Quote# 36140

[Re: Post: not of this world]

It's totally normal to feel this way. Just yesterday my eight-year-old was crying and telling me how much she hates her life here, and how badly she wants to go to Heaven. My human instinct wanted to comfort her by giving her earthly things to make her life better, but my spiritual side tells me that she is simply feeling like a lot of us do - world-weary.

Some people might feel pity for us because we don't enjoy our lives as much as those who are of the world do. But no one will pity us in the next life. Jesus told us to spend our lives laying up treasures in Heaven - not to spend them chasing after the next promotion, a bigger house, a nicer car, or a better-looking spouse.

It's hard to live in this world as a Christian. I really don't want to be an old woman in this world, seeing as how it is getting darker and darker every day. But, no matter how, soon we will be going home. Hang in there. I know how you feel.

PeaceOfChrist, Rapture Ready 70 Comments [3/11/2008 10:42:23 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 88886

[Concerning a political cartoon that depicts Chick-Fil-A with separate water fountains for gay and straight people.]

You know, if you think about it, that cartoon does make sense for public hygiene reasons. AIDs is transmitted by body fluids. The homos are mentally ill, and mentally ill people do bad things. An AIDs homo wouldn't think twice about licking or spitting on the nozzle of that drinking fountain.
When good people are out on the street acknowledging their faith, homos spit on them. If one of those homos has AIDS, that spit becomes a deadly weapon.
The worst mistake America has ever made was to release them from the mental institutions. Behavior like this is what kept them there. The American people and their children were much safer because of it.

Giving them different drinking fountains and bathrooms is not a "racial" issue. It's a public safety issue. The segregated fountains would stop the dangerous spreading of their spit, and the private bathrooms would keep their orgies, nasty body excretions, AIDs filled used condoms, and boy rapes apart from the bathrooms used by the normal segments of society.

concerned about politics, Free Republic 51 Comments [8/11/2012 5:37:34 AM]
Fundie Index: 95
Submitted By: Rabbit of Caerbannog
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 22713

Like I have said in previous posts, I would never say Amen in church. I think there is a BIG difference in a woman quietly saying Amen, and then a woman shouting (just as loudly as a man) Amen. Yes, I believe in praising God, but in the cases that I have seen and heard, the women were "out-shouting" the men, and it was getting out of hand. My pastor gave some great points on women having a meek and quiet spirit. Not only did she stick-out, but she got the point across that she was the leader in the family. She was becoming a distraction to everyone by her loud and hearty Amen.
I am not opposed to a women quietly saying Amen, or I agree.

As far as men shouting "Amen", I am not opposed to at all. My church is very exciting, and I think it's great when the men are shouting. My dad happens to be one of those!

Bluegrass Girl, T4C 45 Comments [3/29/2007 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 138711

Illuminati/Masonic Dehumanisation of the Masses


In a world of ignorance, apathy, gross contradiction, cognitive dissonance and denial … what will it take for the masses to wake up? Granted, they have been deceived, but living in zombie-like trances they lack responsibility towards themselves and their fellow humans: It’s therefore no surprise to see them buy into the effronteries and blindly give their consent to the ruling elite’s agendas, not knowing about the underlying hidden, dark and destructive ulterior motives.

A major effect of these agendas is that they are dehumanizing. In light of this, here are 5 indicators to show how the ruling elite’s agendas are covertly dehumanizing the masses on many levels for manipulation, and what needs to be done to prevent the disastrous consequences.

For instance, in a recent article, Google engineering director Ray Kurzweil and here in so many words, claims that a stronger, brighter and sexier human race will emerge before 2045. Enhanced Homo sapiens Mk-2 will have had their brains fused with technology, belong in a technological cybernetic society to become a singularity… -Some of us can’t help thinking that this is something to greatly mistrust.

