intended to be, it is also the most tragic. In fact, in a relationship where two people are supposed to become one in spirit and in body, these two individuals are divided at the deepest level, torn apart by the vast gulf that separates heaven and hell. This separation is already present and manifest in their daily life, and unless the other person also converts, one day it will become complete and permanent.

In contrast, the marriage vow between two believers is taken from God's own word (Genesis 2, Ephesians 5, etc.) and taken before God as their witness. Their ability to fulfill this vow comes from their constant contact with God's power in sanctification, and their confidence in each other is also derived from this. Just as a Christian relies on the Holy Spirit to sustain his spiritual life, and to grow in knowledge and holiness, he depends on this same power and grace to make progress in his marriage. On the other hand, there is no power and no promise for the non-Christian who takes the marriage vow. He relies on his own moral integrity and ability, and since he has neither of these or at best only an appearance of these, his marriage and all his relationships – like all his thoughts and activities – are without meaning and substance. The question of how much we are to interact with unbelievers is frequently mishandled. People err toward both extremes. There are those who think that we must deliberately disassociate with unbelievers as much as possible, but this extreme is not common in our circle. Rather, there is sometimes a need to correct a misapplication of the teaching that believers are to be "in but not of the world." Some Reformed and Evangelical believers carry this very far, riding on their version of the "cultural mandate," their denial of any "sacred vs. secular" distinction, and the false doctrine of "common grace." This line of thinking is sometimes used to excuse their licentiousness, and their lust for worldly culture, amusements, and associations. But to be "in" the world, or even to be very involved in it, does not mean that we are to embrace and befriend it.


Our interest here is whether Christians should shun all immoral non-Christians. Paul gives a negative answer, but this comes within the above context and cannot be universally applied without discrimination or qualification. Also, what reason does he offer? And what does his explanation imply? Again, Paul states that it would be impossible to shun all immoral non-Christians, because all non-Christians are immoral people, and they are everywhere. The only way to avoid them is to leave this world. At least in this passage, he does not say that to shun non-Christians is morally wrong in itself – he states only that it is practically impossible to do so. And at least in this passage, he does not say that to associate with non-Christians is in itself a desirable thing, but only that it is a practical necessity. Therefore, based on this passage, one cannot assert that the opposite of not shunning non-Christians is to befriend them and to have intimate and meaningful relationships with them.

Of course there are other reasons to associate with unbelievers. Besides the practical impossibility of avoiding them in social and business transactions, God has commanded us to bear witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ before all people by our words and deeds, through which God will summon to faith those whom he has created and chosen for salvation, and harden those whom he has created and chosen for damnation. But nothing in the entire range of our activities before the world requires us to become intimate friends with unbelievers. And in fact, it would be a spiritual, intellectual, ethical, and practical impossibility to do so – again, unless either the Christian or the non-Christian compromises his deepest commitments, in which case either the Christian is no longer a Christian, or the non-Christian is no longer a non-Christian. Therefore, although it is indeed possible for a Christian to be on friendly terms with a non-Christian on a superficial level, an intimate and profound communion is out of the question.

Vincent Cheung, Blasphemy and Mystery 12 Comments [10/25/2017 3:10:51 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 133434

First, I am guessing this person implies that my view is foreign to the Bible, so that the questions are raised against my view in particular and not against the Bible itself. Coming from a Christian, this indicates ignorance and prejudice. I am not using these words as insults but to label the problem areas. There are numerous passages in the Bible indicating that sin is God's idea – not that he condones it, but that he decrees it – both in general and in particular instances. Given the fact that it is the Bible that teaches this, the person who asks these questions against my view is ignorant of and/or prejudiced against those passages teaching that it is God who devises evil against people and that he decrees that people should commit certain sins so that they would be judged and destroyed, or otherwise be disciplined or to further some other purpose.

