1 2 3 4 5 10 14 | bottom
Quote# 138834

[Why does the Bible say a mother is unclean for twice as long after giving birth to a girl?]

It takes lots more hormones for a girl to be made and the mother needed more time to recover from the stress on here body and there might of been more girls than boys at the time and perhaps that is why the rule was made.

anonymous, Y! answers 6 Comments [7/15/2018 6:42:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 138833



CAPTION: At a theater in hell:

COMEDY TIME WITH DON LEMON

Man (presumably Don Lemon): It's a modern horror story: Trump's SCOTUS pick will deprive women of their God-given right to abortion.

BACKGROUND SLOGAN: CNN: All communist. All the time.

Mick Williams, Disqus - Faith & Religion 6 Comments [7/15/2018 6:42:42 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 138831

(=Progressive vs Homophobic Christian=)

Jon Davis: Still missed it!! Jesus addressed this DIRECTLY. Right here!
Matthew 19:4-5
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]
One only need to reference THE DESIGN to understand THE PERVERSION.

blind poet38: Not necessarily true. Translated into English, the Bible condemns homosexuality. But looking at the original text, the Hebrew word that is used is very vague. And Jesus never said that gay people couldn't get married, but it was just God's design that they don't get married.

Jon Davis: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable" is not a word, it is a description to eliminate the confusion.
Jesus didn't need to say that "gay people can't get married", he referenced the design and that settled it. One only need to reference THE DESIGN to understand THE PERVERSION.
Penis is designed for vagina. *blush* Vagina is for penis. *blush* Anus is for pooping. *pffrrt*
It's not homophobia. It's basic biology.

blind poet38: If it is basic biology, how is it that scientists have found over 1500 animal species that practice homosexual acts. You are just assuming homosexuality is a sin. But the Bible really does not say that. And I am a Christian by the way.

Jon Davis: It is basic biology because that is how we procreate, and to do things differently promotes bad health (bleeding butts anyone?) and is not conducive to humankind's continuity.
Animals do all kinds of disgusting things. Dogs eat poop. Cats pee on clothes. Are you just an animal? No. Mankind was made in God's image.
As for everything else you just said ("You are just assuming homosexuality is a sin" etc) you're obviously trolling. I just quoted the text that called it "detestable". And while neither Old nor New Testaments use the term "homosexual" (a term that modern English coined) they both describe the sexual act and describe it with disgust and contempt.

blind poet38: You can think I am trolling if you want to, but you have to understand that the original Hebrew uses terminology that is not as clear-cut as people think it is when it deals with condemning homosexuality.

Jon Davis: Read the OP. Matthew 19:4-5 has no dependency upon Leviticus 18:22; indeed it goes the other way around. You're barking at the wrong argument. I myself was trolled by actually responding to it.

blind poet38: Sorry dude, I don't get your point. All I am saying is that in the original Hebrew, the word that is used is not as clear-cut as people think it is to condemn homosexuality.

Jon Davis: Now you're spamming. Stop repeating yourself. Even if it was true, it's irrelevant, and I already explained why. Now go read Romans 1:18-32 (originated as Greek, not Hebrew), study it with an exhaustive study Bible which provides insight on the original language, and come back when you've studied more than the ridiculous false "truths" and FUD you've found on the Internet.

blind poet38: You can be dismissive all you want, and that is fine. But why is it irrelevant? We are talking about homosexuality and the Bible aren't we?

blind poet38: It is obvious you have no answers to anything. I have already done the research.

AskariStudios: But God Said that all sex outside of Marriage is wrong. Since Marriage is in between only a man and a women. this makes homosexuality wrong. in no way shap or form has marriage ben said to take place between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. ONLY a MAN and a Woman.this has been stated numerous times in the bible. Not only this but in Levitcus, it is clear stated that homosexuality is an abomination. clear cut. in Jude, it its written that Sodom and Gomorrah gave themselves up to sexual perversion (homosexuality) and where thus made an example of. So with Just Common Logic, and the fact that through multiple translations, the same wording has shown up., its clear that the bible is against homosexuality.

blind poet38: The Bible never says that sex outside of marriage is a sin.

Jon Davis: "Fornication" is quite elaborately spoken against. That you would say such a thing speaks volumes about modern society being so casually hedonistic; sex outside of marriage was universally taboo and expected to be everyone's struggle, it didn't need to be spelled out in detail like it spelled out homosexuality, it was simply referred to as "fornication".
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Fornication/
http://www.openbible.info/topics/fornication
http://www.gotquestions.org/sex-before-arriage.html

AskariStudios: 1 Cor 7 states : "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: t“It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." Its clear that Paul(I do believe he wrote this) implies that Sex before marriage is sexual immorality and that do to this temptation, a man should marry.
want more proof? look up : (Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7) and Hebrews 13:4.

blind poet38: The only sexual sins that are mentioned in the Bible are adultery, incest and sex with animals. Fornication means "sexual sin." Which sins? Adultery, incest and sex with animals. Premarital sex is not mentioned as a sin.

Jon Davis: "Fornication" does not mean "sexual sins in general". It means "extramarital sex". If you want to discuss Greek or Hebrew, say so, but you didn't. Look up the word and stop speaking assertions about our English words when you don't even know your own English language.

blind poet38: Fornication does not mean "extramarital sex." That is what someone told you it means. Fornication means "sexual sin." Learn the facts.

Jon Davis: There's a fine line between idiocy and trolling. That line is knowledgable intent. I'm not sure what you're doing in your case. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fornication

blind poet38: OK Jon, you are right. Translated into English, premarital sex is a sin, despite the fact that Solomon and David and Samson, etc etc etc all did it and were never punished for it in the Bible. But the question is in the NT,, what does porneia mean? That is not the Greek word for adultery or any specific sexual sin. It generally means any kind of sexual immorality. And what is sexual immorality in the Bible? Adultery and incest and sex with animals.