See Project Moscow 2045 – started by media mogul Itskov: The Devil speaks and rejoices.
Ray Kurzweil is Jewish – and Dmitry Itskov, the author of “Moscow 2045” has a Jewish surname from the Minsk region

Here follow 5 characteristics of the NWO dehumanisation/Making of Zombies.

I: The transhumanism agenda is a deception. Retrospectively, just about everything the ruling elite do only benefits a relative small handful of individuals and transhumanism will be no exception. Through the technology, the rest of the populace will be enslaved in a technological mind control prison…

The more humans who incorporate themselves with cybernetics or anything else making up transhumanism, the more they will lose their powerful connection to spirituality and all those qualities related to unconditional love; kindness, empathy, generosity, big-heartedness, concern… Thus, humans will lose their true power to stop the new world order and may even become extinct.
Transhumanism is greatly flawed. Major tenets of transhumanism are based on false pretexts. For example, it assumes that consciousness is only activity in our brains in its attempt to preserve the brain and achieve immortality…

II: The artificial intelligence (AI) flaw
Following on, while it has made great science fiction, the idea of robots or computers becoming intelligent sentient beings, having the ability to be emotional and creative will never happen in the real world.

The Express 23 June 2016: BRUSSELS bureaucrats are considering transferring human rights to robots if artificial intelligence (AI) becomes so powerful that droids end up thinking for themselves.
the European Parliament to the EU Commission has suggested in the future sentient AI robots could need their own rights and responsibilities, and strict laws banning them from taking over too many jobs across the Continent may become necessary. In the 1950s Asimov predicted robots would eventually have to adhere to laws


Everything a robot or computer does (or ever will) is only through a series of pre-programmed responses in conjunction with its database, having no free will choice.

And that’s it.

3. The hive mind
Transhumanism and AI threaten to dehumanize us in the respects that it will take away our individuality. Instead of being free to express our natural unique creative and playful individuality, we will be forced to become ‘empty shells,’ as one with the hive mind. When the control-obsessed technocrats try to force their depersonalizing hive mind ideology it will cause many problems and humans are sure to revolt(???).

Just one of many flaws in the technocracy agenda.

5. T.H.E.Y want you to be like them
T.H.E.Y (The Hierarchy Enslaving You) want you to be heartless empty shell psychopaths, driven by self-interests and gratification in their hierarchical controlling pyramidal power structures…

T.H.E.Y want you to be the effect of their owned and controlled mainstream media, as, for instance, through the soul-jarring music blasting out and TV or movies where people are so horrible to each other…

Fake mainstream media news, fake money, fake medicine, fake political democracies, fake wars, etc. – as if that wasn’t enough, T.H.E.Y want you to willingly fit into their archontic fake existence through transhumanism … ultimately leading to your destruction, as secretly planned…

That concludes just 5 of the many indicators showing how the ruling elite’s agendas are dehumanizing the masses.

Anders, NEW.EURO-MED.DK 6 Comments [7/10/2018 12:06:43 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 4600

Dont need to [prove the Big Bang wrong],its been proven wrong hundreds of times,g2g,bye and God bless

MrSeeker, POD Warrior Forum 9 Comments [10/1/2003 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 87535

The barrage of anti-gay sermons delivered by North Carolina-based pastors to hit the blogosphere continues with yet another disturbing rant caught on tape.

The pastor, identified on YouTube as Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, N.C., condemns President Obama's much-publicized endorsement of same-sex marriage while calling for gays and lesbians to be put in an electrified pen and ultimately killed off.

"Build a great, big, large fence -- 150 or 100 mile long -- put all the lesbians in there," Worley suggests in the clip, reportedly filmed on May 13.

He continues: "Do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can't get out...and you know what, in a few years, they'll die out...do you know why? They can't reproduce!"

He also said that if he's asked who he'll vote for, he'll reply, "I'm not going to vote for a baby killer and a homosexual lover!" Many of the congregants cheer and reply, "Amen."

