1 2 3 4 5 9 | bottom
Quote# 137797

Today's Laugh 4-11-18




Mick Williams, Disqus - Faith & Religion 31 Comments [4/14/2018 11:06:25 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 137796

Christianity makes the most sense because and has the most immediate benefits to a person's life when you start doing good things instead of bad things good things start happening in your life if you have legal problems they go away if you owe people money you get them paid off you find a better job you get a nicer house you get a nicer car instead of a nasty old junker your insurance rates go down your credit score goes up the police are looking for you this is a good reason to be Christian! Yes it's nice to believe that when your dead you'll wake up Sunday at the resurrection but it's much better to have something immediately here now and today to look at it and say hey my program works better than yours.

ari, Y! answers 16 Comments [4/14/2018 11:05:54 AM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 137788

[Note: This is directed at a black victim of female genital mutilation]





terf_hunter, Twitter 3 Comments [4/14/2018 11:04:54 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Yossarian Lives

Quote# 137785

Lady Checkmate's headline: "Alt-Left News: Woman Murders Her Female Partner With Sleeper Hold"

(cut-and-pasted from Fox News, story here: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/10/woman-says-wrestling-sleeper-hold-led-to-wifes-death-officials-say.html)

Master Shake:
Taking every bit of strength I have to not crack an Emma Gonzalez joke right now.

Lady Checkmate:
Do it...

Thnj:
Come on, this is a Parkland survivor, cut her some slack.

Lady Checkmate, Disqus - News Network 13 Comments [4/14/2018 11:04:05 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 137779

The first person that's joined me in the "anti-science" / "science" hypocrisy.
"...It is certainly ironic how liberals who posture as defenders of science when it comes to global warming ( a
sentimental myth unsupported by evidence ) flee all reference to biology when it comes to gender."
So true. Poor so-called 'scientific data' for global warming, a myth which could change the economy of the entire world, taking us down,....against "I feel, therefore, I am."...with ZERO science. Hypocrisy.

wfmcfp, The Dailey Wire 6 Comments [4/14/2018 11:03:21 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Christopher

Quote# 137778

When we force, or attempt to force, our own personal ways / requests / demands / lifestyles on others, knowing it hurts, scares, and even deeply offends these others as we do so,...are we truly interested in unity or healing? For example, gay "marriage" could have been achieved by "Civil Unions" or some other very meaningful title, but no..., traditional heterosexual one man, one woman "marriage" had to be "redefined". Why? Why this absolute demand at the cost of other's beliefs and sensibilities? Where was the unity interest demonstrated here? Differing opinions clearly existed, yet there seemed to be no desire to "work it out" together, to come up with a mutually acceptable approach. Deeply help spiritual beliefs and a century upon century definition was to be "defeated" / "turned asunder" for the 'victory' of a small group of people. Why? Was this truly a demonstration of the 'tolerance' that they'd passionately spoken of an marched for? How can one be so intolerant of another's deeply held belief as they hold a banner for tolerance? How about a baker, florist, retreat owner, losing their complete livelihood and being sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars, because although they'd served these folks for other needs, they couldn't offend their Lord to help "celebrate" what they feel is a Holy Covenant between one man/one woman? Where is the desire for "getting along", "unity", "live and let live", and "tolerance" here? Where? Love....true love....doesn't care to offend, put down, or demand, yet there is no loving caring "two way street". No, it's my way or the highway! We will make you pay if we don't get what we want! Why? Getting along will require a "two way street" on issues which divide, which offend deeply held foundational religious views, etc.... Real Love, true tolerance, genuine inclusiveness....cannot demand others simply disregard or go against their deeply held religious / personal beliefs. These people love their families, their children, and their children's children and desire to teach them to understand what they hold to be Truth. Why are their rights not held up along side those seeking new rights and societal changes? Why? Love, respect, tolerance, unity...all require a more thoughtful and caring process....one which is far less "in your face"!

wfmcfp, Patheos 14 Comments [4/14/2018 11:03:06 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Christopher