Jon Davis: what do you mean "they weren't punished for it"? OT figures who engaged in fornication took a pounding for it. Most of their stories are used as case lessons for the hell people go through when they do it.
To answer your question: Fundamentally, in the Bible there are only two types of sex: sex within marriage (one man and one woman) and sexual immorality, porneia. Read the OP in this thread if you don't understand.

Jon Davis, Youtube 2 Comments [7/15/2018 6:42:21 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 138697

I don't really think that this should be a debate over how friendly or intelligent an immigrant group is. Most White Western expats are extremely nice, are better educated than the local population, commit low crime rates, and contribute more to the society through taxes than they take out through government handouts. And yet non-White people still don't want millions of us to flood into their countries and make them minorities in their own cities.
Heck, I don't even like seeing White expats in non-White countries. It's fucking weird seeing White expats wearing traditional Japanese attire and taking part in traditional Japanese cultural events. It would be even weirder if these White expats had these "fuck you" attitudes that non-White immigrants have in White Western countries where they unapologetically colonize your country while maintaining their own native culture. Could you imagine if Americatowns spread across Japan where you have entire cities speaking English and refusing to adopt the native culture?
And brown and black people don't have any problems with being racist towards us in our own countries and openly declaring their desire to keep us out of "their" communities. Just look at the huge number of brown and black people that now live in White Western societies freaking the fuck out whenever we White people start to recolonize our own cities. Brown and black people are completely flipping their shit over "gentrification", which is obviously a euphemistic dog whistle for racist brown and black people wanting to keep White people out of "their" neighborhoods (even though those neighborhoods were White and better off a few decades ago).
Tolerating immigrant groups like Sikhs might seem harmless at first, but if you understand the long-term consequences of adopting these dangerously permissive and welcoming attitudes towards foreign immigrants, then you'll quickly realize that your permissive and tolerant attitudes will result in White people becoming minorities in one neighborhood after the next, and then one city after the next, and then eventually becoming minorities in one country after the next - as is predicted to happen in America, Canada, Britain, Sweden, et cetera, over the next few decades.
When is it morally acceptable for we White people to put our foot down and stop our racial dispossession? When we're down to comprising only 75% of our national population? 65%? 60%? 55%? 51%? Or is it never morally acceptable to close our borders and prevent our racial dispossession? Are we just supposed to warmly welcome and celebrate our racial demise because Sikhs are supposedly model minorities, and because not doing so is dangerously racist and akin to slavery, lynchings, and the holocaust?
Pushing all of those ridiculous - and yet commonly presented - arguments against White nativism aside, I'd argue that keeping Sikhs and other non-White groups out of our countries can be justified on simple demographic mathematics alone. After all, there's more Indians in the world than there is White people. One fucking brown country has more people in it than the entire global White community combined. And so obviously we have to be hyper-vigilant when it comes to preventing mass Indian immigration into our societies because only 1% of their population migrating to a small White country will cause those White people to become minorities in their own homeland. That's why it's extremely important to realize that a certain level of racism - such as opposing non-White immigration into our countries - is simply necessary if we want to exist 100+ years from now.
It's nothing personal, but you Sikhs (and non-White people in general) have to be kept out of our countries if we simply want to survive as a race. Go be model citizens back in your own countries. Your native countries need all of the help that they can get. We'll be just fine without you.
And besides, why would you want to be a minority anyway? Wouldn't you rather live in a country dominated by our own people where you're completely free to be yourself? Don't you yearn to be back in India surrounded by your own kind? Don't you wish that you could see people that look like you respected in the media that you consume? Why would you want to put up with racist stereotypes like Apu and "thank you, come again"? Why would you want to be forced to conform to our social norms? Why would you want to worry about some random yahoo confusing your turban as Islamic terrorist garb and assaulting you? And why would you want to live in a country that will never fully accept you?
And don't you care that you're making the native population feel uncomfortable by colonizing their country? I'd personally be racked with guilt if millions of White people flooded into Japan and tried to force the locals to bend to our will and represent us in their media. And yet I don't think that I've even seen a single non-White person express guilt for making White people minorities in their own countries. On the contrary, they act as if we White Westerners have some kind of moral obligation to just completely bend over for them even though they'd never bend over for us if the roles were reversed.
Non-White immigrants actually have the balls to get in our face, denounce us as racists, physically assault us, and even show up with loaded semi-automatic rifles to shut down our speech by force if we try to stand up for our own racial interests in our own countries. Non-White people would never tolerate that level of disrespect in their own countries unless we forced ourselves upon them through old school military imperialism.
What a perfect testament to how cucked White people have become, which non-White people have picked up on instinctually. Much like how wild animals have become increasingly aggressive towards man after the environmental and conservationist movement severely reduced hunting, so too have people of color lost their fear of the White man due to the liberal "anti-racist" cultural revolution in recent decades. They know that we've become a bunch of pathologically ethnomasochistic cowards. And they know that the liberal media and countless extremely well-funded "anti-hate" NGOs have their back. And so they have no respect for us and absolutely zero fear of us retaliating against them as they brazenly get in our faces and push us around in our own countries.
And it's not like appealing to them morally will make a difference. The only thing that they'll respect is a reemergence and reassertion of unapologetic White ethnocentrism. And that's ultimately why the Alt-Right exists, and that's why people of color and self-hating Whites are so militantly opposed to us. They know that we have a liberal boot on our necks which is keeping us down, and they have absolutely zero interest in letting us get back on our own feet again. They instead want to finish off we "bad" Whites ("good" Whites hate themselves and support open borders) and kill us off for good by putting even more weight on our necks through increased mass non-White immigration and suppression of our speech.
And the supposedly nice and friendly Sikhs will reveal their shared animosity towards we "bad" Alt-Right Whites as they join in with the other non-White and White leftist mobs that violently attack our real world events and advocate for laws that criminalize our speech. And that's why the "model minorities" rhetoric doesn't fool the Alt-Right. Whether these non-White people in our countries are model minorities or degenerate ghetto brown trash, they're completely united in preventing White Westerners from reclaiming their own countries and preventing their racial demise.
And as you pointed out in a previous post on this subreddit, a lot of these people are hardcore ethnic nationalists themselves who are basically only living in White Western countries in order to make more money. So they're a 5th column security threat on top of being a unwanted foreign colonizer.