People often disassociate a teaching in the Bible that they dislike from the person who teaches it from the Bible, and then they make the pretense of attacking the person for the teaching, when in reality they are attacking the Bible itself. Relative to these questions, it would make no difference even if God were to "passively" cause evil (whatever that means) – since the idea of evil would still originate in God. The only way out is to say that God has no concept of evil at all, and that evil must be wholly attributed to another entity. This is the heresy of dualism – the logical conclusion that God is not the author of sin. Second, the questions are incomplete. They make an assumption that the person fails to justify or even mention. Since it is so ingrained, he is probably unaware of it. He asks, "How can God actively cause and control the evil thoughts of unregenerate men without nullifying his holiness?" But what is the problem? The question does not tell us. The assumption seems to be that to directly control evil is to commit evil – to cause sin is to commit sin, and to author sin is to be a sinner. But where does the Bible teach this?

Evil is defined by God, not by man, and unless God says that for him to directly control evil is to commit evil, then for him to directly control evil is not to commit evil. It is not up to man to say otherwise. In fact, the person who asks the question has placed himself above God. To paraphrase, the question is really, "How can God remain holy if he does something that is against my standard of what it means for God to be holy?" I shudder at the idea that someone would dare think this way, but this is what the question implies. Then, as for the question, "That is, isn't God thinking the evil thoughts before he causes men to think them?" My first reaction is, "So what?" The same is true with foreknowledge (here the word means prescience, and not the biblical meaning of foreordination). Are we now saying that God cannot foreknow any evil in order to remain holy? If so, does God know about evil after someone has done it? Would not that taint his holiness as well? Imagine all the thoughts of murder, rape, perjury, theft, and countless other sins that are in God's mind! From this perspective, God has more evil thoughts in his mind than even Satan himself. Scripture and I do not think that this is a problem, but the question implies that it is.

Do you see how unbiblical and sinister this line of reasoning is? But this is the common way of thinking. People do not realize how inconsistent and wicked it is to disallow to God something that he never forbids to himself. Of course, with foreknowledge, when God thinks thoughts of murder and rape, it is because he possesses information about how his creatures would violate his laws in these ways. It is certainly not that God would commit murder and rape. But if this is a satisfactory explanation for foreknowledge, then it is also satisfactory for the active ordination and causation of sin. It is not that God would commit these sins, but that he would actively cause his creatures to do them. And – here is the important point – there is no revealed moral law and no revelation about his nature saying that he could not or would not do this. The problem occurs only when man invents the premise and imposes it on God, and in doing so, actually thinks that he is protecting God's holiness. Third, if we are against the idea that God actively causes evil, what does it mean when we say that he passively decrees or causes it?

Yes, you can say it, but does it mean anything? Or is it nonsense? Ask someone to explain it and prove it. Bust through the standard slogans, go deeper, and see what you get. How is it metaphysically possible to infallibly ordain something and not cause it? And how is it metaphysically possible to unfailinglycause something, but do it passively? How is it possible to ordain the precise types and numbers of all sins, and the ways that they would be performed, so that all things must turn out as he has ordained, without using any active power to bring it about? How is it possible for God to merely permit evil without causing it when he is the one who sustains all things, moment by moment? Either we must attribute to man a metaphysical status and power that the Bible says he does not have – that is, the power of self-existence and self-causation, thus making man into God – or we must say that God actively causes all things.

Not everyone is oblivious to the inconsistency, but instead of deducing their theology from the Bible, they appeal to "mystery" in order to hold on to their nonsense. The view that I espouse has no mystery and no inconsistency. People do not like it just because it is againstwhat they have imposed upon God. Moreover, if they can appeal to mystery whenever they want, then I should be allowed to say mystery, mystery, mystery over and over until the critics leave me alone. But somehow their mystery is superior to my clarity. What the Bible clearly tells us is not mystery, but revelation. The appeal to mystery is often a diversion from the fact that a person sinfully refuses to accept what the Bible plainly reveals. In short, the answer is that causing evil is different from committing evil. To cause evil refers to a metaphysical relationship, while to commit evil refers to a transgression of divine moral law. For it to be wrong for God to cause evil, he must establish a self-imposed moral law stating that it is wrong for him to cause evil. If he does not do this, then he has not defined it as evil. Rather, precisely because God is righteous, all that he does is righteous by definition. Therefore, it is righteous for him to cause evil whenever he wishes.

