Similar posts

Mark Jones #fundie markjones1388.esy.es

In Acts chapter 17 we read of a people called the Bereans. In this passage (verses 10-15) that they appear in (very little of the Bereans is mentioned in the Bible), it shows them take the words of the apostle Paul and examine them in relation to the Old Testament scriptures (quite possibly the Septuagint, certainly the Tanakh if not the Septuagint).

In verse 11 we read the following quote:
“Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” Acts 17:11 (NIV)

The Bereans were the people who lived in the ancient city of Berea (also known as Beroea), the city is now called Veria and is situated in Macedonia in Northern Greece.

Many people will listen to something they are taught and will take that as truth. However the example the Bereans set in this verse is that we should check the validity of what we are told and examine those things and check that they are in line with what the Bible tells us. There would’ve been no doubt people in that time who reacted when they read this and expressed outrage, saying something along the lines of, “how can these people dare to doubt the words of the apostle Paul”. It may sound like a harsh response, but it’s often what we see happen today, in fact many atheistic arguments are based on similar logic, “who are you to disagree with the words of Stephen Hawking (etc)?”. That kind of logic in of itself proves that it is of man and not of God. The principle outlined here in Acts 17 with the the Bereans is an important one and it is something we can glean something from.
So in this post I’m going to outline a few ways we can test something said in the Bible or even an interpretation of a verse someone references or just simply the outlining of a belief that someone has, and test it in such a way that does justice by God’s word and doesn’t mire it in our eyes.

So without further ado, let’s get into it:

Go To God’s Word First:
You’ll have no doubt heard someone ask the question, why are there are so many contradictions in the Bible? This argument is actually rooted in a seed of deception that goes back to first century AD, in 2 Corinthians 4:4 we are told that the god of this age (who is Satan) has blinded the eyes of the unbelievers so that they will not see the light of the gospel. The word we see in the original Greek language where we see the word unbelievers is the word apistos. The word apistos means unfaithful, faithless, incredible, unbelieving or incredulous. So this statement in 2 Corinthians 4:4 almost seems to have a Ronseal principle to it (does exactly what it says on the tin), however I think it goes a little deeper than that. In John 3:16 we see the word pisteuo and it means to be persuaded of something or to completely trust in something. I think Paul is hinting at the reverse of this very principle outlined in John 3:16, so 2 Corinthians 4:4 isn’t just referring to those who haven’t committed their lives to Christ, but also to those who doubt the ways and the truth of God. This could be part of the reason why Paul tells the Church in Corinth a little later in the letter to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5).

But back to the “contradictions”. Any so-called contradictions that we run into in scripture are either born out of man-made teaching or simply out of a lack of understanding of scripture as a whole. What we need to do is cross-check with what the scriptures say and the Bereans had that principle nailed, they cross-checked a statement or a principle we now find in the New Testament with what was written in the Old Testament.
NB – Check out my post called “The 2 Timothy 3:16 Principle” for more on the subject.

Now this means a couple of things, first we actually need to read the Old Testament. Some people don’t like reading the Old Testament because they find it confusing, or they believe it paints a different picture of God than of the one we see in the New Testament. In response to that let me say this, the human mind is an incredible thing, but our heart is even more powerful than our minds. In fact the prophet Jeremiah tells us that the heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure (note this in reference to human works) and he asks the question who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9) However we read in Ezekiel 36:26 a promise from God where we are told that He will give us a new heart, removing our heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh (not to be confused with the flesh Paul often speaks of). So if our hearts are polluted then it is entirely possible for our hearts to convince our minds of something that is contrary to what is the truth. This is part of the principle behind the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke when He told us to deny ourselves daily and to take up our cross and follow Him (Luke 9:23). Where we see the word deny in this verse in Luke it is the Greek word arnesastho which is very closely linked to a word we’ve discussed before on this blog, arneomai. As we’ve talked about in the past the word arneomai means to deny, disown or contradict, so in this verse in Luke it’s saying that we have to literally give up ownership of ourselves and take up our cross and follow Jesus. So we need to read the Old Testament.
The other thing we need to do is to see if it fits with the overall picture that scripture gives us (so reading the entire Bible). For example, does what we see in Psalm 1:2 where we are told that our delight is in the law of the Lord and on that law (the word of God) we should meditate on it day and night line up with other verses in scripture. We are told in Joshua 1:8 to meditate on the law of the Lord day and night, it’s the exact same principle. And just to show that this is not a ruse or anything like that, let me ask you what you’re reaction would be if I told you that there was over 400 years between the writing of these two verses. You see Joshua chapter 1 would’ve been written in about 1406 BC and Psalm 1 would’ve been about 979 BC, now if those two dates are exact (I have no reason to say they’re not), then that puts these two verses 427 years apart. But I’ll get into timelines a little later on.