CertifiedRabbi, /r/DebateAltRight 0 Comments [7/15/2018 6:41:22 AM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 138869

[It's Over] Teenage love

If you missed out on teenage love it is over. Teenage love is the only pure form of love as it is without the pressure of bills, time , baby making ect.

If you missed out on this very narrow window of opportunity then a foid will never truely love you.

It isn't over.

It never began.

AfrikanCel, incels.me 13 Comments [7/14/2018 9:31:41 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 138864

If people can be disemployed for refusing to believe that gender is self-determined or that one group of people murdered a specific number of a different group of people in the 20th century, then they can certainly be disemployed, or even deported, for refusing to believe that God exists and Jesus Christ is Lord.

The fraudulent nature of the Enlightenment has been revealed. Freedom of speech and expression was always just an excuse to try to dislodge Christianity from its dominant position in the West and thereby destroy Western Civilization.

...

Observe that, as usual, equality is the intellectual justification for evil. Equality is evil and Thomas Jefferson's flights of rhetorical fancy notwithstanding, all men are most certainly not created equal in any way, legal, material, or spiritual. Equality is the retarded version of "ye shall be as gods" and nothing good ever comes of it.

Vox Day, Vox Popoli 19 Comments [7/14/2018 7:05:47 AM]
Fundie Index: 10

Quote# 138863

(Commenting on an article posted entitled "Kavanaugh 2017: Roe Was Part of a Tide of “Freewheeling Judicial Creation Of Unenumerated Rights” https://hotair.com/archives/2018/07/12/kavanaugh-2017-roe-part-tide-freewheeling-judicial-creation-unenumerated-rights-unrooted-american-tradition/);

***** It is all so simple . Men want to make this hard and complicated and confuse these issues. IT's as Simple as this. If the baby is human from its conception then its rights come from God. And Gods doesn't want its life to end. Most of us agree that a baby is human since it can only be conceived by another human with human sperm and egg cells. Those who want to allow abortion twist the words and meanings. However God also created conscience and most women who destroy their babies for whatever reason they deem necessary at the time suffer from conscience of doing so at some time in their life. The obvious evidence should not be ignored and Congress should take up the issue to define it once and for all, but the issue is so confused in society that most men fear. Fear doesn't come from God.

d_1goodt, Realabortiondebate 7 Comments [7/14/2018 7:05:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 138861

(Responding to another group member who wrote, in part: "In order to show evolution of man from another species or any type of evolution, you would have to see one species evolve from another. A brand new species does not show evolution or any type of evolvement. You won't find any. If it happened, evolution pushers would be shouting it from the rooftops.") Boldface mine:

Of course, there have to be intermediate species. No evolutionists denies that.

The fossil record, however, shows the first of every major animal phylum appears in the record fully formed with no evidence they evolved from anything.

The missing links are missing by millions. Evolutionists have lame excuses for all the missing evidence -- species fossilized by their intermediaries didn't or evolution happen in bursts, so fast that it didn't leave a fossil record but so slow that it now can't be observed.

Evolution isn't a valid scientific theory. The Cambrian Explosion and lack of fossil evidence for it proof God create species in their present form.



doggie47304, Realabortiondebate 11 Comments [7/14/2018 7:04:16 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 138860

This might seem simple, as if ethnic identity can be reduced to counting genes. That is not how the human Homo Sapien) mind works. Suffice it that descent is what defines and motivates kinship systems. Members of an ethnic group believe that they share common ancestors, as well as sharing culture. This perceived kinship, expressed in folkloric metaphors such as “shared blood”, explains why ethnic and tribal motivation can be so strong. Knowledge of genetics might now, in principle, substitute for folklore but has not been necessary for thousands of years. By and large, beliefs about ancestry are accurate, so that folkloric beliefs about ethnicity generally correspond to genetic identity. This contradicts the sociological theory that ethnicity and race are socially constructed with no role for biology.
Frank Salter presents a powerful case for the adaptiveness of ethnocentrism. Different human ethnic groups and races have been separated for thousands of years, and during this period they have evolved some genetic distinctiveness. This genetic distinctiveness constitutes a storehouse of genetic interest. A quick look at the historical record shows that conflict between different groups has been common throughout human history. Tribalism seems to be the default mode of human political organization. The world’s largest land empire, that of the Mongols, was a tribal organization. But tribalism is hard to abandon, again suggesting that an evolutionary change may be required. Cooperative defense by tribal peoples is universal and ancient and it is bound to have boosted the genetic fitness of those who acted to further the interests of their group. Under such circumstances it would be odd indeed if natural selection did not mold the human mind to be predisposed to ethnocentrism.
In other words, people have an interest in their ethnic group in exactly the same way that parents have a genetic interest in raising their children: In raising their children, parents ensure that their unique genes are passed on to the next generation. But in defending ethnic interests, people are doing the same thing — ensuring that the genetic uniqueness of their ethnic group is passed into the next generation. When parents of a particular ethnicity succeed in rearing their children, their ethnic group also succeeds because the genetic uniqueness of their ethnic group is perpetuated as part of their child’s genetic inheritance. But when an ethnic group succeeds in defending its interests, individual members of the ethnic group also succeed because the genetic uniqueness that they share with other members of the ethnic group is passed on. This is the case even for people who don’t have children: A person succeeds genetically when his ethnic group as a whole prospers.

