Quote# 133977

The Left is about ripping apart anything to do with tradition and America as founded. This is just another step on the trail.

WeWaWes, Free Republic 10 Comments [11/8/2017 11:18:49 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 133975

Muzslime think all of us are idiots like they are. They don’t understand that in western nations ALL of us are taught to read and encouraged and learn for ourselves.

We can read for ourselves what the vile putrid muzslime book says. We can actually understand what the ugly bastards are planning. We can understand that they are born into their putrid evil and that all they do is LIE about EVERYTHING.

Don Spilman, Bare Naked Islam 8 Comments [11/8/2017 10:53:17 PM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 133974

England is determined to put Muslims first no matter what. I read the other day that a man threw part of a bacon sandwich into a mosque doorway and was jailed for two years. He was put in with all the Muslim filth who promptly murdered him for his heinous crime.

I really admire Jayda for what she is doing and wish her all the best and to stay safe.

But I just thank God that my family and I got out.

Shelagh, Bare Naked Islam 6 Comments [11/8/2017 10:53:07 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 133972

As you are reading this article perhaps you are smelling something. Maybe someone is cooking in the kitchen or perhaps someone has walked past you who is wearing some perfume or after-shave. If so, some of the six million smelling cells inside your nose have been stimulated. Have you ever noticed that, when you have a cold, you cannot taste your food so well? That is because the sense of smell helps to identify the finer flavours.

It is also why our noses are where they are; they help us make sure we are only putting good things in our mouths. There are tiny hairs on the smell-receptor cells inside our nose and they detect smells by their shape. Yes! I am sure you did not know smells had shapes. The different smell shapes fit into different hair sensors which then send electrical messages to the brain, where the smells are organised and analysed.

The average person can detect up to 10 000 separate smells. How could this ability to smell have evolved? How could the smell receptor hairs have evolved? Evolutionists might argue that a mutation produced a hair shape that matched the smell of a dangerous predator; so the animal survived because it could smell the predator and get away more quickly. All this might sound plausible, until you consider that this would have needed at least another 10 000 such positive random mutations. Remember, we still do not have evidence of even one positive random mutation!

As you read this, maybe you are sitting in a comfortable chair with a cushion on your lap, or perhaps you are sitting on a hard chair wishing you had a soft cushion to sit on. How do you know how to hold this magazine without letting it fall from your hands? How are you able to turn over the pages one by one without crushing them? All these sensations and actions come about because of your sense of touch.

We can detect four different types of sensation: heat, cold, pain and pressure – and these combine to give lots of different feelings. Our skin surface is constantly monitoring our contact with the environment. There are different types of receptors all over our bodies constantly taking in information about the world around us and about what we are doing. All the different signals being sent to the brain are important for our protection, pleasure and well-being. Does this sound like the work of lots of random mutations or does it sound like an intended design feature?

Perhaps, while you are reading this article you are having a snack: maybe some coke or coffee; perhaps a bag of crisps; or, if you are trying to keep healthy, an apple. Maybe you have a sweet tooth, and you like chocolate and sugary things; or perhaps you prefer savoury snacks like crisps and nuts. Whatever our personal preferences, we all recognise different tastes in the same way.

On our tongue there are over 10 000 taste buds. As food passes through our mouth, the taste buds collect molecules from the food by their shape, size or electrical charge and then send that information to the brain to be interpreted. Meanwhile other sensors detect the texture, temperature and moistness of the food. As we chew and break up the food, our saliva glands are at work producing saliva to make the food easier to swallow and digest.

There is no evidence of primitive animals with partly-formed tongues, lips or mouths. What use would a partly-formed mouth have been? And what use would a mouth have been without the food pipe to connect it to the intestines? Clearly, all the parts of the eating system would need to be formed at the same time before a person or an animal could eat and get nourishment. Yet Evolutionists have to assume that many random mutations took place over a very long period of time, and that natural selection recognised these random mutations as useful. Their theory gives rise to more questions than answers. Creationists accept that God has given us the gift of taste and that this is how He designed and created us.

The brief overview of our five senses given here demonstrates how amazingly complex and intricate our bodies are. The different aspects we have been looking at are highly complex, but the fact that they all fit together and can work in harmony for the benefit of the individual is even more wonderful. It would be good if everyone could say as David did: “I will praise Thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are Thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well” (Psalm 139:14).

If people who believe in evolution would really consider how complex is the world around them, they would have problems. They would have to conclude that, no matter how many random mutations occurred, human beings could not have been produced, nor could any of the wonderful plants and animals in the world around us. The evidence from the past that is available for scientific analysis fits easily into a Creationist’s view of the world; but it needs a lot of speculation to make it fit even partially into the evolutionary view. Evolution is the only branch of science where speculation is accepted as reliable evidence.