And it is evil to oppose or to question him in this. In other words, the question skips a premise – or, it assumes a premise that is either unjustified or unmentioned. This is the assumption that for the creator to cause a creature to perform evil is for the creator himself to perform evil. This view is both irrational and blasphemous. The topic is very educational and revealing. It exposes how common it is for us to dictate to God how he must behave – he must adhere to our standard in order to remain what he says he is! Just look through all the theological publications in church history. It is almost unanimous that God cannot be "the author of sin" – but none of them can tell you why, even if some of them mention the unjustified and unbiblical assertion that for him to cause evil would be the same as to commit evil. No one in church history has ever been able to prove this premise, and few even try.

Vincent Cheung, Blasphemy and Mystery 6 Comments [10/25/2017 3:09:57 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 133433

Out of the 57 o i c countries ,only 6 are listed as being “banned”, it’s a good start for President Trump but we have to do better. The lynchpin to any western nations moslem problem is immigration !!!!! US citizens must continue to write your Congressional representatives and Senators opposing moslem immigration to America and to initiate a much stronger vetting process !!!!!

Our own State Department is the enemy from within, obama and hillary made certain of that, by driving “deep state” operatives into a system that will take years to eradicate….If we here in America won’t defend it, then WHO in the world will ????????

Buzz, Bare Naked Islam 13 Comments [10/25/2017 3:09:45 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 133432

People of God please pray for this madness to end. We must pray and cry out to God and repent for are Nation this abomination is filtering the churches and endless murder of unborn children and drag queens to read to small children at Libraries telling them it's ok to want to be a man dress like a women! The true answer is PRAY and CRYING OUT TO THE LORD! Judgement will hit this land if we the church don't pray and cry out . We are a sleep church stop all this entertainment and hand clapping for each other in the church on sunday for are works . PRAY AND REPENT

Laura Medrano, Facebook 14 Comments [10/25/2017 3:09:14 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 133421

On 20 December 2011, Adam Lanza called in to a talk radio program, AnarchyRadio, broadcasted on KWVA 88.1 FM out of the University of Oregon. The show is hosted by John Zerzan, a writer described by The Atlantic as “an intellectual leader of the anarcho-primitivist movement, an ideology that regards technology as a destroyer of human communities.” The reason for Lanza’s interest in Zerzan’s writings is plainly evident in the call itself; Lanza calls to share a story about “Travis the Chimp,” a domesticated chimpanzee that in 2009 “snapped,” and viciously attacked 55-year-old Charla Nash, a friend of the chimp’s owner. The attack was seemingly random, nearly cost the victim her life, and ended when the chimp was shot by police. Lanza outlines how the chimp’s violent episode can be explained by his upbringing “as if he were a [human] child,” and argues that Travis’s “civilized” upbringing was what led to his attack.

JOHN ZERZAN: Here we go . . . hello. We got the collapsible headphones here but, uh, we’re back.

SHOW RUNNER: [Unintelligible] . . . we’ve got Greg on the phone.

ZERZAN: Oh, Greg, okay, how’s it going?

ADAM LANZA: Hi, good. Um. I’m a fan of your writing. Um.

ZERZAN: Thank you.

LANZA: I’m sorry to [bring up?] such an old news story but I couldn’t nd anything that you said about the topic, and it seems relevant to your interests, so I thought I would bring up Travis the Chimp, do you remember him?

ZERZAN: I don’t!

LANZA: Well, he was the highly domesticated chimpanzee who lived in a suburban home
in Stamford, Connecticut.

SHOW RUNNER: Oh, yeah.


LANZA: And he was raised just like a human child, starting from the week he was born. By the time that he was fourteen years old, which would be somewhere around age twenty in human years —

ZERZAN: Uh-huh.

LANZA: —um, he slept in a bed, he took his own baths, he dressed himself, he brushed his
teeth with an electric toothbrush.

ZERZAN: [laughs] Really? When was this?