Frank, Quillette 3 Comments [7/14/2018 7:03:18 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 138858

Yup. That what the literature and a thousand years of history tell us. Multiethnic and culturally diverse democracies, like the USA, consist of peoples of different religions, languages, cultures, races, and nationalities. One of these groups dominates the others by naked military and police power. Nations, on the other hand, are dominated by one group that makes up a strong majority of the population. Finally and most important, nations are inherently stable while multicultural democracies are always inherently unstable. Nations are naturally stable because a majority of the people mutually recognize each other as co-nationals. Multi-ethnic democracies like the current USA never achieve true internal stability. They survive only by military and police suppression and break up the minute the dominant group loses the power to shackle the society together. To understand the future, study the past. Throughout world history, all multi-ethnic democracies have broken up, and almost always in cataclysmic violence. Therefore, the question is not if the multi-ethnic America will shatter, but when and under what circumstances. The only was a culturally diverse multiethnic society can be kept together is by a totalitarian government, a choice the people of the USA are not likely to make.

KDM, Quillette 3 Comments [7/14/2018 6:52:16 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 138854

Yes, in Theology and Philosophy and Literature, too. They also advanced the
Math. Their Church music is incomparable among mankind. Europeans are
the greatest only until the Western ones started demanding the entire
mankind to support the homosexual depravity. The Eastern ones are still
intact as of today.

Europeans have been the greatest and far superior only
because of Christianity. Europeans are another case of oppressive
barbarians like the rest if they have no Christianity. Today's gay West is the proof.
Mankind should never be forced to endorse the mentally ill depravity imposed by
the Western whites. It's the worst kind of tyranny on earth. Europeans need Christianity to be true and moral and noble, not just to be saved.

Grace Kim Kwon, Eurocanadian 1 Comments [7/14/2018 6:51:11 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 138853

We should not be satisfied. In my books The Uniqueness of Western Civilization and Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age I emphasized the "continuous creativity" of Europeans from ancient Greek times to the present. I also went back to the revolutionary contributions of pre-historic Europeans in the domestication and riding of horses, their co-invention of wheeled vehicles, their principal contribution to the "secondary-products revolution," their invention of chariots, their creation of the most dynamic language in history, the proto-Indo-European language, their nurturing of the only true aristocratic culture in history (in which rulers were not despots but first among equals), their origination of the first heroic and tragic literature, and, most important of all, their responsibility for the appearance of "self-consciousness" in history, which laid the foundations for the Greek Miracle.

I highlighted the scholars who wrote about the Greek invention of secular observation of nature, the invention of mathematical proof, the invention of artistic realism, the invention of prose writing, the invention of historical writing, the invention of politics, the invention of infantry warfare, the production of the highest sequence of the greatest thinkers in history, the Hellenistic Revolution in Science, not to mention technological and economic novelties.

I also mentioned the Roman contribution of the first rationalized legal system that recognized each citizen as a legal person, Rome's unsurpassed engineering, aqueducts, Latin literature, and rational infrastructure of war-making as well as the greatest empire in human history. I argued that the Middle Ages were one of the most creative periods in history as evidenced by the invention of universities, corporate autonomy of the church and towns coupled with the "first modern legal system," the invention of mechanical clocks, the scholastic method of investigation, the best water mills, Romanesque and Gothic architectural buildings unsurpassed in history, the three field system of agriculture, an entire Renaissance in the 12th century.

The West is filled with "origins," "transitions," "inventions," "renaissances," "discoveries," and "revolutions": the Printing Revolution, the Portuguese rounding of Africa, the discovery of the New World, Cartographic Revolution, the Italian Renaissance, the invention of perspective painting, the Copernican Revolution, the Newtonian Revolution, the Military Revolution, the Glorious Revolution, the French Revolution, the First Industrial Revolution, the Second Industrial Revolution, the German Philosophical Revolution(s) from Leibniz to Kant to Hegel to Nietzsche to Heidegger, the invention of the Novel, the Romantic Rebellion, the Darwinian Revolution — to mention a few.

Meanwhile, the Rest of the world remained stuck without any major novelties after the inventions of the Bronze Age that we associate with the rise of civilization as such. There was change, but no revolutionary novelties, no major thinkers, no major scientists, no major artists. There were a few philosophical reflections by Muslims out of their reading of Aristotle early in the Middle Ages, and some novelties in pharmaceutical ingredients and optics. The Chinese also produced a few trinkets by way of water clocks, firecrackers, and paper. But Chinese "development" consisted only in demographic expansion, intensification of rice farming, and the building of big ships called "junks."

Measuring European greatness has always entailed an evaluation of the way artists, novelists, philosophers, composers, mathematicians have occasioned a breakthrough, a new way of explaining history, a new style of poetic expression, a whole new philosophical outlook. In contrast, the measurement of non-European greatness tends to be about men who were good at following an existing tradition, perfecting an existing style of painting and poetic expression, reinforcing the unquestioned thoughts of sages.

The standards for Western greatness are far higher. Here is a glimpse of European greatness in classical music. We learn that in Claudio Monteverdi (1567-1643), pioneer of opera, "for the first time in history there was a complete unity between drama and music." We learn that "it is harmonic intensity above all that sets Bach's music apart from that of his contemporaries...In Bach's music a completely new harmonic language is forged [...] There is no music in the literature that has Bach's kind of rightness, of inevitability, of intelligence, of logically organized sequence of notes."