Quote# 137773

When someone mistreats me, they have done it to Jesus! This is because I am a child of God, that is, a born-again Christian. When someone cheats me, they have cheated Jesus! When someone is unkind or mean to me, they have done it unto the Lord. That is exactly what the Bible says. Do you know why? It is because I belong to Christ. 1st Corinthians 6:20, “For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.” The very moment that I became saved, that is, the moment I trusted the Good News of Jesus Christ crucified, buried and risen for my sins, I became God's property! So when someone hurts me, it is as if they did it to Jesus Himself, and they WILL be judged accordingly. Matthew 18:6, “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

But most of all, if God was willing to forgive a woeful sinner like me of all my sins, who am I to deny forgiveness to others who have wronged me? Many people have deeply hurt me throughout my life, who have never sought my forgiveness. They have never righted their wrongs against me. Albeit, I have still CHOSEN to forgive them all, because I know that they did it to Jesus too, and they must be held accountable one day in eternity.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Savior 20 Comments [4/14/2018 11:02:05 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 137772

And he still won’t get laid.

But I wager full-fledged homosexuality is on the way. I’ve never known a man who remained bisexual for more than a year.

Vendetta, Kiwi Farms 11 Comments [4/14/2018 11:01:57 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 137771

(in the comments on an article about global warming)

Yes, you are definitely certifiable!!!
What is wrong with the brains of these people? The "data" has been proven to be false and not reliable! The Earth has gone through repeated periods of "climate change"! Since day one of it's existence! EONS BEFORE THERE EXISTED ANY TYPE OF INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY, OR, ANY HUMANS!
SCIENCE IS NOT DONE, NOR IS IT RELIABLY USABLE BY CONSENSUS!

zeke, Newberry Observer 11 Comments [4/14/2018 11:01:35 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Thanos6

Quote# 137770

Native American reservations were for in tact native tribes who decided against assimilating to the White American culture

The American constitution declared natives could and should be aided in assimilating to white society as racial equals if they so chose


MarquisDePaid, Reddit 9 Comments [4/14/2018 11:01:21 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 137768

I can confirm this as a black guy from Africa.Liberals are fucking detached, unexposed.Theyre always so willing to stick their heads in the clouds at everybody else's expense.

White people are the least racist and actually the most tolerant in the world.Only western civilization that has created a society that can harbor people of different colours and religions.Non-white countries will not tolerate this and do not apologize for it either

T4mvvlc0oxx, Reddit 10 Comments [4/14/2018 10:01:50 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 137766

Christians who believe the fossil record was laid down millions of years before man, are really accusing God of saying cancer & diseases are "very good" Gen 1:31, as many diseases have been discovered in fossil bones supposedly millions of yrs old! No, diseases came after sin

Ken Ham, Twitter 10 Comments [4/14/2018 10:01:21 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Yossarian Lives

Quote# 137762

Have you ever wondered why the liberal/"progressive"/Democrat academia in charge of our public "education" system has such a hate for the Bible and for Christianity?

Understand the (Satanic) spirit behind (and in charge of) them, and you will start to understand why...

Joao Ricardo, Facebook 4 Comments [4/14/2018 10:01:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 137761

(emphasis mine)

His mom needs to turn off his internet and make him get a job.

Grow the hell up Chris, you miserable neet. The farms never targeted anybody who didn't deserve it.

vaporwave baphomet, Kiwi Farms 4 Comments [4/14/2018 10:01:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 137755

Video titled Armored Fish Fossils Rewrite Evolutionary Story. Link to video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=0PA7IfvTBIU

Brian Thomas, Dave Flang, YouTube 3 Comments [4/14/2018 10:00:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: dxdydz

Quote# 137752

Musician Ted Nugent compared Democrats to "rabid coyotes" in a Friday discussion on gun control with Infowars host Alex Jones, saying they should be shot on sight.

Asked by Jones, a right-wing conspiracy theorist, about why liberals and the left want to ban firearms, Nugent said that "evil" and "dishonesty" are traits of liberals.