LANZA: Um. Well, this happened in early 2009.




ZERZAN: Uh-huh?

LANZA: He ate his meals at a table and enjoyed human foods like ice cream and he used a remote control to watch television and liked baseball games. And he even used a computer to look at pictures on the internet.


LANZA: And, [chuckles] it goes without saying that Travis was very overweight. He was two
hundred pounds when he should have been around the low hundreds.


LANZA: And he was actually taking Xanax.

SHOW RUNNER: [laughs]

ZERZAN: Amazing.

LANZA: I couldn’t nd any information about why he was taking it, but it just seems to say a lot that he was given it at all. And, basically, I think Travis wasn’t really any di erent than a mentally handicapped human child.


LANZA: But anyway, one day in February 2009, he was acting very agitated, and at some point grabbed the car —his owner’s car keys, went outside and started beeping from car to car, apparently wanting to go for a car ride, and he was acting very aggressively, so his owner called her friend over to get her to help him to calm down and go back inside, and once she arrived he immediately attacked her and his owner tried to stop him but couldn’t and she even resorted to stabbing him with a knife, but nothing worked. And she said that after she stabbed him he looked at her as if to say, “Why’d you do that to me, Mom?” Because appar- ently that was what the relationship was like, no di erent than between a human mother and a human child.


LANZA: So after the stabbing, she called the police, who arrived twelve minutes after the attack, at which point her friend was pretty close to dead. And once the cruiser came up, Travis went over to it, tried to open the locked passenger door. He smashed o the side-view mirror, went over to the driver’s door, opened it, and the cop shot him. He ed back into the house, where he went to his playroom and bled to death.

ZERZAN: Hmm . . .

LANZA: And um, [chuckles] this might not seem very relevant, but I’m bringing it up because afterward, everyone was condemning his owner for saying how irresponsible she was for raising a chimp like it was a child. And that she should have known something like this would happen, because chimps aren’t supposed to be living in civilization, they’re supposed to be living in the wild, among each other.


LANZA: But, their criticism stops there and the implication is that there’s no way anything could have gone wrong in his life if he had been living in this civilization as a human rather than a chimp.

ZERZAN: Ah, indeed.

LANZA: [And?] I’m so interested in Travis, um, because he brings up questions about this
whole process of child-raising. Um.


LANZA: Civilization isn’t something which just happens to gently exist without us having to do anything, because every newborn child —human child —is born in a chimp-like state, and civilization is only sustained by conditioning them for years on end so that they’ll accept it for what it is. And since we’ve gone through this conditioning, we can observe a human family raising a human child, and I’m sure that even you have trouble intuitively seeing it as something unnatural, but when we see a chimp in that position, we [visually?] know that there’s something profoundly wrong with the situation. And it’s easy to say there’s something wrong with it simply because it’s a chimp, but what’s the real di erence between us and our closest relatives? Travis wasn’t an untamed monster at all. Um, he wasn’t just feigning do- mestication, he was civilized. Um, he was able to integrate into society, he was a chimp actor when he was younger, and his owner drove him around the city frequently in association with her towing business, where he met many di erent people, and got along with everyone. If Travis had been some nasty monster all his life, it would have been widely reported, but to the contrary, it seems like everyone who knew him said how shocked they were that Travis had been so savage, because they knew him as a sweet child. And —there were two isolated incidents early in his life when he acted aggressively, but summarizing them would take too long, so basically I’ll just say that he didn’t act really any di erently than a human child would, and the people who would use that as an indictment against having chimps live as humans do wouldn’t apply the same thing to humans, so it’s just kind of irrelevant.


LANZA: But anyway, look what civilization did to him: it had the same exact e ect on him as it has on humans. He was profoundly sick, in every sense of the term, and he had to resort to these surrogate activities like watching baseball, and looking at pictures on a computer screen, and taking Xanax. He was a complete mess.