Although it is good and right to acknowledge God’s wisdom and power as our Creator, He has given an even greater demonstration of His wisdom and power in His plan for saving sinners from their sins. So each one of us should ask God to “create a clean heart” within us (Psalm 51:10). Then we might know something of the experience which the Apostle Paul wrote about to the Corinthians: “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Corinthians 5:17).

We hope these articles will encourage you to read more about the evidence for Creation and against Evolution – especially if you are likely to face questions on the subject during your education or in your workplace. There are many good books on the subject, and the quarterly magazines produced by Answers in Genesis are also an excellent source of information.`

S M Campbell, Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland 11 Comments [11/8/2017 10:52:40 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 133971

From the context it would seem that the dust that God created man from was, indeed, the dust of the ground from the earth that God had previously made, namely the ground from which plants and trees come (vs. 6&9).

I am not at all certain (and in fact I am convinced that it is often quite the opposite) that one must reconcile what God's Word says with man's theories about the origin of the universe. That is, even if some reconciliation can be made, does not imply that reconciliation must be made. If Dr. Krauss claims a universe from nothing, that is without a personal, creator God, he has, in the Bible's estimation made himself a fool (see Psalm 14:1).

In this case one is not obligated to listen to a fool or follow in his ways. If Dr. Krauss claims a universe from nothing, that is by the direct, creative act of God, he has come closer to the truth but is still in no position to claim that man was made from stardust since he cannot know that with absolute certainty.

For remember that scientific research and conclusions are not infallible but mostly present a scholar's opinion or generally received opinion about something without being certain that it is true. Sometimes assumptions are made, for example, that similarity proves a common ancestor but this begs the question. It may be a helpful or useful explanation, but this does not make it true.

So may I ask: is there anything similar about stardust and 'earth' dust that may lead one to prefer the one over the other without knowing that for certain? Furthermore, what scientific evidence does he provide? Does it truly contradict the scripture's claim that we are made from the dust of the earth, or is another explanation possible?

Poimen, Puritan Board 3 Comments [11/8/2017 10:52:13 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 133970

I think that evolution is one of the single greatest apologetical tasks facing the church today. The problem is we don't realize how pervasive evolutionary thinking is, example. I was watching the movie "cloudy with a chance of meatballs" with my 8 year old daughter a few weeks ago or more and in the movie, spoiler alert!, a sattelite basically shoots up into the sky and rains down any kind of food you want.

But when it gets out of control and the inventor goes into the sky to stop it they discover that through a series of small changes and additions of food the sattelite has become "self-concious" and tries to stop them. This idea of small mainly physical changes that produce a whole new type of thing, self-concious verses nonself-concious, is evolutionary logic to its core.

So there I was amazed that they would seep this type of ideas into a childrens movie just to advance their worldview. Someone once said that the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world that he didn't exist. I say that the second greatest trick the devil pulled was to realize that if he changes the way that we ordinaraly talk about things he can change how we think about things.

He is doing this for evolution in our societies, when two love struck, probably young people, talk about just happening to meet eachother, implying an almost random meeting, and being "perfect" for eachother is changing the way we talk into evolutionary ways of thinking. This change in talk softens the blow when they ask us to blindly accept evolution as truth when it is false.

jwright82, Puritan Board 7 Comments [11/8/2017 10:51:23 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 133969

When The Saints Of First Baptist Church Were Murdered, God Was Answering Their Prayers

Sometimes, God's will is done by allowing temporal evil to be the means through which he delivers us from eternal evil.

“Prayers don’t work. We need legislation.” This has been many secular progressives’ mantra in response to recent mass shootings in America. On Sunday, after a gunman murdered more than 20 people during a church service in Sutherland Springs, Texas, some of them found proof of the powerlessness of prayer. [...]

People of goodwill can certainly disagree over the merits of gun control legislation, just as we can disagree over how long we should wait after a tragedy to discuss its political ramifications. However, we should all recognize that pointing to a couple dozen warm corpses and saying, “Fat lot of good your Jebus-begging did you” is an act of profound ugliness.

It’s also an act of profound ignorance. For those with little understanding of and less regard for the Christian faith, there may be no greater image of prayer’s futility than Christians being gunned down mid-supplication. But for those familiar with the Bible’s promises concerning prayer and violence, nothing could be further from the truth. When those saints of First Baptist Church were murdered yesterday, God wasn’t ignoring their prayers. He was answering them.