What we need to do when a preacher preaches a sermon or a Bible study leader explains a passage or a verse is to go away and read the scriptures and check if it all lines up.

We Need To Read Into A Bit Of History:

Now, I know that history isn’t everybody’s cup of tea however when it comes to understanding the words of the Bible it can be quite key.

However please let me briefly explain why history is important when it comes to testing the validity of God’s word. You see what it simply boils down to is the fact that when it comes to the historical claims of the Bible (creation, Jesus, the ark, the exodus, etc), none of us who are reading this post were alive when those events occurred. So the question then is how can we know they’re true historical accounts? Is there evidence for such events in the Bible? Well to answer the first question, there is an amazing wealth of evidence for the events that the Bible outlines, we have found the ruins of the city of Jericho we also have massive evidence supporting the global flood recorded in Genesis 6-9 (you can see more on that here) and there’s a more than all of that, but I’ll leave you to do your own research (I’ll give some recommended sites to start with for doing that). And the answer to the second question, is yes, there’s lots of evidence supporting the Biblical accounts.

So let me encourage you to look into things such as Biblical chronology, and Biblical history. Some of the stuff you’ll find along the way is fascinating. For example I’m currently reading a book called “The Discovery of Genesis” by C.H. Kang and Ethel R. Nelson, the book looks at examples of how the Chinese language links in with the accounts of the book of Genesis. It is a truly fascinating book, in it we see examples such as the word for boat relating to the flood, when we break down the symbols that make up the word boat we can see that the word boat points to a vessel for eight people. So reading into some of this is not only fascinating but can help us to grow stronger in the faith.

...

History is important to the events of the Bible, because if the events of the Bible did not happen then the Bible is not infallible, and because of the claim of 2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is God breathed, then if even 1% of the Bible is false then the entire Bible is compromised.

However let me say that although history is important to understanding the validity of the Bible, by all means this does not mean you have to be an expert in the subject. One of the best things to know as a Christian when it comes to any question that arises in regards to the Bible is where to go to find answers to those said questions.

...

Little Bit:

Did you know that one of the most common objections that critics of the Christian faith make, is that the Bible apparently tells us that the world is flat? An example of where this comes from is found in Revelation 7:1 which makes reference to the “four corners of the earth”, however the Bible states in Isaiah 40:22 that the earth is a circle, remember though the obvious understanding (before some misinterprets the word circle) that a sphere is a 3D circle and the earth is spherical in nature.
Science tells us a lot about the truth of Biblical history, for example did you know that the mitochondrial (from the mother) and y chromosome (father) both trace back to a single ancestral sequence approximately 6,000 years ago (more on that here), this is something that you may not get taught in a science classroom today. Science is very important to know about in regards to defending our faith today, as it is highly likely to be one of the first areas you will be challenged on about your faith, bearing in mind the myth that is running around rampantly that says “science has disproved God”.

Again like in all of the other subjects, you don’t have to be an expert in the field, again I’m most certainly not although I do enjoy reading into science, but it is helpful to know a little bit on the subject and more importantly to know where to go to find answers to the questions you’ll get asked.