LANZA: And his attack wasn’t simply because he was a senselessly violent, impulsive chimp. Um, which was how his behavior was universally portrayed. Um, immediately before his attack, he had desperately been wanting his owner to drive him somewhere, and the best reason I can think of for why he would want that, looking at his entire life, would be that some little thing he experienced was the last straw, and he was overwhelmed by the life that he had, and he wanted to get out of it by changing his environment, and the best way that he knew how to deal with that was by getting his owner to drive him somewhere else.


LANZA: And when his owner’s —owner’s friend arrived, he knew that she was trying to coax him back into his life of domestication, and he couldn’t handle that, so —he attacked her, and anyone else who approached them. And dismissing his attack as simply being the senseless violence and impulsiveness of a chimp, instead of a human, is wishful thinking at best.

ZERZAN: Mmm-hmm.

LANZA: His attack can be seen entirely parallel to the attacks and random acts of violence
that you bring up on your show every week —

ZERZAN: Mmm . . .

Adam Lanza, School Shooters 15 Comments [10/25/2017 8:19:44 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Hu’s On First

Quote# 133420

(Responding to another member who wrote: " I have to wonder how you function day to day with information solely from far Right fringe conspiracy outlets like Breitbart."):

...{W]hy would we want to become brain dead and paranoid by watching the liberal news outlets?

I have a friend that watches the news channels like politfact, facebook, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, Univision, NYT, WaPo, HuffPo and CNN and she is paranoid now.

I feel sorry for her.


dlo_3us2001, Realabortiondebate 9 Comments [10/25/2017 8:10:49 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 133419

EPA chemical review would exclude millions of tons of toxins


BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) - Spurred by the chemical industry, President Donald Trump's administration is retreating from a congressionally mandated review of some of the most dangerous chemicals in public use: millions of tons of asbestos, flame retardants and other toxins in homes, offices and industrial plants across the United States.

Instead of following President Barack Obama's proposal to look at chemicals already in widespread use that result in some of the most common exposures, the new administration wants to limit the review to products still being manufactured and entering the marketplace.

For asbestos, that means gauging the risks from just a few hundred tons of the material imported annually while excluding almost all of the estimated 8.9 million tons (8.1 million metric tons) of asbestos-containing products that the U.S. Geological Survey said entered the marketplace between 1970 and 2016.

Lawmakers say the review was intended to be the first step toward enacting new regulations needed to protect the public. But critics - including health workers, consumer advocates, members of Congress and environmental groups - contend ignoring products already in use undermines that goal.

The administration's stance is the latest example of Trump siding with industry. In this case, firefighters and construction workers say the move jeopardizes their health.

Both groups risk harm from asbestos because of its historical popularity in construction materials ranging from roofing and flooring tiles to insulation used in tens of millions of homes. Most of the insulation came from a mine in a Montana town that's been declared a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund site and where hundreds of people have died from asbestos exposure.

"Hundreds of thousands of firefighters are going to be affected by this. It is by far the biggest hazard we have out there," said Patrick Morrison, assistant general president for health and safety at the International Association of Fire Fighters. "My God, these are not just firefighters at risk. There are people that live in these structures and don't know the danger of asbestos."

Asbestos fibers can become deadly when disturbed in a fire or during remodeling, lodging in the lungs and causing problems including mesothelioma, a form of cancer. The material's dangers have long been recognized. But a 1989 attempt to ban most asbestos products was overturned by a federal court, and it remains in widespread use.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health analyzed cancer-related deaths among 30,000 firefighters from Chicago, Philadelphia and San Francisco. The 2015 study concluded firefighters contract mesothelioma at twice the rate of other U.S. residents.

Firefighters also face exposure to flame retardants included in the EPA's review that are used in furniture and other products.

"I believe the chemical industry is killing firefighters," said Tony Stefani, a former San Francisco fireman who retired in 2003 after 28 years when diagnosed with cancer he believes resulted from exposure to chemicals in the pending review.

Stefani said he was one of five in his station to contract cancer in a short period. Three later died, while Stefani had a kidney removed and endured a year of treatment before being declared cancer-free.

"When I entered the department in the early 70s, our biggest fear was dying in the line of duty or succumbing to a heart attack," he said. "Those were the biggest killers, not cancer. But we work in a hazardous-materials situation every time we have a fire now."