“Deliver us from evil.” Millions of Christians throughout the world pray these words every Sunday morning. While it doesn’t appear that the Lord’s Prayer is formally a part of the worship services at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, I have no doubt that members of that congregation have prayed these words countless times in their lives.

Evil Isn’t Just Temporal
When we pray these words, we are certainly praying that God would deliver us from evil temporally—that is, in this earthly life. Through these words, we are asking God to send his holy angels to guard us from those who would seek to destroy us with knives and bombs and bullets. It may seem, on the surface, that God was refusing to give such protection to his Texan children. But we are also praying that God would deliver us from evil eternally. Through these same words, we are asking God to deliver us out of this evil world and into his heavenly glory, where no violence, persecution, cruelty, or hatred will ever afflict us again.

We also pray in the Lord’s Prayer that God’s will be done. Sometimes, his will is done by allowing temporal evil to be the means through which he delivers us from eternal evil. Despite the best (or, more accurately, the worst) intentions of the wicked against his children, God hoists them on their own petard by using their wickedness to give those children his victory, even as the wicked often mock the prayers of their prey.

During Christ’s crucifixion, for example, the same chief priests, scribes, and elders who conspired to put Jesus to death mocked him, saying, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God’”

Yet God proved his son’s divinity by, three days later, lifting him up out of the death those men gave him. Despite the chief priests, elders, and scribes doing all they could to silence the one who claimed to be the savior of the world, God turned their hatred into the catalyst of the world’s salvation.

Your Evil Has Secured My Eternal Bliss
Because of Christ’s saving death and resurrection, death no longer has any power over those who belong to him through faith. So the enemies of the gospel can pour out their murderous rage upon Christians, but all they can truly accomplish is placing us into the arms of our savior.

Saint Stephen was stoned to death after proclaiming the glory of Christ, but those who took his life only succeeded at being God’s instrument for answering his penultimate prayer, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Those who put the early martyrs to the sword surely mocked the God who wasn’t there to protect his followers. Yet through this very persecution God honored his promise to welcome his faithful into his eternal protection.

So when a madman with a rifle sought to persecute the faithful at First Baptist Church on Sunday morning, he failed. Just like those who put Christ to death, and just like those who have brought violence to believers in every generation, this man only succeeded in being the means through which God delivered his children from this evil world into an eternity of righteousness and peace.

“We do not need to fear the day of persecution that’s coming to the church, because God said it’s going to come. He warned us over 2,000 years ago the day was coming. And rather than fear it, He said just endure it. Now ‘endure it’ is a hard word. ‘Endure it’ doesn’t mean that they might take your ice cream away today. ‘Endure it’ means it may be a rough day. It may be a rough few years. But the one who endures to the end will be delivered.”

These are words that First Baptist’s pastor, Frank Pomeroy, preached on October 19, 2014—a little more than three years before his 14-year-old daughter and 25 other members of his congregation were murdered. Despite the immense sorrow he, his family, and his congregation are now experiencing, I pray they will still trust in these words.

Despite the horror that madman made the saints of First Baptist endure, those who endured it with faith in Christ have received his victory. Although the murderer filled their eyes with terror, God has now filled them with his glory. Although he persecuted them with violence, God seized that violence and has now used it to deliver his faithful into a kingdom of peace. Although this madman brought death to so many, God has used that death to give them the eternal life won for them in the blood of Jesus.

Those who persecute the church and those who mock Christians for trusting in Almighty God rather than Almighty Government may believe that the bloodshed in Texas proves the futility of prayer. But we believers see the shooting in Texas as proof of something far different—proof that Christ has counted us worthy to suffer dishonor for his name and proof that no amount of dishonor, persecution, or violence can stop him from answering our prayer to deliver us from evil.

Hans Fiene, The Federalist 7 Comments [11/8/2017 10:51:06 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Yossarian Lives

Quote# 133943

Just four days before the release of her newest album, a letter from Taylor Swift's attorney demanding that a website retract and delete an article critical of has has drawn a sharp (but also winking) rebuke from the American Civil Liberties Union.

A letter dated Oct. 25 and addressed to Meghan Herning, the executive editor of a small California blog named PopFront, claimed that the site's article titled "Swiftly to the alt-right: Taylor subtly gets the lower case kkk in formation" was defamatory and that if it was not retracted and removed, "Ms. Swift is prepared to proceed with litigation," according to a copy of it made public by the ACLU.

(The letter's author, attorney William J. Briggs II, did not respond to a request confirming its authenticity, nor did a Swift representative respond to a request confirming that Briggs represents Swift.)