“Don’t ask why. Just know that evil, dishonesty, and scam artists have always been around and that right now they’re liberal, they’re Democrat, they’re [Republicans in name only], they’re Hollywood, they’re fake news, they’re media, they’re academia, and they’re half of our government, at least,” Nugent said according to Media Matters, a liberal watchdog group.

"There are rabid coyotes running around, you don't wait till you see one to go get your gun, keep your gun handy," he added. "And every time you see one, you shoot one."

Ted Nugent, The Hill 9 Comments [4/14/2018 10:00:49 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Yossarian Lives

Quote# 137751

RE:No Birthright Citizenship: Pakistan Reportedly Deporting Afghan Refugees Born in Country

(Youthful Tucker Carlson)
Funny how all non-White nations are free to have immigration/nationalization laws that protect their ethnic makeup (including Israel), but White nations... demonized for even suggesting that demography does matter.

(Seriouslady)
We should stop giving citizenship to babies born here in the US to foreign parents. Thousands of Chinese come here every year just to give birth. Its called birth tourism. Many people from other countries do the same thing its just the Chinese are the largest group that does this. This is not counting the ones that come here on work visas or illegally.

(qwerty_4321)
So when a sihthole enforces this rule it's ok, but when America wants to do it it's racism. Fascinating.

(Joe Smith)
hy should americans accept the s-hole migrants from s-hole countries?

.
.
.

no, we only starting accepting large numbers of s-hole migrants from s-hole countries after 1965, and now we are paying the price with nothing but constant race-baiting and cities and states in open revolt because they want to appease their new migrant majority. welcome to the multi-culti cesspool that is the new america.

(Deplorable Bob Hornswoggler)
Even Pakistan, that sh*thole country, knows better than the USA - when it comes to understanding that 'birthright citizenship' is horse or maybe goat pucky.

(Jenna María Domínguez)
Pakis don't let Communist Scum take over their country the way White Americans and Western Europeans have.

If you let the enemy run your nation and then act shocked when they destroy it.......

(Sexual Emergency)
People that can't make their own countries great are not worth having in ours. They are burdens looking for handouts off the backs of the workers, American workers, who can't afford to pop out seven babies like they do. I'm tired of paying for your babies. Stay home.

(ModratCntrst)
If only we could do the same for the Pakistanis here - maybe we should change our immigration to one of reciprocity,

(Viking son)
And tomorrow's headlines in Canadian media outlets will read, "Trudeau welcomes Afghan refugees".
...
Election is coming. Talk to your neighbours. Andrew Scheer folks.

(disqus_CbFK3MPhJu)
the US does not have birthright citizenship
a sitting US senator specifically put in the clause 'under the jurisdiction of the US'
so if you are a freed slave, and thus under our jurisdiction, your child will be a US
citizen.
IF you are a mexican/german/etc, and come here and have a baby, we now
have 2 mexicans/germans, and they need to then go back to their homeland.

(Muhammad Was A Pedophile)
Pakistan is very serious about it's quality of extreme inbreeding.

various commenters, Breitbart 6 Comments [4/14/2018 10:00:20 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 137741

Why I’m Not a Theistic Evolutionist

I’m delighted to get the chance to teach at one of my favorite local churches in about a week. The topic will be Genesis 1:1 and what is, in many ways, the most important verse of Scripture: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” I’ll be talking about some things we can know with certainty (related to God’s creative work in the universe and in biological organisms) and some things that we know with a bit less certainty (as I review many of the ways Christians have interpreted Genesis 1 through the ages). While I am respectful of some of the efforts to understand precisely what Moses was trying to communicate in this text, there is one view of creation that I find difficult to accept. From my perspective, theistic evolution appears to be a contradiction in terms.

I’m not the first person to notice this, but I’d like to explain why so many of us have difficulty embracing this view of creation from a simple survey of the definitions. When scientists and theologians are allowed to define their own respective terms, they provide definitions that seem diametrically opposed. The textbook definitions illustrate the problem:

ev·o·lu·tion [ev-uh-loo-shuhn] “Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.”