Now the Bible does make some scientific claims, such as we all come from two people, Adam and Eve. The thing we have to look into is whether or not science supports the claims made in the Bible, I touch on the Adam and Eve question a little bit a couple of paragraphs before this one. But looking into science is pretty important in this day and age to understanding the validity behind the Bible, but again you don’t have to be an expert on science but having a basic understanding of it and knowing where to go to find some great answers is definitely valuable.
One other thing I think is worth mentioning is that understanding the difference between historical and operational science, the reason why I say this is because very often at the minute the lines between the two get blurred particularly when you’re talking to evolutionists. We often see the claim that creation is pseudo-science and evolution is science, however both evolution and creation are historical science, they are versions of history that haven’t been observed through operational science that we either accept or don’t accept and then use operational science to look for evidence that supports the historical science that we accept. But in a basic way of saying it is historical science is conclusions that we form from things that we see from the past (historical records, archaeology, etc), whereas operational science is the testable repeatable and observational methods that we can use today, such as carbon dating for example (check out this article for more). So knowing enough about the difference between historical and operational science is of a great benefit in helping us tell the difference between the two, but again you don’t have to be an expert on the subject, but know where you can get the information from that you need to answer the questions.

In Closing:

So that’s all I wanted to say in this post eally. When it comes to testing what the Bible has to say to us, we need to start with the Bible and cross-check it with what it has to say in other parts of it. Look into a bit of history, look at what evidence we find that supports the accounts in scripture.
Read a bit into the original languages look at what the original words were in their original languages, find out what they mean and how they correspond to your understanding of what you’re reading. And finally look a bit into science, go and look into whether or not science supports the Bible or not. But don’t worry about being an expert in these things, you don’t have to be one, again I’m not one.

I hope you’ve found this post both interesting and helpful. I would love to hear your thoughts, as I mentioned I’m going to post some links below that may help with looking into some of these things, so if there’s any extra ones you can think of just drop them in the comments or send me them over through my Facebook page and I’ll update the list, I may even create a sub-page here on the site of useful links, let me know if that is something that you would want.

I’ll be posting again soon as I have a lot of posts in the draft que currently being edited.
But until next time I’ll leave you with the links below.

All the best,
Mark

cdevidal #fundie godlikeproductions.com

EvolutionVsGod.com has a free 38 minute film in which various evolutionists such as a PhD/associate college professor of Anthropology at UCLA, a PhD/professor of biological sciences and anthropology at USC, a PhD/professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at UCLA and PhD/associate professor of biology at Universiy of Minnesota Morris/famous blogger PZ Myers appear to be stumped by some challenging questions. It's an interesting movie and I recommend you check it out.

In observing responses to the movie, I saw lots of evolutionists mocking but I didn't see one person who answered the questions that apparently stumped the evolutionists. Accusations began to fly: The claim is that in his previous films, the evangelist had edited responses to questions to make the interviewees look bad. Thus the claim is that the stumped evolutionists in this film had simply been edited unfairly.

To which I replied, "OK, I'm sure we'll see a statement from PZ Myers soon explaining how he was misrepresented*, but what about you? Can you answer the questions?" The response often was, "What were the questions?"

Me: "I hadn't written them down so I didn't recall them. But you can see them again if you watch the movie."

Them: "No, I'm not watching that (blankety-blank)." (Which sounds dishonest, but I'll let that pass for now.)


* PZ Myers did claim he was misrepresented: [link to freethoughtblogs.com] But without substantiation. If he gave fuller answers during the interview, I'd like to see them, but he did not: [link to www.google.com (secure)]


So I promised to write down the questions from the film. And by the way, I don't pass any judgment on the quality of these questions. Maybe they're fallacious, and you can help demonstrate that. But before you answer, some simple rules to keep everyone honest.

RULES
* You must give a direct answer to every question or you've failed. Yes, some questions appear to be repeats but please answer them all as they are all slightly different.

* If you give an answer such as "It's not possible to know that" (or something similar) to any question you fail to demonstrate the validity of your worldview. Try harder before posting.

* You agree to the principles in this flowchart or you've failed: [link to www.jacoballee.com]

* You may not commit any logical fallacies or you've failed. Here is a list of some well-known fallacies. [link to www.informationisbeautiful.net] There may be others that I am not currently aware of.


If you don't agree with these rules, don't answer. If Darwinian macro evolution does occur in nature, these questions can be answered without resorting to cheating or underhanded rhetoric to uphold it. Right? I'm sure you'll agree these are fair rules.