The article in question — which veers between Kanye West's interruption of Swift at an awards show, the appropriation of Swift by white nationalists, the eugenics movement of the early 20th century, World War II and American silence toward the Nazi Party, and the lyrics of Swift's recent single "Look What You Made Me Do" — ultimately argues that Swift's perceived silence on political issues "is not innocent, it is calculated." The article argues that by not tacitly embracing progressive politics, Swift "could well be construed as her lending support to the voices rising against embracing diversity and inclusion emblematic of Trump supporters."

The article's rhetorical veracity is not the point for the ACLU, however — only that PopFront was stating an opinion about Swift, not asserting any facts.

In its response, the ACLU of Northern California writes that "Ms. Herning and PopFront will not in any way accede" to the demands. Swift is a public figure — as the ACLU explains — a designation that gives critics and journalists broad protections in what they can legally write about those figures. Anyone suing for defamation on behalf of a public figure must prove both that the writer whom they're suing published false information and was aware beforehand it was false and published it anyway. In addition, opinion is, by definition, not defamation.

The ACLU writes that Briggs' letter, a "threat" according to PopFront, does not convincingly argue that the blog purposefully defamed Swift. "Criticism is never pleasant, but a celebrity has to shake it off, even if the critique may damage her reputation," reads the ACLU's letter — shoehorning in two references to Swift's upcoming album Reputation and her 2014 hit "Shake It Off," in a single sentence.

In his letter, Briggs points to two instances that seem to undercut any connection between Swift and far-right political movements. He refers to a Washington Post story without any Swift comment that says there is no reason to think she is a neo-Nazi; he also quotes one of Swift's lawyers as saying it was safe to say "the singer is not amused" by the allegations. Briggs' cease-and-desist itself could possibly be taken as a third denial.

In a PopFront post on Monday, both Broadly, a Vice vertical "devoted to representing the multiplicity of women's experiences," and Complex Media were cited as publishing similar articles addressing the alt-right's appropriation of Swift. Requests to both asking whether they had received similar letters from Swift's attorneys were not immediately returned.

Reputation, Swift's sixth studio album, is out on Nov. 10.

Meghan Herning, NPR 3 Comments [11/8/2017 10:50:49 PM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 133928

chrishemsworth Dear open minded, free speaking, laid back, life loving aussies. Marriage is about love and commitment and, in a country based on equal citizenship, it should be available to everyone! Vote now for marriage equality ??#equality

dinen90 Hello aussie friends. Please don't support him about this. Don't you think if this craziest plan have been legalised, there will be no next generation who build aussie. Please think about it

dinen90, Instagram 10 Comments [11/8/2017 10:48:43 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 133968

Lady Checkmate's headline: "North Korea warns of 'abyss of doom' if 'lunatic' Trump remains president"

Does that clown really think we'd give up one of the greatest potus to ever hold office? He must be colluding with the alt left losers

Lady Checkmate, Disqus - News Network 21 Comments [11/8/2017 11:09:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Jocast

Quote# 133967

(=A comment on a article written by Tommy Clayton on God loving both the elect and non elect=)

The short answer to your question is no, the apostle John was not teaching that God’s wrath has been satisfied toward both the elect and non-elect. Since the word propitiation means "appeased," we can be certain John was only talking about those who would believe in 1 John 2:2.

There is a lengthy, but extremely helpful footnote on that passage in the MacArthur Study Bible. With simplicity and clarity, John explains what the apostle meant by the phrase “the whole world.” Take a look:

for the whole world This is a generic term, referring not to every single individual, but to mankind in general. Christ actually paid the penalty only for those who would repent and believe. A number of Scriptures indicate that Christ died for the world (John 1:29; 3:16; 6:51; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 2:9). Most of the world will be eternally condemned to hell to pay for their own sins, so they could not have been paid for by Christ. The passages which speak of Christ’s dying for the whole world must be understood to refer to mankind in general (as in Titus 2:3,4). “World” indicates the sphere, the beings toward whom God seeks reconciliation and has provided propitiation. God has mitigated His wrath on sinners temporarily, by letting them live and enjoy earthly life (see note on 1 Tim. 4:10). In that sense, Christ has provided a brief, temporal propitiation for the whole world. But He actually satisfied fully the wrath of God eternally only for the elect who believe. Christ’s death in itself had unlimited and infinite value because He is Holy God. Thus His sacrifice was sufficient to pay the penalty for all the sins of all whom God brings to faith. But the actual satisfaction and atonement was made only for those who believe (cf. John 10:11,15; 17:9,20; Acts 20:28; Rom. 8:32,37; Eph. 5:25). The pardon for sin is offered to the whole world, but received only by those who believe (cf. 4:9,14; John 5:24). There is no other way to be reconciled to God. (The MacArthur Study Bible, 1 Jn. 2:2)

Concerning God’s wrath being unsatisfied toward unbelievers, Paul said this in Romans 2:5, But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each person according to his deeds.