The changes occurring as a result of evolution are caused by three forms of unguided (or random) interaction (mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift). The unguided nature of these mutations (and the environmental circumstances that come to bear on them) is foundational to the definition of evolution. This quality of randomness is incompatible with a theistic view of the universe. Theists believe an all-powerful Creator is engaged in the process that brought everything into existence. This creative Being actually creates stuff and the act of “creating” is not an unguided process:

cre·ate [kree-eyt] “To cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.”

The definition calls for a unique and specific creative act of guidance that is specifically differentiated from an evolutionary or “ordinary” (“natural”) process. This aspect of guided creativity is foundational to the nature of the Being proposed by Theists. The problem, therefore, seems to arise with any attempt to synthesize or unify these two divergent terms. Think about it for a minute; theism is all about guided creation, evolution is all about unguided causation. When we put the two ideas together, it’s the equivalent of saying:

the·is·tic ev·o·lu·tion
“The creatively guided, specific, process of unguided, random causation”

See the problem? In order for this term to make any sense at all, someone needs to modify or surrender their term. Evolution has to take on an aspect of guidance and direction, or theistic creativity has to allow for the random lack of guidance. I doubt that either side is willing to compromise on the very attributes that lie at the foundation of their claims. So while there may be a number of ways to interpret the precise meaning of the Genesis account, I doubt that theistic evolution is one of them.


J. Warner Wallace, Cold Case Christianity 5 Comments [4/14/2018 9:58:37 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 137737

Everyone has a soundtrack of sin. It's certain songs you listened to in your past that when you hear them today, they remind you of your former sinful lifestyle.

Notice how in most urban cities or communities, gospel music is often played on the exact same station as the old school R&B music? The devil is clever! He knows that if he can get you to mix your former lifestyle of sin with your current attempt to follow Jesus, he can stunt you in your spiritual growth and render you totally ineffective against the kingdom of darkness in your lifetime.

If you're still listening to old school R&B and hip-hop oldies: what is it about your past you're not willing to break with?

What arrangements with the past are you still holding onto that is obfuscating your future?

What agreements with your former sinful life are you still holding onto and standing in agreement with that's preventing you from fully embracing the new life in Christ Jesus that awaits you up the road?

When we hold onto those songs from our past that use to speak to our sinful living, we are stopping short of walking fully, confidently and completely into God's kingdom.

Those old-school songs have hooks in them. They are constant reminders of your old sinful lifestyle. It doesn't matter if you try to change the lyrics to apply your new walk with Christ. Just hearing the beat alone will pull you back to a time, a place and a feeling you had back when you were estranged from God. And just to prove that it has hooks in you: Why can't you just turn the radio dial and let the secular music go?

If the music you listen to stirs up memories of sin, why do you as a born-again believer who's claiming to be living the resurrected life still hold onto those sinful memories? Was the sin of your past more sweeter to you than the joy of your future life with Jesus Christ?

"Do not love this world nor the things it offers you, for when you love the world, you do not have the love of the Father in you." [1 John 2:15]

How can you embrace both sinful living and holiness? How can they both occupy space in your mind and heart simultaneously?

You cannot walk into the future while still holding onto the past. That's like trying to cross the lake while leaving your boat tied to the shore. You have to let go of one shore line in order to walk the other.

It's a choice. A simple yet powerfully profound choice. Either we're going to give God our all, or might as well give Him nothing of us at all. Who wants half a heart anyway?

Think about it: would you want to be with someone today who was constantly revisiting their former relationships of the past with nostalgia and joy? Would your heart not be stirred to jealousy?

How can we expect God then to be satisfied with our lukewarm hearts when we keep looking back towards Egypt and the bondage we experienced under sin - the same bondage Jesus had to rescue us from in the first place?

Are we like the proverbial dog that keeps returning to feast on its own vomit that made it sick in the first place - or like the pig that's just been washed clean who finds its old mosh pit to wallow back in its own filthy mess?