When Haydn started, "the new music — the music of the style galant — was in its infancy and Haydn put everything together. It is not for nothing that he is called the Father of the Symphony. With equal Justice he can be called the father of the String Quartet...Rococo is left far behind; this is Classicism of the purest kind, and the music is big." Beethoven, "from the beginning he was a creator, one of those natural talents, full of ideas and originality [...] Then came Eroica, and music was never again the same. With one convulsive wrench, music entered the nineteenth century."

Berlioz "was a natural revolutionary, the first of the conscious avant-gardists...Uninhibited, highly emotional, witty, mercurial, picturesque, he was very conscious of his Romanticism [...] he was in every way a revolutionary, fully prepared to throw established and even sacred notions into a garbage can." Chopin "was not only a genius as a pianist, he was creatively a genius, one of the most startlingly original ones of the century [...] For the first time the piano became a total instrument: a singing instrument, an instrument of infinite colour, poetry, and nuance, a heroic instrument, an intimate instrument." [The above citations are from The Lives of the Great Composers, 2006].

This kind of originality can be found in all the arts and sciences of the West. Actually, the entire history of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, historical writing, logic, archaeology, anthropology, sociology, economics, geography, is dominated by Europeans from beginning to end. After all, these disciplinary fields were all invented by Europeans.

Why this is so should be the mother of all historical questions. Yet even the thought that Europe was slightly greater terrifies an academic world obligated to push a multicultural mandate in education. This explains the hysteria against King. Talking about European greatness is now identified as "mentally stunted."

The only unique contribution Europeans are allowed, known as the "great divergence," is the Industrial Revolution, with perhaps permission to connect this revolution to the rise of modern science. But students are quickly reminded that China is now surpassing the West in industrial development. Jack Goldstone and Kenneth Pomeranz are two prominent names behind this historical revisionism. They say the West was merely different in reaching an industrial state first thanks to the exploitation of the Americas, the availability of coal in England, or the "fortuitous" development of an instrumentalist-engineering science in the 1700s. A few critics are begging for the inclusion of Western liberal institutions in the assessment of this divergence. But all in all, the uniqueness of the West is now suppressed.

This is what diversity enrichment entails.

Ricardo Duchesne, Eurocanadian 2 Comments [7/14/2018 6:47:32 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 138847

A lot of Italians are sick of the immigrant invasion, which Pope Francis supports.

If these Italians came to power, it’d be the easiest thing in the world to take Vatican City, depose Francis and put Benedict (or another) on the throne of St. Peter.

I know it’s extreme, but things are getting extreme.

MUDDOG, Free Republic 11 Comments [7/13/2018 1:53:11 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 138846

[Note: Kiwifarmers reacting to the Leicester square metro incident.]

Gang of women repeatedly stamp on man's head in 2am brawl at Leicester Square underground station

(sperginity)
These are low effort troons, the news reports all just say "women" though.
I think the blonde one is same person that punched a grandma at speakers corner. Names are not released so far.

(Cod of War)
He probably didn't use their pronouns.

(melty)
I'm gonna call it, there is going to be a wave of "women" committing crimes in the near future along with delightful articles about how violent crimes from females are on the rise and why the patriarchy is at fault and/or it's such a mystery, etc

(Marvin)
Heh, like how women's track and field numbers have suddenly lurched upwards, after decades, perhaps centuries of relative stagnation. (Track and field events are an interesting benchmark because unlike most sports, we've actually been doing them in more or less the same form since the ancient olympics.)

(Positron)
Trannies are insane and violent.

(Maiden-TieJuan)
If I remember correctly, the troon who attacked the old lady was homeless. That might be the "no fixed address" one.

(TowinKarz)
The delicious irony, that troons are going to cause women's' crime stats to turn more violent, and the same pearl-clutching feel-good dummies who wanted them counted as women will now find themselves on the losing end of court cases, civil judgments, employment opportunities and the like since the aura of "Women are peaceful and would never do such a thing" is dead and gone since we have to count mentally unbalanced girl-dicks as women, they FEEL they are.

(Okkervils)
I wouldn't be surprised. They're savages. I'm shocked this guy wasn't injured more than he was...

(wateryketchup)
Men are so fucking violent, geez

(CWCissey)
English men dressing kind of fruity and beating up random people for fun, why does that sound familiar...



various kiwifarms commenters, Kiwifarms.net 6 Comments [7/13/2018 1:53:05 PM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 138844

I would put it to you that most people aren’t really good disciples. So when a Muslim doesn’t emulate Mohammad that is in fact a good thing. A very good thing. But that doesn’t change the fact that Islam itself is what can make a terrorist of any Muslim with little warning. Moreover, Islam creates the conditions for “moderates” to be the tall grass the others hide in. In addition to that, even the very definitions used by Muslims of common terms may not be used colloquially, and this is in fact something the OIC has put the world on legal notice of.

When ANY Muslim official says that they oppose terrorism or are for human rights as a matter of OIC treaty they mean something very different than what you or I mean. Finally, because the OIC officially speaks for the whole umma (sometimes spelled ummah) this same principal must be assumed to apply to ANY Muslim simply because we cannot know who is or isn’t applying taqiyya.

Because the OIC represents all Muslim nations at the head of state level, it is an authority over Shiite and Sunni alike. Per Sharia includes Muslims living in non-Muslim lands. So a Muslim that actually opposed terrorism as the colloquial meaning set it forth, who actually supports the ability of nations to have their own laws, is in fact in opposition to Islam.