Also see chapters 6-19 of Revelation, which chronicle the future judgments of God. That section is characterized by one wave of wrath after another. 6:16-17 says, And they said to the mountains and to the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?”

I hope that helps answer your question, Caleb. Thanks for your comment.

Tommy Clayton, Grace to You 4 Comments [11/8/2017 10:51:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 133965

One thing to say for the left; they are predictable.




Mick Williams, Disqus - Faith & Religion 16 Comments [11/8/2017 10:48:55 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 133963

SJW's should get a proper job, a proper wife and a kid or two. then, they would become a good old fashioned alt-right....just like me.

but since these people don't (with their wages, their loose shagging and their resentment of kids and any other family value, their abysmal musical taste); being the socialist twits that they are, their parasitarian lifestyle is secured

sacko, Queen Online 18 Comments [11/8/2017 10:47:16 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: KingOfRhye

Quote# 133962

All muslims (except ones who do not believe entirely in the koran and those are far and few between) want to take over the world.

ISIS is militant.

Others give money for them or will not condemn them.

And we have to shut up or be called islamophobic.

All you have to do is look how they are taking over other countries and those aren't ISIS. There are no go zones -- and those are not ISIS.

They are a pox and I don't want them here.

We already have too many.
Cher


sharaleigh23, Realabortiondebate 2 Comments [11/8/2017 10:45:28 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 133961

[ on a 13 year old girl having sex with 22 adult men ]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8110663.stm

The problem is that the girls see being with older men as a sign of maturity. The men shouldn't be taking advantage of that, it's terrible.


Hmmm....reading the article on this...it seems the other way round.

If sex is offered to blokes...most will take it as it is their nature. :rolleyes:

Most blokes will have sex with a child if offered? Really? Would you?

I believe the child in this case was misguided for certain, but it was the men who had sex with her who made the greater error and as the adults involved in the situation, should be held responsible.


If she looked and acted older than 13...then YES I would - as many blokes would do.

Sex is NOT the thing an actual 'child' would do though is it? (being blunt here) This is what my disagreement will always be - the fact that if they are ADULT enough to agree to ADULT activities...then mentally they are NOT a child just because of their age.

If a 13 year old craves sex so badly that she takes on 22 blokes older than her...then she is (physically and mentally) NOT a child is she because she knows EXACTLY what she is doing and she knows what SEX is!

You wouldn't get an 8 year old doing this because they are mentally and physically still a child and they wouldn't know what sex is all about. Everyone matures at DIFFERENT ages so I will always fail to understand WHY we live in such an ageist society. Girls mature at different ages....some at 12...some at 13...some at 14 and some at 18 and nothing will stop what comes naturally and if girls want sex at that age and their hormones are READY...then girls will have sex regardless of what the alleged outdated laws say. The laws (and VERY seriously) need to get a grip with nature and society and wake up to the reality that girls will do what comes naturally at what age they feel is ready, and in my personal views...their private life has nothing to do with 'outdated laws' of which are out of touch with reality or whatever age they are 'allegedly supposed to have sex' as it is their OWN decision and they are fully aware of consenting.

All this hype about...ahhh...she's ONLY 13 blah...blah...is utter crap as they know what they are doing or else they wouldn't go looking for it in the first place would they? :rolleyes:

For god sake...I wish people would wake up to 21st century reality instead of living in a fantasy world where all 13 year olds are safely tucked up in bed at 9.00pm with their teddy bears...

What is the point on the laws taking pity on something out of their control and making guys look like deliberate sex offenders when both have consented at their own peril?

I have a 13 year old daughter and some of the comments on here make me shudder. I tell you now, if I found out any 27 year old bloke had tried to have sex with her, he wouldn't be having sex with anyone else for the rest of his life.

Clearly the signs of an unhappy, unloved and disturbed young lady.

This guy knew exactly what he was doing, and didn't give a damn. I hope they lock him up for a long time. He obviously knew she was 13 by the quote above. I don't care how much she "came on" or encouraged the sex - he should have walked away. It's called self-control and having responsibility for your actions.


Well clearly reading the statement...'she' couldn't give a damn either so where does that leave responsibility? Why didn't SHE walk away if she was so concerned and being allegedly under age?