"And when people escape from the wickedness of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and then get tangled up and enslaved by sin again, they are worse off than before. It would be better if they had never known the way to righteousness than to know it and then reject the command they were given to live a holy life. They prove the truth of this proverb: 'A dog returns to its vomit.' And another says, 'A washed pig returns to the mud.'" [2 Peter 2:20-22 NLT]

It's time to give up - the world and all its pleasant sinful memories. It's time to pull the plug on the soundtrack of sin that so easily lures us back into sinful thinking and actions.

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a huge crowd of witnesses to the life of faith, let us strip off every weight that slows us down, especially the sin that so easily trips us up. And let us run with endurance the race God has set before us." [Hebrews 12:1 NLT]

This is your crossroads moment: that place where you make a clear and definitive choice to fully reject the world and your former lifestyle of sin, so you can move forward in the fullness and power of God for your present. The choice you make right now will determine everything concerning your future.

Older saints used to call this sanctification. It's when you make the decision to give Jesus ALL of you: past, present and future. It's when you give up all former sinful activity: even the pleasant memories of it from your past and the hooks of sin that keep you tethered to your former walk, in order to walk with God in truth and power today and tomorrow.

"And such were some of you: but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." [1 Corinthians 6:11 AKJV]

"And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Hebrews 10:10

You've played around in the Christian kiddie sandbox long enough. God is now seeking your maturity. And it's your choice whether you progress or not into the future God wants to give you.

"So let us stop going over the basic teachings about Christ again and again. Let us go on instead and become mature in our understanding. Surely we don't need to start again with the fundamental importance of repenting from evil deeds and placing our faith in God." [Hebrews 6:1 NLT]

Remaining where you are could be very detrimental to your salvation.

"Not everyone who calls out to me 'Lord! Lord!' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter." [Matthew 7:21 NLT]

[...]

I pray you make the right choice today.

Right now, if you are feeling a strong aversion to this article, and you wish that you never read it, that's the power of the soundtrack to sin in your life. Its hooks are still in you!

And you have to get those hooks out in order to give Jesus the type of living sacrifice that He demands of your life. Don't be like those people who only hung around Jesus when He was handing out free fish sandwiches, but forsook Him when he demanded something from them in return. Give Him your all today.


Mack Major, Mack Major Books 3 Comments [4/14/2018 9:58:12 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Yossarian Lives

Quote# 137736


(In reply to post about new species of fìnch)


Cross breed does not make it a NEW SPECIES just a new variety of the same species.
But what no idiot could possibly think is that a new species came from absolutely NOTHING.
No evolution of a New species because Evolution is just a theory of how all things began without any critical evidence.

You can insult people all you like but a new species was not the case. A new species would be something that never existed before.
Finches have always existed. Till a black person made a baby with a white person half cast did not exist.


Nothing observed and evolution is a kids game for those who believe two things can exist as one but both being completely different.

Stop insulting people, it isn't intelligent, it isn't clever and it isn't nice. It is simply the height of ignorance when people try and make one example into something completely different.

Sassy, Religion and Ethics 8 Comments [4/14/2018 9:57:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: NearlySane

Quote# 137735

Another example of David J Stewart’s sexist Protestant fundementalist heresy. He believes that his wife should have stayed with him even after he commited adultry and molested an underage girl.

If you saw my previous posts, here, you know I am a Traditionalist Catholic so you might be asking me about why I am condemning David J Stewart for his views on marriage, given the Catholic Church’s opposition to divorce.

Well the Catholic Church does indeed oppose divorce, but staying married =/= having to live together. If a wife has an abusive husband, she can leave him, take the kids, file a restraining order, and live far away, but still remain married to him. So domestic abuse can still be stopped without divorce.

Jacob Harrison, FSTDT comments 43 Comments [4/14/2018 9:35:53 AM]
Fundie Index: -1
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 137734

@gimel

Thank you for your insight on how your education was in Poland. You confirmed that you had great religious teachers such as the one who got you into fantasy. And it is important to educate people on Satanic ritualistic murders because it is important for people to know about the evil and tragic events that happen in this world.