Items beginning with an asterisk '*' are questions, and items beginning with an equal sign '=' are important statements which do not require an answer, but which inform the next question, so they must be read and understood.

OK, go!


= "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence." ~Richard Dawkins

= "Live Science" says of Darwinian evolution: "It can turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans and amphibious mammals into whales."

* Do you believe in evolution?

* Do you think it's a belief?

* When did you start to believe?

* Are you a strong believer in evolution?

= A scientific method is based on "the collection of data through observation and experimentation..." ~Science Daily

* Could you give me some observable evidence that evolution is true? Something I don't have to receive by faith. Remember, events that occured 65 million years ago can't be observed. If you say "fossil record," please be specific: Give one example.

= "We are condemned to live only for a few decades and that’s too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on." ~Richard Dawkins

= "We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages..." ~Charles Darwin

* You've got the the canine 'kind' with the coyote and the domestic dog, and there's the feline 'kind' which is the cats, the tiger and the kitten and you've got humankind. So, Darwin said there would be a change of 'kinds' over many years so could you give me one example of observable evidence of a change of 'kinds'? I don't want something I have to accept by faith. I want it to be observable. I don't want to have to have faith in the experts, I want to observe it myself. Can you give one example of observable evidence of a change of 'kind'?

* Did we have lungs or gills when we came out of the sea?

* The scientific method must be observable and repeatable, so could you give me one piece of observable evidence for Darwinian evolution, not adaptation or speciation, but a change of kinds? If you say "stickleback fish", you must specify what other 'kind' have they become. These have remained as fish. Remember, Lenski's bacteria are still bacteria. The Galapagos finches are still finches. Their change in beak is adaptation, not Darwinian evolution. There's no different animal involved. I want something which shows me Darwin's belief in the change of kinds is scientific. Can you give me anything that I can see, observe, and test, which is the scientific method, for Darwinian evolution which is a change of kinds, so that I don't have to exercise faith?

* If you cannot offer any observable evidence for Darwinian (macro, change in 'kind') evolution, how do you know it's true?

* No professor or biology major in the film was able to give observable evidence of a change in 'kind'. Therefore, Darwinian evolution (a change in 'kind') is un-observable. You need millions of years. If Darwinian evolution is not observable, is it scientific?

* You're trusting that the biology majors and professors know what they're talking about and they can't even give evidence of a change of kinds. Do you realize that's called 'blind faith'? Remember, "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence." ~Richard Dawkins

* Do you believe in intelligent design?

* How would you make a rose? A rose has a seed so you've got to start from nothing. Could you make a rose from nothing?

* No professor or biology major in the film was able to claim they were able to make a rose from nothing. For the purposes of this thread, I am going to assume you cannot, either. So if you say there is no intelligent design, where does that leave you on the scale of intelligence if you can't even make a rose?

= "The coccyx vertebrae is an extremely important source of attachment for tendons, ligaments and muscles..." ~Laser Spine Institute

= For years, the appendix "...was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults... Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions." ~Scientific American

= My note: This link discusses erector pili/most body hair and male nipples. [link to www.livescience.com] As a married man I have found a use for male nipples. If you know what I mean. (Ahem.) And I can certainly see that the organ would likely be present on a baby in the womb before its sex is selected with hormones, as the genetalia are identical before selection. Erector pili/most body hair I'm not so certain about. It's hardly earth-shattering evidence but I would like to read more. The first thought that comes to mind is that they're useful for sweat and a slight amount of warmth.

* So could you give me an example of vestigial organs? (I believe it is implied he is asking about human organs.)

* Skeptic websites often examples of famous atheists in an attempt to win converts. But more often than not, the famous personalities cited are not atheists. Aside from Earnest Hemingway (listed in the video), Can you think of any famous atheists which you can validate have never made a statement attesting to their belief in a deity? (At 18:32 in the video, quotes from Abraham Lincoln, Carl Sagan, Mark Twain, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Charles Dawrwin show clearly they are/were not atheists. For the sake of brevity I will not list them here.)