Rurudyne, Free Republic 5 Comments [7/13/2018 1:52:46 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 138843

Thinking that others think and behave in the same way as we do has been indispensable to our evolutionary enhancement. If other humans thought in a manner that was very different from us, we would not be able to develop this social intelligence. It is very difficult for us to think that other people do not have the same mind as ours. But this is precisely the problem Europeans find themselves today. Through their much higher cognitive fluidity and intense sense of introspection and critical consciousness, they have created a society in which tribal identities are weaker and discredited, for the sake of a hyper-individualism in which everyone is to be judged in abstraction from their group identities. This "libertarian" culture worked as long as Europeans were the only players. But millions of immigrants from non-Europeans cultures, together with hostile elites in charge of the media, who do not think in this individualistic way, have weaponized this moral universalism to obligate Europeans to treat outsiders as equal individuals, cunningly employing their social intelligence to promote their own tribal interests. It is not that the Darwinian component of social intelligence has disappeared altogether among Europeans. There is reason to hope that populist nationalism and white identity politics will continue to grow, and then Europeans will be able to enjoy their higher cognitive fluidity within their own independent homelands.

Ricardo Duchesne, Eurocanadian  9 Comments [7/13/2018 1:52:43 PM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 138842

Uniqueness

Half of my book, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, is about discrediting the multicultural claim that, as late as the mid 1700s, the West was no more advanced than the major civilizations of Asia, or China in particular, and that only a set of fortuitous circumstances gave the West a chance to industrialize first. The West did not "stumble" accidentally into the New World, I argued, and it was not "easy access" to the resources of the Americas, enslavement of blacks, or availability of cheap coal in Britain, that made possible Britain's take-off.

Columbus voyages were one among many other European explorations, starting with the organized expeditions of the Portuguese around Africa into the Indian Ocean in the 1400s. During the 1500s and 1600s, thousands of Europeans set about discovering and mapping the whole world for the first time in human history. While the acquisition of resources from the Americas, and the colonial trade did affect the timing, magnitude, and rate of industrial growth, this revolution occurred first in Britain because of this nation's freer markets, property rights, superior applications of modern science to industry, representative institutions, and a dynamic middle classes imbued with a Protestant ethic. Many other European nations, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Nordic countries, would soon industrialize in the 1800s, with next to no colonies. Overall the home market and the intra-European trade were far more significant than the colonial trade.

What I did new in Uniqueness was to argue that the rise of the West can't be reduced to the industrial revolution and even the preceding Galilean-Newtonian revolution. The West has always stood apart from the Rest as a singularly different civilization since prehistoric times. The history of the West is filled with continuous "births," "origins," "creations," "transitions," "renaissances," and "revolutions". We can start with ancient Greece and the "world's first scientific thought," the "invention of deductive reasoning," the "birth of citizenship politics," the "emergence of historical consciousness" and "the discovery of the mind". But then we have to explain what made Greece so different. The current, widely accepted explanation for Greek uniqueness, is question-begging. It says that the Greeks developed a unique institution, the polis, or city state, which encouraged individualism and reasoned discourse. Rather than having to submit to a priestly or government hierarchy, the citizens of these city-states were free to participate in the affairs of their city as well as enjoy a cultural atmosphere which encouraged individuals to contest for excellence.

But why the emergence of the polis and the higher individualism of the Greeks in the first place? Some have pointed to the geographical distinctiveness of Greece, its mountainous ecology, which compartmentalised the land into separate valleys, and encouraged the rise of small independent city-states. The geographic uniqueness of Europe generally is always part of the explanation. There is no question that the greater environmental diversity of Europe, its multiple rivers and links to a wider variety of seas, coupled with the fact that its mountains, plains, and valleys are all "of limited extent," and that no great river or plain dominates the ecology, and that farmers can rely on rainfall rather than on centrally controlled irrigation systems based on one large river, encouraged less centralized political authorities.

But rather than viewing geography as the active historical agent, the way Jared Diamond and others do, I drew on Hegel to emphasize the deep effect this environment had on the "type and character" of European peoples. The peoples of the world belong to the same species, but their state of being — their mental vision, temperament, and character — is deeply influenced by their place of habitation in the earth. I also went back in time to the prehistorical Indo-Europeans to argue that before the polis in Greece was established around the eight century BC, there were already aristocratic characters unwilling to submit to despotic rule. The Mycenaean civilization (1900-1200 BC) was uniquely aristocratic in the sense that "some men," not just the king, were free to deliberate over major issues affecting the group, as well as free to strive for personal recognition. The material origins of this aristocratic individualist ethos are to be found in the unique pastoral lifestyle of the Indo-Europeans who evolved out of the geographical area known as the "Pontic steppes". They were the riders of horses, the inventors of chariots and co-inventors of wheeled wagons, as well as the most efficient users of the "secondary products" of domestic animals (dairy products, textiles, harnessing), which gave them a more robust physical anthropology and the most dynamic way of life in their time.

I used the philosophical insights of four German thinkers, Spengler, Weber, Hegel, and Nietzsche — their writings about the "infinite drive," "the irresistible trust" of the Occident, the "energetic, imperativistic, and dynamic soul of the West," the "rational restlessness" of Europeans, the "powerful physicality [of aristocrats]...effervescent good health... [love of] adventure, hunting, dancing, jousting and everything that contains strong, free, happy action" — to argue that only European man has exhibited an intense desire to subject the world to its own ends, and that it is mainly this self who has been unable to feel "at home" in the world until it got rid "of the semblance of being burdened with something alien" (Hegel's words).

Why has the European mind shown less reluctance to accept "the ineffable mystery of the world"? Why have Europeans been less willing to accept a social order based on laws and norms which have not been subjected to free reflection? Drawing on Kojeve I argued the ultimate origins of Western uniqueness are to be found in the reality that only Western man became "truly" self-conscious because only this man created — in the environment of the Pontic steppes — a society in which the struggle to become a man involved a contest "for something that does not exist really," that is, a contest solely for the sake of being recognized by another human being as a man exhibiting aristocratic excellence against the biological fear of death and against the fear of rebelling against the norms mandated by mysterious/despotic gods and rulers.