If they have BOTH given consent then no one is to physically blame for what comes naturally! I can see your concern...but you need to look at the bigger picture. A 17 year old or a 25 year old can just as easily take on 22 guys for sexual intentions and you could state that they are screwed up and unhappy. Most girls do this just for fun and to get sexual kicks of which many may disagree...but we are in the 21st century where girls are now more open/ grown up and will have sex at what age they feel suited to.

It takes TWO to tango regardless of age and girls are as much to blame...if not more! :rolleyes:

Are you serious? really? If a thirteen year old girl is "giving out" then my first thought would be that she is clearly in need of help. As an older person you have GOT to take responsibility in that situation, not take advantage of it. She obviously WASN'T concerned about it - which should only serve to heighten the sense that all is not well........


Look at the teenage pregnancies...doesn't that ring alarm bells of what young teenage girls are up to?

Isn't it up to THEM to take 50% of responsibility because they know EXACTLY what they are doing???

Girls will do what comes naturally whenever they feel ready...and NOT what the law states and guys will (again) do what comes naturally if it is offered and consented.

Just because girls at 13 have sex, it does not mean their state of mind is screwed up as they are only doing what comes naturally. They are NOT going to hold back just because the law says so. This is what I mean by living in an outdated society. The laws (and people alike - including parents) need to wake up to reality as the situation is not going to go away...but instead needs to be addressed accordingly...and above all 'realisticly'

Andy Carleton, Digital spy 29 Comments [11/8/2017 10:44:59 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 133959

I think it is important to consider that in the United States, the average life expectancy is 77 years old, while the lifespan of the average transgendered individual is 35. Defying God’s natural law has severe ramifications on physical and mental health. Pumping men with estrogen for long periods of time results in increased risk for cardiovascular problems, blood clots, and other issues ranging from excessive emotional distress to morbid obesity. For those with a family history of heart disease, this so-called “treatment” will cause cardiovascular related death more quickly than eating Big Macs and fries for every meal every day of the week while drinking gallons of soda and living a sedentary lifestyle. This is why I believe that “cross-sex hormone therapy” should be banned as it violates the first precept of the Hippocratic Oath; the strongly negative effects from this “treatment” proves God’s natural law displayed in Genesis 1:27. Therefore the most humane thing would be to reinforce proper gender roles and possibly administer an antipsychotic such as Pimozide or Thorazine, instead of doing the equivalent of giving an alcoholic a fifth of Jack Daniels as the essay clearly states. It’s enabling, it’s inhumane, and it’s inherently harmful and detrimental.—William Grimes (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The Rev. William H. Grimes, RationalWiki 27 Comments [11/8/2017 10:44:26 AM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 133957

Is God Capricious?


HC Q. 12. Since then by the righteous judgment of God we deserve temporal and eternal punishment, how may we escape this punishment and be again received into favor?

God wills that His justice be satisfied;1 therefore we must make full satisfaction to the same, either by ourselves or by another.2 1 Exodus 20:5. Exodus 23:7. 1 Romans 8:3,4.With this question we begin considering the second part of the catechism or the "grace" section of "guilt, grace, and gratitude."

***

One of the great misconceptions about the Augustinian doctrine of divine sovereignty, which was restated by the Protestant Reformers and which came to expression in the Reformed confessions, is that it makes God arbitrary or capricious.

Without reflection or if we start from the wrong place, the acts of God might seem arbitrary. After all, during the fires, one house was taken and one was left behind. It's not evident that there is any way to say that this house was taken but that one was left because of anything intrinsic to each house. It's a mystery of providence. Of course folk frequently and falsely set up cause and effect relations to explain providence but Jesus isn't having any of it (see John 9). This fact, however, does not mean that we cannot say anything about God's justice nor does it mean that God is really capricious. The charge that the God of Scripture is capricious rests ultimately on the assumption that unless we can explain his actions then we may sit in judgment upon them and him. In other words, the charge rests upon rationalism. Of course we cannot explain all of God's acts and we cannot explain fully any of them! His ways are are higher than our ways. His thoughts are not our thoughts. If he did explain himself fully it would consume us. We are not capable of understanding.

If we consider that God always acts according to his nature, then he cannot be said to be arbitrary, especially if we concede that God's understanding of his justice transcends our ability to comprehend it. That is a great difference between the triune God of Holy Scripture revealed in Christ Jesus and Allah or fate. The god of Islam really is capricious. He may forgive or he may not. No one can know. Allah cannot be known. He is utterly hidden. Indeed, he isn't even really personal. The alleged identity of Yahweh and Allah is a great myth of liberalism and universalism. Such a claim is an insult both to Christianity and to Islam.