= No professor or biology major in the film was able to give an example of a famous atheist. Ray said, "It is important to know that even though some of these men claim to believe in God, that doesn't mean they are believers in the one true Creator revealed in the Scriptures, or that they're genuine Christians. However, when atheists use theists or agnostics to promote their godless agenda, they're being dishonest. Then again, coming from those who claim that morality is relative to each person, convenient dishonesty should not be a surprise."

* Do you believe in moral absolutes?

* Is rape always wrong?

= PZ Myers essentially answered yes, so the evangelist stated therefore there are moral absolutes.

* So who makes the rules?

* PZ Myers stated that we make the rules. I am going to assume you will say the same. If you did not, no need to answer this question, just ponder it: So if Hitler made the rules and he had the majority, he makes the rules?

= "Evolution is a very harsh and cruel process." ~PZ Myers

* Did Hitler put into practice survival of the fittest? Such as the lion eating the antelope.

* Your pet dog (or insert other beloved pet) and your rotten neighbor are drowning. You can only save one of them. Which would you save?

* The biology majors all chose to save the dog. I am going to assume you will say the same. If you did not, no need to answer this question, just ponder it: So you think dogs are more valuable than human beings?

= "Any fetus is less human than an adult pig." ~Richard Dawkins

* If you believe in evolution it's just a matter of survival of the fittest. Your neighbor's a primate and you've got a canine, and you like the canine more than you like the primate. If the grouchy neighbor drowns, he drowns. Survival of the fittest. Would that be correct?

* Are you an atheist who thinks God doesn't exist?

* An atheist in the movie stated that after we die we cease to exist. Ray Comfort said, "If you were a car and your motor were turned off that would be right, that's inanimate. But you're a living, biological human being with the life of God in you. .. Is there no life in you?" Atheist: "Yes there's life in me." "That's your soul." If you agree with the atheist, how do you know?

* Are you a good person? If there's a heaven, will you make it there?

* How many lies have you told in your whole life?

* What would you call me if I told lots of lies? You'd call me a liar, wouldn't you?

* So what does that make you if you've told lies?

* Have you ever stolen anything in your whole life even if it's small?

* That's called theft. So what are you?

* Have you ever used God's name in vain?

= That's called blasphemy, and it's very serious to use God's name as a cuss word. One atheist said he doesn't believe in God so it's not blaspheming. Ray responded, "Well, if I don't believe in certain laws and still violate them, ignorance of the law is no excuse. So we're still guilty even though we deny a law exists or even don't know about it."

* Jesus said that if you look upon a woman with lust in your heart you've committed adultery. Have you ever looked at another person with lust, such as with pornography?

= If you answered yes to those questions (and I don't know anyone who honestly can't answer anything but yes, myself included), to quote the evangelist, "then by your own admission you're a lying, theiving, blasphemous adulterer-at-heart, and that's only four of the Ten Commandments. Just not believing in hell won't make it go away. A judge must see that justice is done if he's a good judge, and it's the same with God. If we die in our sins God will give us justice. The Bible says that no theif, no liar, no fornicator, no blasphemer, no adulterer will inherit the kingdom of God. So if you died in your sins but God gave you justice, because He's holy and perfect morally, you'd end up in hell, and I'd hate that to happen to you."

* Would you sell one of your eyes for one million dollars? Both for 100 million dollars?

= Most would say "no." Your eyes are precious to you. How much more precious is your life?

= "Now let me tell you something you know intuitively. You know that creation is proof of the Creator, God has given you that inner light. So when you look at the genius of God's creative hand, you know God exists because of creation, and the reason you choose evolution is because it gets rid of moral accountability. Evolution lets you believe that lust and theiving are just primal instincts; You're just an animal. The Bible demands moral accountability and says those things are wrong and that's why it's not acceptable to you. That's why you're not seeking after truth. Am I wrong?" ~Ray Comfort (The biology major sighed, paused, and said, "I think you're wrong.")

= "You are a unique human being, made in the image of God with a sense of justice and truth and righteousness. God gave you a conscience. It's inherent. It's shaped by society but it's inherent. You know right from wrong. You've violated His law and I don't want you to end up in hell."