Worley added, “It makes me pukin’ sick to think about -- I don’t even whether or not to say this in the pulpit -- can you imagine kissing some man?”

The pastor's comments seem in line with statements made by Ron Baity, founding pastor of Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem and head of the anti-marriage equality organization Return America, who told his own congregation that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people should be prosecuted as they were historically, and Pastor Sean Harris of the Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville who advocated parents "punch" their male child if he is effeminate and "crack that wrist" if he is limp-wristed.

Similarly, Tim Rabon, pastor at Raleigh's Beacon Baptist Church, condemned states such as Massachusetts, Connecticut and Maryland which have already "re-defined" marriage to include lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) couples before asking his congregatnts, "What is stopping them from refining marriage from a person and a beast? We're not far from that."

Pastor Charles L. Worley, Huffington Post 83 Comments [5/29/2012 8:32:32 AM]
Fundie Index: 80
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 139721


The heightpill is one of the most important phenomena in looks theory. Originating from the biologically needs of femoids, it concludes that manlets (men under 5 foot 10) are heavily disadvantaged in dating unless they’re at least Chads or have high status. For the depraved female species, the manlet cutoff might as well be under 6 foot even, thanks to hypergamy.


From the evolutionary psychological overview, foids would want a tall man because they’ll think “he’ll be stronger and better able to ward off physical treats to his family” [1]. While in modern society this might not necessarily be true, we all know that the natural instincts of women are still prevalent in their mating choices. No matter how much manlets gymcel, they’ll always be viewed as “overcompensating” wimps with a napoleon complex. It never even began for them!

Tallfaggot advantage in online dating

Stating your height in an online dating could fuck you over badly if you’re a manlet. According to a particular dating app, firstmet, the ideal height related to most matches in males was 6’2” Specifically, they said:

“A man who is 6’2? is 17% more likely to be contacted than a man of average height (5’8?) and 57% more likely to be contacted than a man under 5’5” “ [2].
Female reaction to manlets on social media[edit]

This thread on incels.me perfectly summarized how foids react when they see manlets, even the hot ones.


The twitter account (https://mobile.twitter.com/heightismxposed?lang=en) commonly showed how judge mental women are toward manlets, even being distrustful of their personality or intentions just because they’re vertically disadvantaged.

FHO’s don’t even see us as worthy of any respect.

Manlet disadvantage in dating and even betabuxxing

A marriage is more likely to be successful if the male partner is tall. Women just feel happier about it. Several studies in Asia completely proved this hypothesis [3][4]. If even in not quite hypergamous nations manlets are screwed, then image the horror they have to face in western nations.

A Dutch case

Normies commonly suggest that Europeans, especially the Dutch, became tall due to external factors such as a great supply of nutrients. As we delve deep into evolutionary psychology, we find out that the main reason as to why Dutch men are tall these days is because short Dutch men barely even reproduced. A study which analyzed the number of kids received by men of different heights in the Netherlands concluded that:

“Our results suggest that... taller men have higher fertility compared with shorter men. It therefore seems plausible to suggest that natural selection may have acted on the Dutch population, and helped drive the Dutch toward taller heights” [5].

Incel Wiki, Incel Wiki 10 Comments [8/11/2018 6:13:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 136217

An Irish priest has put out an urgent call for backup to help with the growing demand for exorcisms in the country, according to reports.

“It’s only in recent years that the demand [for exorcisms] has risen exponentially,” Father Pat Collins said, adding that anyone who doesn’t see the need for more exorcists is “out of touch with reality.” Collins wrote an open letter to Irish Bishops asking them to begin training more priests to deal with exorcisms, and cited the International Association of Exorcists' belief that demonic activity has increased substantially in recent years.

Each Catholic diocese in Ireland is required to have a trained exorcist who can identify whether a person is suffering from mental illness or has been possessed.

Collins has been speaking out about the activities of what he has called “the evil one” for years. He is widely considered Ireland’s most prominent exorcist, and he has also advocated for the church to take a more active role in demon hunting.