The God of Scripture is, in himself, hidden from us but he also reveals himself to us and what he reveals to us is true. There is a great divide between the Creator and the creature. We cannot know things as God knows them and we cannot know God as he knows himself, but we can know God because he has come to us and made himself known. He has revealed himself in creation and in redemption and chiefly in his Son, the Word: Jesus the Messiah.

We can correlate God's promises to his saving acts in redemptive history. We can and must count him faithful to fulfill his law and his promises. He threatens judgment for sin. He threatens death for sin and he fulfills that curse (Gen 2:17; Exod 20:5). The whole history of the Israelite holy war against Canaan is the history of God's righteous judgment upon unbelief and sin. He says: "…I will not acquit the guilty" (Exod 23:7). Every human being is personally obligated to produce perfect righteousness before God (Ex 34:7; Ez 18.4,20; 2 Thess 1:8-10; Gal 3:10). Unlike Allah, the God who is, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is not arbitrary. He cannot contradict himself. He cannot be what he is not. He cannot do what is contrary to his nature and his nature is just.

The universal testimony of Scripture is that God's righteousness must be satisfied. Scripture also testifies, however, that God is gracious and merciful. He is merciful in that he does not give to all sinners what they deserve: hell (thanks to Danny Hyde for repeatedly pointing this out on Sunday mornings!) and he is gracious in that he gives to sinners what they cannot earn: his favor. Out of his demerited favor he himself supplies the righteousness required by his justice. I'm grateful to the person at the recent Gospel-Driven Conference at Ponte Vedra PCA who pointed out after one of the sessions that, in Ezek 16:63, Yahweh Elohim promises that he himself will atone for the sins of his people. Of course we remember the scene in Genesis 15 when Yahweh himself passes between the pieces, taking upon himself the obligation to fulfill the promise and to suffer the penalty of violation of the covenant.

This is the difference between biblical religion and all other religions. Only the God of Scripture promises to save his people by fulfilling the obligations of his law for them. All other faiths set up systems whereby we must do for ourselves or, as in the case of Rabbinic and Christian moralism, God gives grace so that we can do so ourselves.

In the biblical faith, however, God meets the terms of his righteousness for us. This is where grace and righteousness meet: in Christ. For us he became both righteous law-keeper (Second/Last Adam) and the Mediator of gracious, free salvation sola fide to and for all those for whom he came, whom the Father gave to him from all eternity.

R. Scott Clark, Monergism.com 5 Comments [11/8/2017 10:42:36 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 133956

A video that states that the Earth is flat because the bible said so
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jzf8jDM-5s&t=28s

Disciple Of Yahshua, Youtube 3 Comments [11/8/2017 10:41:57 AM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 133951

The short answer to your question is no, the apostle John was not teaching that God’s wrath has been satisfied toward both the elect and non-elect. Since the word propitiation means "appeased," we can be certain John was only talking about those who would believe in 1 John 2:2.

There is a lengthy, but extremely helpful footnote on that passage in the MacArthur Study Bible. With simplicity and clarity, John explains what the apostle meant by the phrase “the whole world.” Take a look:

for the whole world This is a generic term, referring not to every single individual, but to mankind in general. Christ actually paid the penalty only for those who would repent and believe. A number of Scriptures indicate that Christ died for the world (John 1:29; 3:16; 6:51; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 2:9). Most of the world will be eternally condemned to hell to pay for their own sins, so they could not have been paid for by Christ. The passages which speak of Christ’s dying for the whole world must be understood to refer to mankind in general (as in Titus 2:3,4). “World” indicates the sphere, the beings toward whom God seeks reconciliation and has provided propitiation. God has mitigated His wrath on sinners temporarily, by letting them live and enjoy earthly life (see note on 1 Tim. 4:10). In that sense, Christ has provided a brief, temporal propitiation for the whole world. But He actually satisfied fully the wrath of God eternally only for the elect who believe. Christ’s death in itself had unlimited and infinite value because He is Holy God. Thus His sacrifice was sufficient to pay the penalty for all the sins of all whom God brings to faith. But the actual satisfaction and atonement was made only for those who believe (cf. John 10:11,15; 17:9,20; Acts 20:28; Rom. 8:32,37; Eph. 5:25). The pardon for sin is offered to the whole world, but received only by those who believe (cf. 4:9,14; John 5:24). There is no other way to be reconciled to God. (The MacArthur Study Bible, 1 Jn. 2:2)

Concerning God’s wrath being unsatisfied toward unbelievers, Paul said this in Romans 2:5, But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each person according to his deeds.

Also see chapters 6-19 of Revelation, which chronicle the future judgments of God. That section is characterized by one wave of wrath after another. 6:16-17 says, And they said to the mountains and to the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?”

I hope that helps answer your question, Caleb. Thanks for your comment.