= To a struggling college student: "James, if you put your finger on it, and see if we can, your struggle at the moment is because of your love for sin, because of the pleasure that sin gives you and you don't want to give it up. You're like a man with a money belt filled with gold who's just fallen into the ocean. I'm saying, if you don't get rid of that belt which weighs 80 pounds it's going to take you under. Doesn't matter how much pleasure it gives you, it's not worth losing your life for."

= To a college professor: "You're not a beast. You're a human being created by God in His image with dignity and worth and purpose."

* Do you know what God did for guilty sinners so we wouldn't have to go to hell?

= "God became a human being 2,000 years ago, Jesus of Nazareth, and He suffered and died on a cross, taking the punishment for the sin of the world. You and I violated God's law and Jesus paid our fine. That means God can legally dismiss our case because of the suffering, death and resurrection of the Savior. God can say, 'You're out of here' because someone paid your fine." ~Ray Comfort

= "And then what God can now do is clothe us in the righteousness of Christ, so on Judgment Day you're safe from God's wrath and His justice, because of the death and resurrection of the Savior. If you repent and trust in Him, God will give you a righteous standing in His eyes. He'll wash away your sins in an instant, and He'll grant you everlasting life. His last words on the cross were, 'It is finished.' In other words the debt has been paid. He came to take our punishment upon Himself. So because our fine was paid by another, God can legally dismiss your case." ~Ray Comfort

* Does that make sense? (He was not asking if they believed it, just if the statements made a logical connection.)

* When are you going to die?

= "God knows the exact moment of your death. It could be today, it could be tomorrow. I'm not using scare tactics, this is just straight reality. 150,000 people die every 24 hours, and they were no doubt all making plans for next week, so please think about this." ~Ray Comfort

= "I'm not talking about a religion that says you have to strive to get to heaven, I'm telling you that the Bible says heaven is a free gift of God. You cannot earn everlasting life, doesn't matter how religious you are, how good you are. 'God commended His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.' And then he rose from the dead and defeated death." ~Ray Comfort

= "This is how the Bible puts it: 'For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.' So eternal life is a free gift of God, and it comes because of God's mercy not because of anything we do." ~Ray Comfort

* Does that make sense?

= "I've been reading the Bible at home for over 40 years. There's no mistakes in it. Any mistakes that we think are in it are our mistakes, and you can trust God's Word. Think of how you trust professors and science books that tell you you're a primate? You trust and believe that so how much more should you trust a God who cannot lie?" ~Ray Comfort

* Are you going to think about this?

= "Soften your heart. Don't have so much blind faith in what science tells you and it's left you without any knowledge of what was in the beginning anyway. You haven't got a clue where you come from, you don't know what you're doing here on earth and you don't know what happens after you die."

* Could you be wrong about God's existence?

= An atheist responded, "Yes, but could you be wrong about God's existence?" "No." "Well then I think you're rather closed-minded." "Well if I said to you, could you be wrong about your wife's existence you'd say, "No, I know her. Don't be ridiculous. I know her and love her. And I know the Lord and I love the Lord, and He transformed my life 41 years ago, instantly, overnight, forgave my sins and gave me new desires when I had no desires or thoughts of God for the whole 22 years before I was a Christian."

= "The problem with those who are unable to see evolution, I think, is they don't have imaginations." ~Gail E. Kennedy, PhD, Associate college professor of Anthropology at UCLA

= "Human beings are still fish." ~PZ Myers

* Are you a talking primate?

* Are you a cousin of bananas?

= "I'm accepting that they did their science correctly." ~Biology major

= "I'm going to trust what those experts did, those experts came up with." ~Physics major

= "Darwinian evolution rests on faith. And once again, according to Richard Dawkins, 'Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.' Darwinian evolution requires great faith. The knowledge of God, however, is clearly seen by all mankind. 'For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.' (Romans 1:20-22)" ~Ray Comfort

Note to newcomers Despite the name, this is not a Christian website. It is simply a good forum for discussion because one does not need an account to post. (You can remain anonymous.)