Mesothelioma caused or contributed to more than 45,000 deaths nationwide between 1999 and 2015, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study in March. The number of people dying annually from the disease increased about 5 percent during that time.

Congress ordered the EPA review last year to gauge risks of asbestos and nine other highly toxic substances and find better ways to manage them for public safety.

In one of its last acts under Obama, the EPA said in January it would judge the chemicals "in a comprehensive way" based on their "known, intended and reasonably foreseen uses."

Under Trump, the agency has aligned with the chemical industry, which sought to narrow the review's scope. The EPA now says it will focus only on toxins still being manufactured and entering commerce. It won't consider whether new handling and disposal rules are needed for "legacy," or previously existing, materials.

"EPA considers that such purposes generally fall outside of the circumstances Congress intended EPA to consider," said EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones, adding the agency lacks authority to regulate noncommercial uses of the chemicals.

One of the law's co-authors, New Mexico Democratic Sen. Tom Udall, disputes that Congress wanted to limit the review.

"It doesn't matter whether the dangerous substance is no longer being manufactured; if people are still being exposed, then there is still a risk," Udall told The Associated Press. "Ignoring these circumstances would openly violate the letter and the underlying purpose of the law."

Rep. Frank Pallone of New York, ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the EPA was deferring to the chemical industry's wishes at the expense of public health.

Democrats and public health advocates have criticized EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt for hiring two people - Nancy Beck, the agency's deputy assistant administrator for chemical safety, and Liz Bowman, its associate administrator for public affairs - who formerly worked for the American Chemistry Council, the industry's lobbying arm.

The council pushed back against the Obama administration's interpretation of the law, urging the EPA's new leadership to narrow its review. The Trump administration did that in June.

"Did we get everything we wanted? No. But we certainly agree the (Trump) administration put forth a reasonable final rule," said council vice president Michael Walls. Broadening the review, he added, would send the EPA "down a rabbit hole chasing after illusory risks."

The politically influential National Association of Homebuilders, which represents the residential construction industry, fears broadly interpreting the new law would lead to burdensome regulations that are unnecessary because it says asbestos disposal rules already are adequate.

Many of those regulations are based on a 1994 Occupational Safety and Health Administration finding that materials had to contain at least 1 percent asbestos to qualify for regulation. But public health experts say the 1 percent threshold is arbitrary.

"It's bad medicine, and it's harmful," said Michael Harbut, an internal medicine professor at Detroit's Wayne State University and medical adviser to an insulation workers' union.

"There's still a lot of asbestos out there," said Harbut, who helped establish criteria used by physicians to diagnose and treat asbestos-related diseases. "It's still legal, it's still deadly, and it's going to be a problem for decades to come."

EPA, WIS 9 Comments [10/25/2017 8:10:17 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Thanos6

Quote# 133414

Original in German (see link), translated by SomeApe.

The movement against Cultural Appropriation is growing. Yvonne Apiyo Brändle-Amolo is part of it. She thinks it's an impudence when white designers put models in african clothing on the catwalk. The 41 year old Kenyan, who lives in Switzerland for 17 years now, is president of SP-Migrants Zurich. «We wear this clothing since centuries. Never did we get a compliment for it. But as soon as a white person lays their hands on it and sells it as their own newest creation, they get praised to heaven and make a lot of money with it.»

Brändle-Amolo also finds it disturbing when white people wear African hairstyles or play African music. «When we black people wear an Afrolook or Dreadlocks, the hairstyle is considered unkempt. But as soon as Kim Kardashian wears Cornrows, it's a huge trend», says the artist and intercultural mediator. White people would wear the hairstyle in a naive way, without even knowing what lays behind it: «Cornrows constituted maps and served the slaves as escape routes out of the plantations.»

Submitter's note:
This is Yvonne Brändle:

Yes, she's wearing Swiss traditional clothes (Tracht) and yodels.