Tommy Clayton, Grace to You 4 Comments [11/8/2017 10:31:24 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 133950

nimat shaheed

Why would God's chosen people lack MELANIN? Melanin is a very essential and beneficial property to have on planet Earth. Wouldn't God want his CHOSEN PEOPLE to have DOMINANT traits? Having white (RED) skin, is a RECESSIVE trait. I mean, come on...?



nimat shaheed, Youtube 8 Comments [11/8/2017 10:31:17 AM]
Fundie Index: 10

Quote# 133949

Countless times, I've seen trans people on social media utter the sentiment, "Your allies may act like they love and respect you, but if they don't truly see you as a real woman/man, they are your enemies!" The first time I saw this sentiment, it sent a chill down my spine. I was still doing my libfem handmaiden act at the time (even though I was uncomfortable with much of the ideology). It never occurred to me that I had to BELIEVE that people could change biological sex in order to be a decent person.

I couldn't bear the thought of being associated with those evil murdering TERFs! But was it possible that I had been an evil, murdering TERF all along? How many trans people had I forced into suicide? I mean, I had plenty of trans friends and I supported them, told them I loved them no matter what, supported their political goals, respected their pronouns, tried to educate others on their behalf, went to some trans activist events, insisted their interests were part of feminism....but I did not think they had changed biological sex....

Naturally, this is when I found out I had been lied to all along about what a "TERF" is. I realized how little it takes to be called a TERF, that TERF was used to excuse violence, and that to call a woman a TERF is to prosecute her for thought crime. I'm ashamed to admit it, but I was only able to see the madness of the movement when it was my twat on the chopping block. I had previously ignored and avoided anyone deemed a TERF and just accepted that they were awful people. I had to in order to a good libfem foot soldier. Everyone knows you aren't allowed to READ what these women write or HEAR what these women say, even if it's nothing to do with trans issues at all. They are permanently black balled from public discourse.

The issue of thought crime really planted the gender critical seed in my mind, but I kept trying to be a good little ally. I kept thinking that no one would KNOW I thought this and that the thought police were just extremists. Then, I tried to sit comfortably on the fence even though there was a huge post up my ass. I even tried to argue that there seem to be different levels of exclusion and some women don't believe in any exclusion of trans people, they just deep down in their hearts don't believe trans women and cis women are the same. Needless to say, that went over like a fart in church.

...and NO ONE deep down in their hearts sees trans woman as real women or trans men as real men. Whether they admit it is a different story, but I firmly believe NO ONE believes it. The ones that claim they do are just sparing themselves the agony of the Tranish Inquisition. This is why it is so crucial to prosecute thought crime, to suppress speech and writing, to threaten people who dare to be honest, to dehumanize people if they so much as retweet someone who dares to be honest.

The idea that you can commit violence by thinking a thought is beyond ludicrous...I mean, I know there was an episode of Voyager like that, but this is reality. Thankfully, trying to control thought is like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. A whole lot of people will get really tired of being told that they MUST adopt another's orthodoxy or they are literally the bastard love children of an orgy between Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Leopold II, and Saddam Hussein. Sooner or later, the levee will break...and when the levee breaks, mama, you've got to move!

closetedxxcishet, r/GenderCritical 7 Comments [11/8/2017 10:31:11 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 133946

YahSedQanu

nimat shaheed Plus white skin (recession) is a result of mixing two species. They are unclean. Unauthorized by AHYH. Having melanated skin and textured hair are the default traits of the completed man, Adam. Therefor AHYH said of Noah's 3 sons, they represented Noah perfectly. Meaning, Shem Khem and Yiphat were perfect copies of Noah.?



YahSedQanu, Youtube 5 Comments [11/8/2017 10:30:52 AM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 133945

If there wasn’t a God, where does the desire to be moral come from?

nobamanomore, Free Republic 17 Comments [11/8/2017 10:30:46 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 133940

[OP of "The Cure"]



The picture features the slogan "The cure for this sick society" in front of a background featuring a swastika and convicts shot by a firing squad

Valkynaz, Reddit - r/FULLFASCISM 11 Comments [11/8/2017 10:23:31 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: JeanP

Quote# 133939

We strive to study Marxism-Leninism as a science, and integrate it into the minute details of Australia’s conditions. We stand against dogmatism, that squeezes facts into theory, like huge feet forced into Cinderella’s glass slipper. The ultimate test is practise, whether the Australian people take up our ideas in struggle.


A CPA-ML Comrade, Communist Party of Australia (Marxist-Leninist) 6 Comments [11/8/2017 10:22:52 AM]
Fundie Index: 2