Carico #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

More ad hominem lunacy from fundie legend Carico:

The lies that atheists have to tell to deny Jesus is Lord are never-ending. Here are only a few of them:

1) Something different happened in Jerusalem during the time of Christ other than Jesus's preaching, miracles, death, and resurrection, although they never say what and if they did, can't verify their versions with anyone in history.
2) Changing Jewish history at any point they want to. Unfortunately, that history will differ according to each atheist, nor can it be verified by anyone in history.
3) Claiming that Jesus's words were made up with no proof.
4) Claiming that the authors of the bible were lying or deluded with no proof for their claims
5) Claiming that Jesus didn't perform miracles with no proof for their claims
6) Claiming that they know what happens after we die when none of them have died yet
7) Claiming that their morals are better than Christ's
8) Claiming that Jesus didn't exist
9) Claiming that Jesus didn't show the world his divine powers when they have no proof for their claims
10) Claiming that they're indifferent to God when they spend thousands of hours discussing God.

The above are only just a few of the lies that atheists have to tell to deny that Jesus is Lord. So I have a question to which I'd like to know the answer:
Do atheists know they are lying? If so, then why do they want beliefs that they know are based on lies?

Or do they not know they are lying when they make up fictitious history that can't be verified by anyone in history? I'd really like to know the answer to that particular question. Thank you.

Patrick Scrivener #conspiracy reformation.org

The Portuguese Christopher Columbus!!

The Italian Genoese "Christopher Columbus" is just a 500 year old MYTH created by the Vatican to take the place of the real Genoese Discoverer of the New World–John Cabot!!

Washington Irving–a famous 19th century U.S. writer–was just one of the creators of the fictional Christopher Columbus:

Christopher Columbus, or Columbo, as the name is written in Italian, was born in the city of Genoa, about the year 1435. He was the son of Dominico Colombo, a wool-comber, and Susannah Fonatanarossa, his wife, and it would seem that his ancestors had followed the same handicraft for several generations in Genoa. Attempts have been made to prove him of illustrious descent, and several noble houses have laid claim to him since his name has become so renowned as to confer rather than receive distinction. (Irving, Life & Voyages of Christopher Columbus, p. 17).

According to Irving, Columbus–the son of a wool-comber–was a manual laborer who prepared WOOL for spinning. There is an expression in English: "to pull the WOOL over your eyes" and it means to lie or deceive somebody....That is what Irving did with the wool!!

It is almost impossible to unmask the real Portuguese Columbus without looking at the career of another fake Portuguese discoverer named Ferdinand Magellan.

The 2 greatest fake discoverers in the entire history of the world came from the Vatican created country of Portugal!!

After Zarco arrived in Spain from Portugal in 1487, he joined the witness protection program. That means that he assumed a totally new identity and became known as Christopher Columbus from Genoa, Italy. This was done to protect him from the wrath of the Portuguese and substitute him for John Cabot–the real Genoese Discoverer of the New World.

The Dominican and Franciscan monks normally bitter enemies–cooperated in creating the myth of the Italian Columbus. During the past 500 years, vast fortunes and oceans of ink have been used to perpetuate and keep the myth alive.

We feel confident that Christopher Columbus was Portuguese and that his real name was Salvador Fernandes Zarco and his ancestors were probably VIKINGS!!

SavedByGraceThruFaith #fundie atheistforums.org

Some Simple Questions show Atheistic Origin Science is false (proof 2 begins)

Atheistic origin science has a lot of explaining to do to counter the very obvious and scientific conclusion that God, the Almighty Creator, indeed created all things. A thorough investigation into the facts, the laws of nature, mathematics, and logic will prove that this alternative explanation, of an origin without God, is totally false and contradictory.

Therefore, a second irrefutable proof of the existence of God Almighty the Creator can be made. Assume indeed that atheistic origin science is correct, and all of the creation can be explained without God by the laws of nature and random chance. As will be shown, this assumed theory will prove to be false. And since the only alternative to a Creator is false, then again the fact that the Creator, God Almighty, exists will have been proven again.