The other things you said about what the religion teachers and preists can restrict are mere speculation because you haven’t experienced that happening. However I have seen a large amount of Protestant Fundies condemn Harry Potter and Halloween showing that Protestant fundies are far more restrictive on fun than Catholics.

However Masterbation is bad and many feminists agree because it teaches men to think of females as sex objects and not people which is why men like David J Stewart have sexually violated other women. The only women that men should feel sexual thoughts about are their wives or fiancés.

I commited the sin of masterbation one time when I was 13, and my dad caught me. He made me confess my sins to our priest and then asked me who I was masterbating about. I told him the name of the girl at my school and he had me write an apology letter to her for sexually violating her and give her 50 dollars in compensation. It was the most embarrassing moment of my life.

Jacob Harrison, FSTDT comments 15 Comments [4/14/2018 9:35:29 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 137733

Shitlibs are put on notice by this heretical street art. In this war, it’s strategically smart to let shitlibs know they don’t own the public square, especially the public squares of the big blue coastal megacities that have become their adopted hive home. We want them in fear every minute of their fappuccinoed soylives that the person standing next to them at the movie theater wine bar or sharing an uber pool ride with them could be an apostate, a VERY BAD FREETHINKER, and why is that person staring at them that way? Is he dreaming of DOTR? Oh god where did I put my inhaler?

CH, Chateau Heartiste 9 Comments [4/14/2018 9:34:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 137732

(=Trimmed for Relevant qoutes and verses=)

So How Did David Really “Love” Jonathan?

Is it possible David and Jonathan could express love toward each other, even swear an oath and enter into a covenant, without being homosexuals? Well, let’s begin by looking at the issue of the love they felt for each other. The David’s love for Jonathan is displayed in the Biblical text the very first time that Jonathan meets David (immediately following David’s defeat of Goliath and as he is presented to King Saul)

1 Samuel 18:1-3
Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself. And Saul took him that day and did not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself.

Jonathan also makes a covenant with David:

1 Samuel 20:16-17
So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “May the LORD require it at the hands of David’s enemies.” And Jonathan made David vow again because of his love for him, because he loved him as he loved his own life.

And later, when Jonathan is killed, David laments his loss with these words:

2 Samuel 1:25-26
“How have the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan is slain on your high places. I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women.”

Two Hebrew words are used here to describe the emotion of love in these passages. The first is ‘ahab (aw-hab’) or ‘aheb (aw-habe’), and it can definitely be used to describe a sexual relationship between a man and a wife. The second word is ‘ahabah (a-hab-aw), and this two can be used to describe a similar marital love. But in the 247 times these words are used to describe love in the Old Testament, far less than 20% of the time are they actually used to describe the love between two sexual partners. Far more often, (over 4 to 1) the words are used to describe the love between friends or between God and his creation. Here are just a few examples:

*Series of Verses*

In these passages, it is obvious that the word used for love is not meant to connote a sexual relationship. Now it is clear with David and Jonathan there is no Biblical account of a sexual relationship. That is interesting in itself. If they were homosexual lovers, why is there no open description of this fact? Some (as we’ve seen above) would argue the social pressures forced the writer to hide the truth. But there are open discussions of homosexual activity in other places in the Bible, why not here? Part of the problem is in those other areas of the Bible where homosexual behavior is openly discusses, it is always in a negative sense (as something we shouldn’t do). If Samuel is cleverly hiding the homosexual behavior between David and Jonathan here, he is doing so as a prophet of God, knowing full well such behavior is offensive to God! Does that seems consistent with the canon of Old Testament scripture?

So how is it then, that David and Jonathan’s love was deeper than that of a man and woman? Well, these two men were certainly connected as brothers. In fact, they were brothers-in-arms during war. If any of you ever had the chance to talk to two friends who fought side by side in World War 2 (just watch “Band of Brothers”) you know the love between men in a situation like that is deeper in some ways than the love between a man and a woman. Is this not also a possible reading of the text here? And is this reading not more compatible with the other clear teaching of the Bible and the historic accepted traditional understanding to the relationship between David and Jonathan?"