Pat Collins, Rawstory.com 10 Comments [1/27/2018 11:06:43 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Doubting Thomas
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 55266

Babylonian Religion-The Root of Atheism

What does the Roman Catholic Church, Darwinism, and Atheism have in common? FRUIT off the same tree!

Did you know when you profess to be an atheist that you are professing to be religious? If you find out where and when something was born, you can find out a lot about that something. Atheism is a wicked religion. Religion has always been the enemy of the Lord Jesus Christ! It goes further back before 321 AD. Curious, ask questions.

BibleBeliever, whywontgodhealamputees.com 13 Comments [12/31/2008 1:47:41 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Scion
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 5568

One of these days im going to have to debate this board and put an end to evolution. The astroid is my favorite topic (a hint of BIG trouble for evolution)

FEZZILLA, Christian Forums 15 Comments [12/1/2003 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 50936

Autism is, in the vast majority of cases, a fraud and a racket. It is a product of utterly misguided permissive parenting, which turns perfectly normal kids into dysfunctional antisocial brats. The problem is parents have been getting their advice from idiotic child-rearing books like Spock's, instead of the Holy Bible: spare the rod and spoil the child. Scientific research on genetic causes of autism is a colossal waste of time and money, whether or not it involves fruit flies in Paris or elsewhere.

nabalzbbfr, Pharyngula 103 Comments [10/28/2008 11:48:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 13
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 123607


Only Human-Stupidity dares to ridicule voodoo theory, to denounce child porn hysteria in 70 posts, to cite Milton Diamond‘s peer reviewed research and infamous Rind Study

Human Stupidity, Human-Stupidity.com 12 Comments [1/13/2017 10:51:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Xavier Hugo
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 55261

Seeing how pro-abortion Obama is, it would be hillariously ironic if a baby assassinated Obama.

Chopin's Ghost, Rapture Ready 63 Comments [12/28/2008 4:10:24 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: antipop
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 93576

To be sure, “marriage equality” already exists. It is, quite simply, the self-evident truth that both husband and wife are co-equal, indispensable partners essential to the formulation of a marriage covenant. While moral relativists clamor for their propagandist version of “marriage equality,” the rest of us live in marriage reality.

Every single mentally competent adult enjoys the right to marry within exactly the same parameters required by natural law. Thus, “equal protection under the law” is afforded to all. As long as your spouse-to-be is 1) not too closely related, 2) of legal age, 3) only one person, 4) of the opposite sex and 5) a biped of the genus homo-sapien – then you’re golden. Marry away.

If you remove one requirement – in this case, the binary male-female prerequisite – then there is no justification, logical or legal, for not removing all requirements. If we yank one foundational brick from the marriage wall, then, as in the days of Jericho, the whole danged thing comes a-tumblin’. That is to say, if the Supreme Court rolls out “gay marriage,” then legalized polygamy, incestuous marriage and heaven-knows-what-else must inevitably follow.

Matt Barber, WND 46 Comments [4/6/2013 4:12:20 AM]
Fundie Index: 32
Submitted By: Zagen30
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 115944

So, if people born to be gay, I guess you telling me people are born paedophiles? Or born killers? Born to be bisexual? If don't see how very stupid you sound, I can guess your imaginary philosophy doesn't make sense. Homosexuality is a sin like all things I just listed, its unnatural, an only animals seem to have the only sense, to know the difference. If you where born gay, is like saying you born not reproduce. On the hindsight looking at it, you can't dispute that. The fact still remains if man was made for the same sex, there wouldn't be no other people on this earth. Use your head before you speak, lack of wisdom makes you seem very uneducated.

Klitius Smooth, Christian News Network 26 Comments [1/10/2016 9:47:17 AM]
Fundie Index: 16
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 93136

Former editor of the Sunday Telegraph, Dominic Lawson, in a review in the Sunday Times of Niall Ferguson's new book, ‘Civilisation: The West and the Rest’, carries a quote from a member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in which he tries to account for the success of the West, to date.