In all cultures men have struggled for manhood and recognition by other men but only among the aristocratic culture of Indo-Europeans do we find an incessant contest to validate one's aristocratic status among one's peers, for these nomadic, horse-riding warriors were not subservient to any ruler but were possessed by an attitude of "being-for-self" or self-assertiveness (rather than an attitude of "being-for-another" or deference towards a fearful god or despotic ruler). This contest had a profound effect on the constitution of the human personality, leading to the discovery of a unified self. This discovery was not, in the first instance, an intellectual affair, as bookish academics prefer to think; it was an intensively passionate drive for masculine identity in the pursuit of the highest form of recognition, aristocratic status, for the sake of the highest ideals, honor, courage, immortal glory.

Eurocanadian , Eurocanadian  5 Comments [7/13/2018 1:52:40 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 138837

God's Little Martyrs

My thoughts go now to the tiny little victims of a great evil in America, a land that used to love the name of God, and His pure inspired Word. This evil involving God's tiny martyrs in abortion, which David in the Old Testament describes as the Voice Of The Unborn“ ,” as his voice from the womb.

Psalms 139:13-16, “For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.”


Imagine that! A baby even though he or she is not even formed, when though but a fertilized egg, a mass of human substance or tissue before even called a fetus, God has stamped a name on it. Yes, there are billions of little aborted “No Names” which have been named by God, and have been carried by the angels into Heaven. They are God's tiniest martyrs!

Revelation 3:5, “He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.” Since salvation can never be lost, then a saved person's name could never be removed from the Lamb's Book of Life. The only logical conclusion is that EVERYONE'S NAME is already recorded in the Lamb's Book of Life before they are even conceived. This interpretation agrees with Psalms 139:13-16. When a person willfully rejects Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, their name is REMOVED! To corrupt the Word of God effectively is the same as rejecting the Son of God, who is called “The Word of God” (Revelation 19:13). So every aborted baby already has a name given by God in Heaven. ALL BABIES GO TO HEAVEN FOREVER!!!

Here is another thought. That baby, so easily given up and destroyed, is conveniently called a “fetus” so as to strip away it's humanity, thereby making it easier to plunge the scissors into the back of that precious little one's skull, and some have even gone to term (aka, a “Partial Birth Abortion”). All forms of abortion is evil beyond expressing in mere words. God will have the last say, on Judgment Day in eternity, I promise you that dear reader! America as a nation has the blood of tens of millions of tiny martyrs on our hands!

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Precious 7 Comments [7/13/2018 11:20:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 138836

The great strength of the position concerning historical Bible language translation/interpretation that I have previously outlined is that it guards against attempts to force the acceptance of a particular agenda.
In dismissing "the established view" you are actually dismissing the consensus of academic research and textural criticism that has accrued from centuries of such work.
You mention agenda. Your agenda is obviously the defence and promotion of homosexuality. In order to do this you are obliged to cast doubt upon the reliability of the Bible and its teaching, and thus undermine its acceptance, by Christians, as being God's revelation to us.
Thankfully, for "ordinary" Christians (the majority of us), God's "guiding hand" is seen in the consensus of today's biblical scholarship and is our safeguard.

Alan Minchin, Disqus 4 Comments [7/13/2018 11:20:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: CC

Quote# 138832

Something very significant that happened just now.

Very recently I was in my room and all of a sudden the door opened by itself. Out of the door emerged someone who looked exactly like me, holding a crucifix. He performed a Holy spell causing my soul to escape my body and enter his causing our consciousnesses to merge into one and have memories of both selves. It turns out that he is me from a parralel universe where Charles John Montague Manners became King of England, France, and as a result of him defeating the EU during the warfare, he also became Holy Roman Emperor.

I took my former body through the portal, entering a castle. There were guards who said that they will take care of the body and took the body away. The guard also told me to go back to this universe..

I came back to this universe and the portal closed.

In the parralel universe, Charles Manners was successful until his friend was seduced into having romantic extramarital sex which caused events which led to the Sword of Excalibur to be destroyed which caused England to be supernaturally cursed with a plague that wiped out England’s entire population.

I will be making animated YouTube videos documenting events in the parralel universe to promote the legitimacy cause for this universe since it failed in the other. The moral of the story is that you should not have extra marital sex.

Jacob Harrison, FSTDT Forums 63 Comments [7/13/2018 5:26:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 138821

Pastor: Preaching Against Homosexuality Akin to Preaching Against Slavery

Baptist pastor said at the denominations summit earlier this week.

The setting was the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty summit. The topic: preaching about homosexuality in the gay rights era.

Summit Church’s Pastor J.D. Greear certainly got the audience's attention when he started making comparisons between preaching against homosexuality in modern days to preaching against slavery in the 1800s.

With the hashtag #erlcsummit, RNS’s Sarah Pulliam Bailey quoted Greear on Twitter as saying, “Preaching against homosexuality is about as popular as preaching against slavery in South Carolina in the 1800s.”

Another tweeter, Ruth Graham (@publicroad) wrote, “@jdegreear compares preaching against homosexuality today to preaching against slavery in South Carolina in 1861."

So who is this brave pastor? Greear became the pastor of a church called Homestead Heights Baptist Church in 2002. According to his bio, he led a 40-year-old, plateaued church of 300 to re-launch itself with a new name and a new vision to reach its community and world with the gospel. Now, over 8,000 worshippers gather weekly, making The Summit Church one of Outreach magazine’s “top 25 fastest-growing churches in America” for several years running.

JD Greear, Charisma 10 Comments [7/13/2018 2:33:59 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Christopher

Quote# 138819

real problem? And I mean a real psychological/ medical problem, not a moral one. Your morals are yours, and you can keep them at home.

Additional related questions:

1) Two 15 year olds are dating and having sex. They are both below the AOC (age of consent). Are they raping, hurting, traumatizing eachother?