So Why Did They Kiss?

"In this passage, Jonathan is sending David away because he knows his father (King Saul) is trying to kill David. Jonathan knows he may never see his dear friend again. So he kisses David. The Hebrew word used for this kiss is nashaq (naw-shak’) and it is used 35 times in the Old Testament. I in only 4 of these uses is the word used to describe a sexual or romantic kiss. Over and over again, the word is used to describe the cultural greeting of the time:

*Number of verses*

The kiss between David and Jonathan, when seen accurately in the majority context and used of the Hebrew word, does nothing to advance the notion they were homosexuals. Even today, we see men in the middles east continue to greet and interact with each other, utilizing a kiss to express their friendship or commitment to one another without a homosexual relationship."

So Why Did He Take His Clothes Off?

Another claim on the part of revisionists is Jonathan disrobed in front of David in some sort of sexual way or as some sort of sexual display or commitment:

*Series of quotes*

Reading from the context of the culture, 1 Samuel 18:3-5 actually describes a covenant of brotherhood between Jonathan and David, as Jonathan pays high tribute to the man who just killed Goliath and had earned the right to wear the armor. This hardly proves the two men were homosexual lovers.

But Does It Look Like a Marriage?

Those who interpret David and Jonathan’s relationship in a homoerotic sense also point to scripture to make the case Jonathan and David considered themselves to be married in some way. Look at this passage describing Saul’s reaction when he discovered that Jonathan was ultimately siding with David

1 Samuel 20:30-31
Then Saul’s anger burned against Jonathan and he said to him, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you are choosing the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? “For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Therefore now, send and bring him to me, for he must surely die.”

Advocates of a homosexual reading of this passage will sometimes point to the description of “nakedness” in this verse and claim it is referring to a sexual relationship. The inference here is that the context implies that Jonathan somehow chose David sexually (as a homosexual partner). This interpretation then goes on to claim Saul is upset because Jonathan could not be established as king unless and until he had a female partner with which to bear children who could become heirs to the throne.

But who is described as naked? It’s Jonathan’s mother! There is nothing in the passage describing a sexual relationship between the two men. In fact, this passage says nothing about any type of marriage. Saul is upset about one thing: Jonathan took David’s side against Saul. Jonathan and David were sworn to each other as brothers, and Saul was simply mad Jonathan would treat David more like family than his own father."

So Why Does He Say David Is A Son-In-Law Twice?

But there is another passage of Scripture sometimes used to make the case for a homosexual union between Jonathan and David. It is a curious passage seeming to indicate David had two opportunities to become Saul’s son-in-law. Let’s begin with a peak at the passage in question, presented in a partial way, as it is often presented by homosexual advocates:

1 Samuel 18:17,21
Then Saul said to David, “Here is my older daughter Merab; I will give her to you as a wife, only be a valiant man for me and fight the Lord’s battles.”… And Saul thought, “I will give her to him that she may become a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” Therefore Saul said to David, “For a second time you may be my son-in-law today.”

Those who hope to interpret a homosexual relationship here maintain Saul has offered David a second opportunity to be his son-in-law because the first opportunity for David was realized through Jonathan! They argue David’s union with Jonathan makes him Saul’s son-in-law, even before David’s marriage to Merab, Saul’s daughter. But before we can truly assess what would make David Saul’s son-in-law in the first place, we had better look at the issue of ‘betrothal’ in the ancient world. In Biblical times, the moment a woman was ‘betrothed’ to a man (pledged or promised to be married to him), she was considered married to him, even though she was not yet formally united to the man in a ceremony. For this reason, a woman who was betrothed to someone and slept with another man was considered to be an adulteress. That’s right, you could commit adultery even before you were officially married. If a woman wanted to break a betrothal, something similar to a divorce would have to occur.

Once we understand this historic truth, many other passages of scripture start to make sense. Take a look at this passage from Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

Clearly in this law written for Israel, an engaged girl is described as a wife, even before she is officially married. In addition to this, we are all familiar with this part of the nativity story:

Matthew 1:19-20
Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.”