He said: “One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world.

“We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had.

“Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system.

“But in the past twenty years, we have realised that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West is so powerful.

“The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.”

Chinese Academy of Social Science, Above Top Secret 47 Comments [3/15/2013 3:36:12 AM]
Fundie Index: 43
Submitted By: Tony
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 127291

A Creationist Sues the Grand Canyon for Religious Discrimination
The national park wouldn’t let him collect rocks for research.

“How did the Grand Canyon form?” is a question so commonly pondered that YouTube is rife with explanations. Go down into the long tail of Grand Canyon videos, and you’ll eventually find a two-part, 35-minute lecture by Andrew Snelling. The first sign this isn’t a typical geology lecture comes about a minute in, when Snelling proclaims, “The Grand Canyon does provide a testament to the biblical account of Earth’s history.”

Snelling is a prominent young-Earth creationist. For years, he has given lectures, guided biblical-themed Grand Canyon rafting tours, and worked for the nonprofit Answers in Genesis. (The CEO of Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham, is also behind the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter theme park.) Young-Earth creationism, in contrast to other forms of creationism, specifically holds that the Earth is only thousands of years old. Snelling believes that the Grand Canyon formed after Noah’s flood—and he now claims the U.S. government is blocking his research in the canyon because of his religious views.

Last week, Snelling sued park administrators and the Department of Interior, which administers the national parks program, because they would not grant him a permit to collect 50 to 60 fist-sized rocks. All research in the national park is restricted, especially if it requires removing material. But the Grand Canyon does host 80 research projects a year, ranging from archaeology digs to trout tracking.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal advocacy group that filed the lawsuit on behalf of Snelling, alleged discrimination by the park. “National Park Service: Research in Grand Canyon okay for geologists … but not Christian ones,” read the headline on their press release. (Interior department and NPS spokespeople declined to comment because of the pending litigation.)

If the permit application hit a nerve, it’s because young-Earth creationists have a bit of an obsession with the Grand Canyon. Where geologists see billions of years of rock layers carved out by a persistent flow of water, young-Earth creationists see sediments laid down in Noah’s flood. As the flood receded, they believe, water became trapped behind natural dams, until it finally broke through in a “catastrophic erosion” that carved the Grand Canyon.

This is the story told on religious rafting trips organized by companies like Canyon Ministries, for which Snelling also works as a guide. In 2004, a book by the Canyon Ministry founder Tom Vail caused a stir when it was sold at the national park’s bookstores.

It’s all part of an uneasy relationship between the park and young-Earth creationists. The park does permit the rafting trips, and it has allowed creationists, including Snelling according to the lawsuit, to work in the park before. Another prominent young-Earth creationist, Steve Austin, took photos of nautiloid fossils in the park and used them to argue that the creatures died during the flood. “I think the NPS has felt a bit stung by past creationist research in the Grand Canyon,” says Steven Newton, who teaches geology at College of Marin and serves as the programs and policy director for the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit that opposes teaching creationism in public schools.

Exactly why the park did not grant Snelling’s application is, of course, now the subject of a lawsuit. His project did involve collecting a sizable number of rocks, which can invite more scrutiny. In an email to Snelling filed as part of the lawsuit, a park officer said the project was not granted because the type of rock he wanted to study can also be found outside of the Grand Canyon. The park solicited peer reviews from three mainstream geologists. One mentioned the rocks could be found elsewhere; all three overwhelmingly denounced the work as not scientifically valid, a criterion the park also uses to evaluate proposals. Snelling, who holds a Ph.D. in geology, did not disclose his Answers in Genesis affiliation, nor did he explicitly say he wanted to prove the Grand Canyon is young in his initial permit application, but the reviewers became aware of his reputation.