Yvonne Apiyo Brändle-Amolo, 20min 22 Comments [10/25/2017 2:46:35 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: SomeApe

Quote# 133411

The whole Edomite Caucasian race are devils. From the men to the woman. Even the little watermelon head baby. That's why the scripture says happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones

Asar'el Ben Israel, Facebook 8 Comments [10/24/2017 10:40:07 PM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 133410

yes, lock, lets get rid of all those Christians that are bombing the hll out of us, mistreating women, sexually mutilating young girls, pushing for sharia law (that allows beating of women, distributes property differently to women than men, kills gays, lesbians, etc), sexually assults women because it is acceptable in their culture, etc. Oh wait, that does not describe CHRISTIANS but it does describe MUSLIMS> One of us must be confused about the actions of Christians vs muslims.

stopspending4, Washington Times  14 Comments [10/24/2017 10:39:54 PM]
Fundie Index: 9

Quote# 133406

Although I began to practice Dafa in 1997, I did not experience a major tribulation until March 2017. Although it was touch and go, my belief in Master and the Fa was instrumental in my overcoming this tribulation. I felt heartburn after lunch on March 5, 2017, but did not pay much attention. However, the pain worsened, and was accompanied with nausea and vomiting. Although the pain stopped after a while, it returned intermittently in my heart, liver, abdomen, or lower back.

My appetite was gone and I could not eat anything for the next nine days. If I tried to eat, I vomited, and even vomited on an empty stomach. I also felt pain off and on, and usually for an hour. Sometimes I fell asleep while enduring the pain and my mind was clear after I woke up.

I knew that this tribulation was a test, so I had to be steadfast and completely believe in Master and Dafa. When I was awake, I listened to Master's lectures and recited Hong Yin, so I could uphold righteous thoughts. I also did the exercises as often as I could. I was not afraid of death, but I was afraid of tarnishing the reputation of Master and Dafa.

When I felt most miserable, I thought of doing the bigu method, which would mean that I would have to abstain from food and water. I dismissed the idea quickly, as Master has said that Dafa practice does not involve bigu. So, I ate a little bit off and on and asked Master to help me, because my time to pass on had not come yet.

Additionally, I kept looking inward for my attachments. From studying the Fa, I was certain that this was not an illness. I said in my mind that I was Master Li Hongzhi's disciple and a veteran practitioner. I only follow Master's arrangement and negate the old forces and their arrangements. Even though I had loopholes, I would correct them in the process of my cultivation. The old forces did not have the right to test or interfere with me. It took a while to convince my family members of my reasons for not going to the hospital, by helping them understand that this was a cultivation issue.

When the pain was excruciating, I said to Master, “Master, why am I unable to bear the pain? I know your arrangement for me should all be bearable. What did I do wrong? Please give me some hints. I will do better.” At that moment, energy moved from my lower abdominal area towards my head. When it reached my neck, it disappeared and my entire body became free of pain.

After that day, I vomited again, but the pain had lessened and was bearable. I knew that Master had reduced my tribulation and born some of the the pain for me. I had to do the rest myself and pass the test. I recovered after two-and-a-half months. My husband, a Chinese medicine doctor witnessed my return to good health without any treatment. He told my relatives and friends, “Anyone would have died from organ failure after seven days of no food or drink, but she still survived after nine days. She made it by believing in her Master and Dafa and Fa study and exercises. It is extraordinary!”

Unknown author, Minghui 2 Comments [10/24/2017 10:32:53 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 133390

Marriage tax benefits are discriminatory against incels. As a working, taxpaying Incel, I find that marriage tax benefits are nothing but discriminatory towards me. Why the fuck should I be forced to subsidize Chads/Tyrones and his six different children kids from three different cum dumpsters?

If the government does not provide me with sex - even though I am entitled to it and it is my God given, divine right - why should I continue to give them money to something that doesn't concern me in any sort of way? It's just downright unacceptable. The law itself is just targeted directly at working and taxpaying Incels who are affected disproportionately compared to other minority groups.

Lookismisreal, r/incels 18 Comments [10/24/2017 10:29:07 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Katie
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20 25 27 | top