Joseph thinks about divorcing Mary for what he thinks she has done. How can he do this when they aren’t even married yet? Because, (once again) this engaged woman was considered married to her betrothed, even before the official ceremony. OK, now let’s take a look at the situation with David and Merab one more time. As it turns out, David had already been betrothed to Merab; this occurred the moment he defeated Goliath:

1 Samuel 18:17-21
Then Saul said to David, “Here is my older daughter Merab; I will give her to you as a wife, only be a valiant man for me and fight the Lord’s battles.” For Saul thought, “My hand shall not be against him, but let the hand of the Philistines be against him.” But David said to Saul, “Who am I, and what is my life or my father’s family in Israel, that I should be the king’s son-in-law?” So it came about at the time when Merab, Saul’s daughter, should have been given to David, that she was given to Adriel the Meholathite for a wife. Now Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved David. When they told Saul, the thing was agreeable to him. And Saul thought, “I will give her to him that she may become a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” Therefore Saul said to David, “For a second time you may be my son-in-law today.”

This is the key to the comment that Saul makes in verse 21. Although Saul had already betrothed his daughter to David as a result of his killing of Goliath, Saul conveniently ignored this betrothal when he instead promised Merab to Adriel the Meholathite. Look at what traditional commentaries have to say about this:

*Quote here*

Now Saul’s comment in verse 21 makes sense. Saul had betrothed Merab to David twice. Once when he defeated Goliath and once here in the passages that precede verse 21.

So Were They Homosexuals?
In order to believe David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers, you are going to have to ignore the plain reading of the scripture and the historic and traditional understanding of the text. In addition, you are going to have to believe Samuel, one of God’s prophets in the tradition of the Mosiac cultural law that condemns homosexuality in Leviticus, would then approve of this homosexual relationship enough to carefully cloak it in the text. Would not this prophet of God, in the strong tradition of Judaism and the law of Moses have an opinion on this?

Hopefully this very brief review of the texts under consideration will help you to understand the orthodox Christian perspective of David and Jonathan’s relationship. David and Jonathan were the deepest of friends. True brothers in both Cause and Faith. But they were nothing more.



J. Warner Wallace, Cold Case Christianity 8 Comments [4/14/2018 9:34:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 137729

“Italy’s first black senator has said his election for the League has proved that the far-right party, whose anti-immigrant rhetoric helped it to its best ever result on Sunday, has no problem with legal migration.

Campaigning under the party slogan “stop the invasion”, Toni Iwobi, a 62-year-old businessman originally from Nigeria, won his seat in Spirano, a small town in the Lombardy province of Bergamo, as the party took almost 18% of the vote nationwide.

“It’s an incredible honour for me to be Italy’s first black senator,” he told the Guardian.

He shared success in the region with his party colleague Attilio Fontana, the new governor of Lombardy, who at the start of the election campaign said Italy’s migrant influx threatened to wipe out “our white race”.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/08/italys-first-black-senator-my-election-shows-far-right-is-not-anti-immigration

This dispels the myth that The League is not controlled opposition. The League is virulently pro-Israel and believes in the false notion of the “based” black guy. Civic nationalists and conservatives are worse than leftists because at least leftists have the guts to say that they want all white people dead and gone. Conservatives and civic cucks are spineless people that pretend to care about Italians, but then what they do is advocate for legal immigration of foreigners from everywhere. It is better to have one million illegal squatters in your country than one million non white legal citizens that will wipe out your race legally.

“Muh legal immigration tho” (TM) is so much worse than simply having thousands of rapefugee boats dumping Africans into the country. When the time comes to peacefully repatriate all non-white people out of Italy, the invaders will just say they are citizens and that will be the end. Italy has never been a country of diversity so why let the blacks take it over?


CARLO ABRUZZI, Forza Nuova USA 8 Comments [4/13/2018 2:49:40 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: hydrolythe
1 2 3 4 5 9 | top