Geology as a profession has struggled with what to do with young-Earth creationists, whose beliefs are contradicted by literal mountains of scientific evidence. Shut them down, and you get cries of censorship—like this lawsuit. “This just so plays into their hands,” Newton says about the national park’s treatment of Snelling’s application. Newton favors letting creationists do their research and then arguing on the merits of their science. But allowing them to present at scientific conferences, others say, is lending creationists legitimacy.

“That’s really a tough question because in science we want to be the type of community where people can bring about ideas that are controversial,” says Stephen Moshier, a geologist at Wheaton, a Christian liberal arts college in Illinois, and a former president of the Affiliation of Christian Geologists. The problem, according to Moshier, who is not a young-Earth creationist, is that they want mainstream geologists to be open to new ideas, but it’s the young-Earth creationists themselves who have proved inflexible in the face of new evidence contradicting their ideas. “Often I read things by young-Earth creationists where I think they really ought to know better. Many of them have excellent training in the geosciences,” he says. (Snelling declined to comment because of the lawsuit. Four other young-Earth creationists who study the Grand Canyon did not respond to requests for comment.)

That the Grand Canyon is the stage where this conflict now plays out is no coincidence. The canyon is such a potent example of the power of small changes over time—of what’s possible on geological time scales. “Look through any introductory geology textbook, any sedimentology textbook, and the Grand Canyon is going to be there in either full color or on the whole page,” says Moshier.

Last year, he and other Christian geologists published a book titled The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth, directly refuting young-Earth creationists who cite the canyon as evidence of Noah’s flood. “It wouldn’t be of any use writing about the Appalachian Mountains—even though I think we can make a stronger case for an ancient Earth there because the geology is so complex,” says Moshier. “Because they make a big deal out of the Grand Canyon and use it as a lab for young-Earth creationism and flood geology, that’s naturally where we had to focus the book.”

When young-Earth creationists invoke God, they are tapping into a real sense of wonder about the Grand Canyon. It’s easy—in fact all too human—to wonder how so small a river could have carved so vast a chasm. One partial answer is that the Glen Canyon dam has quelled the spring floods that originally bored through rock; the lazily winding Colorado River that you see today is not the river that formed the Grand Canyon. But also, humans are bad at intuiting the consequences of deep time. Once you add enough zeros to number of years they all start to sound the same.

It’s hard to imagine how much can happen in geological time. About 1.7 billion years ago, a series of volcanoes crashed into what would become the continent of North America and created mountains taller than the Himalayas today. Those mountains eroded back down to hills to form the rock that now rests at the base of the canyon. Over countless millions of years, a shallow sea expanded and contracted over the area, laying down the sediment that would become the sandstone, shale, and limestone layers. Plate tectonics then pushed those rock layers up and up to became the Colorado Plateau. And finally, flowing water carved its way down 1.7 billion years of rock.

It’s hard to imagine, but there is wonder and grandeur in this imagination, too.

Andrew Snelling, The Atlantic 25 Comments [5/18/2017 11:08:41 PM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 12940

[In response to the fact that a bush can't talk]

And how do you know that a bush doesn't have something that would allow it to speak, and we merely don't know about it? Humanities scientific knowledge is nowhere near perfect. Maybe a bush can speak, and we just don't yet understand why.

SkyBlade, Eyes on Final Fantasy 47 Comments [7/11/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Rockstar
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 27370

[Reply to a post saying Atheist don't persecute Christians]

You are talking about a conscious level persecussion. There are other forms of persecussion that are executed on a sub-conscious level, which most people don't even realize.

Driver, The Resistance Manifesto 45 Comments [7/18/2007 5:40:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 39508

Why are devotees to atheist darwinism so fearful of the facts if those facts are not under the strict control and guidance of darwinism's high priests??

BobRyan, 123 Christian Forums 38 Comments [5/19/2008 9:53:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: jmm9683
WTF?! || meh