2) A 15 year old and and 20 year old are dating and having sex. The 15 year old is below the AOC and the 20 year old over. Is the 20 year old raping, traumatizing, or hurting the 15 year old? Aside from the law and some people just not liking it, how is this automatically different from 1?

3) An eleven year old has entered and passed puberty. It happens. He or she wants to start having sex. How old of a partner can he or she choose without being raped, traumatized or hurt as a matter of course? Or, is it just impossible for an eleven year old to have sex with anyone without it being rape, trauma and anguish? Is that anything to compare to the trauma and anguish of not being able to have sex despite desiring it both physiologically and mentally?

I ask these because I find all these sex laws based on nothing but age to be completely and utterly preposterous. There is nothing in science or nature to clearly correlate age and sex to be connected to mental trauma or distress.

The AOC was not updated on those grounds. The AOC was orginally formulated to protect girls (not boys) from getting into something they did not understand. The age was set at 6. I kid you not. It was updated in order to protect the purity and value to potential suitors of girls and women (and also morality), which is why the marriage age and the age of consent are often different. It went from 6 to 10, then to 14, then to 16, and in some places now 18. And this trauma idea is not sound and its not the reason. Or prove me wrong and explain how it relates and how the updates came to be. Make my day




Overall I would say someone in their 20s or older should almost never be with someone under 20. It mostly comes down to when the individual develops that sense of handling adult situations but seeing as that would be different with everyone why take the risk of intensely damaging someone's psyche. That number isn't specific really, just a generalization. I don't think it's wrong for a 21 year old to date a 19 year old. That's just dumb.

Such strong opinions. So little to back it up.

Can you name one person who got a damaged psyche from dating? You know, where the reason for the damaged psyche was because one was 21 and if he or she were 19 instead, there would be no damaged psyche?


Mostly the people I know who got a damaged psyche from an age disparate relationship was the older one, as he or she was made to go knock on doors and announce "Hi! I am a pedophile!" and is not allowed to take his own kids to the park anymore. Not to mention the jail time.

Oh, but lets not forget about the younger ones who had to submit to a rape exam so the law could make a case against the man she loves.

God but I hope you don't think I am joking. 20/20 did a special on Frank and Nikki Rodriguez. If you have never seen it, you should watch it. Its enough to make you want to throw up what they did to these people. The only damaged psyches were caused by her parents and the police and courts. The Age of Consent: When Young Love Is a Sex Crime - ABC News

Their case is not unique by a long shot. And its all because distant, disconnected big shots in legislature made some numbers law that some sex negative wankers pulled out of a hat and lobbied them for.

If you use your senses though it's usually obvious what's acceptable and what isn't and if you're not sure than the answer is no.


In other words, give up. Bow down. Throw your love away because some wankers in the world want their power trip over you.

Most people's senses tell them what is acceptable is what the biggest, noisest puritan A-hole in the room will tolerate. I reject that idea totally. We should never let go of love and mutual sexual satisfaction for such poor reasons. We should never submit to "moral" bigotry.

The first rule should be to cause no harm. The second rule should be to leave them better than you found them.

---------- Post added at 13:44 ---------- Previous post was at 13:32 ----------

GaijinGolfer said:
Part of the problem you have when youre younger is that you cant comprehend the consequences of your actions.


Right. Adults never get STDs, accidental pregnancies or find themselves trapped in abusive relationships. I think you are applying a pretty big double standard. I think teens especially are smarter than you think, or would be if not for being stunted by society driving this wedge between them and the rest of the world.

Your hormones are raging and all you can think is how you want to have sex, how everyone else is doing it and how doing so will make you an adult.

In my case, when I was 15, I declined to have sex with a woman because I did not have a condom and I was concerned about her history. She was about 25.

When I was 19, I got drunk at a frat party and went home with a girl I just met and had unprotected sex because she said she was on the pill.

I got dumber in four years didn't I? I made a bad decision because of TIME. TIME is what made me frustrated. I would never have been that dumb if not for years of waiting. After four years my next chance finally came, and I was not about to let it slide.


You cant comprehend the issues that arise with STDs, your reputation, the complexity that sex brings into a relationship and the risks of pregnancy.

Yes you can, just as well as any virgin of any age. By what miracle would you expect a 20 year old with no sexual experience to understand those things better than a 14 year old who has been educated and has experience?


Mark of Zorro, Japan reference forums 3 Comments [7/13/2018 2:32:47 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 138824

Jesus never said anything about homosexuality? (Voddie Baucham)

Voddie Baucham on the common claim by many non-christians (and many liberal, compromising christians) that Jesus never addressed the issue of homosexuality.

Dr. Michael Brown also adequately demolishes this myth:
http://youtu.be/Py6sEf5d92M

Voddie Baucham, YouTube 4 Comments [7/13/2018 1:14:37 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 138823

brian (pastor brian) this is Not about being against or hating homosexuality its about teaching them its sin so they may repent & stop living that lifestyle so they have the opportunity to live forever in heaven with The Living & True GOD who made the heavens & earth & All thats in them. Im sorry for you cause(pastors) are held to a higher standard & with you accusing this is about homophobic & saten would be proud (you would know) your known as a liar. Thou shall not lie, shame on you for speaking evil about Truth.

Charleen Mcdade, Youtube 2 Comments [7/13/2018 1:14:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Christopher

Quote# 138822

(=Comment on "Pastor JD Greear equates preaching against homosexuality with preaching against slavery"=)

Ok, I do not like this comparison. Slavery wasn't a choice but homosexuality is. The atrocities that slavery put against a group of people and the aftershocks are astounding. Has anyone been killed for speaking against homosexuality??

Get IT J, Youtube 5 Comments [7/13/2018 1:14:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Christopher
1 2 3 4 5 10 14 | top