Atheistic origin science claims that it can explain the origin of things without God. The claim is that most things have been explained and only the details need to be ironed out. The truth is that atheistic origin science has not been able to answer anything of importance in the origin question. If anything, new discoveries have ended all hope that it will ever be successful. So after over 150 years since Darwin, and over 50 years of an extensive effort, atheistic origin science has not answered anything. Why does anybody believe it ever will? Most of its believers have either died or will die before anything will ever be answered.

To show that atheistic origin science has failed, I will just ask for some simple answers to some very simple questions. If atheistic origin science has answers, this should be no more than to copy the answers from the verified answer book of atheistic origin science.

If there are no real answers, it proves my point.

If the answers given are not complete answers, avoids questions, dances around questions, or doesn't answer one single question, what does that say about the claims of atheistic origin science.

Please note I have some more simple questions to ask.

Questions

What was the first living thing?

Was it made of just proteins?
If so, how many amino acids did it have and what was their sequence?
What are the odds of that happening?
Please show real calculations.
How did it then make the jump to RNA and DNA?
What are the odds of that happening?
Please show real calculations.

Was it made of just RNA and proteins?
If so, how many nucleotides for the RNA and amino acids for the proteins?
What were the sequences for both?
What are the odds of that happening?
How did it then make the jump to DNA?
What are the odds of that happening?
Please show real calculations.

Did it actually use DNA?
If so, how many nucleotides for the DNA?
What was the DNA code sequence?
What are the odds of that happening?
Please show real calculations.

What was the 2nd living creature?
The 3rd, 4th ... up the actual first cell?
What are the odds of each of those jumps?
Please show real calculations.

Upward evolution

Could man have evolved from an apelike creature in just 5 million years?
What are the odds based on the fact that there would be about 30 million base code differences in a 3 billion base code DNA between the 2 creatures, only 500,000 generations in that time, and only at most several million individuals for each of most of those generations?
What are the odds?
Please show real calculations.
How did that happen since higher-level creatures use sexual reproduction?
Please show real calculations.

Now repeat that feat for the over 100 million species that have been supposedly on the Earth. What are the odds of that?
Please show real calculations.

Given the fact that mutations in general corrupt the DNA code, why is the DNA code of all species not completely corrupted after the long line of progression over hundreds of millions of years?

The fossil record

Why does the fossil record show distinct species fully formed throughout?

Why has not a single chain of missing links of one disparate species becoming another ever been found in the entire fossil record?
There are millions of chains of missing links still missing. None have been found.

Provide one set of dates for one supposed intermediate species. Give the dates of the ancestor, the intermediate and the descendent species for one intermediate species.

Kent Hovind (1991 “dissertation”) #fundie #dunning-kruger podcast.sjrdesign.net

INTRODUCTION
Hello, my name is Kent Hovind.
I am a creation/science evangelist. I live in Pensacola, Florida. I have been a high school science teacher since 1976. I've been very active in the creation/evolution controversy for quite some time. As an evangelist, God has given me the opportunity to preach and teach the wonderful story of His marvelous creation over 400 times each year to churches, schools (public and private), parent groups, youth groups, on the radio, and in university dabates. It is my burning desire to help Christians get back to a simple faith in God's Word. Satan's method has always been to instill doubt in God's Word. The first sentence that came from Satan that is recorded for us in the Bible is: "Yea, hath God said?" He started by questioning God's Word in the garden of Eden. It worked there so he has used it ever since.
In the twentieth century the major attack Satan has launched has been against the first eleven chapters of Genesis. He knows that the entire Bible stands or falls on the validity of these chapters. I believe that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant, inspired, perfect Word of God. I believe that the Bible needs to be read and believed as it stands. Christians are often guilty of neglecting or twisting the Bible to fit their lifestyle or their preconceived ideas.
In this book· I'll be covering, in a nutshell, the creation/evolution controversy. I will explain why it is so important, the effects that the theory of evolution has had on our society, the creation alternative, and what we should do about the problem. I will try to answer questions that modern science has raised from a Seriptural viewpoint. I am, without apology, a Bible-believing Christian. . I have been saved for twenty-two years by the blood of Jesus Christ, God's Son. I believe that God's Word is infallible and flawless in every detail. If the Bible says that something was created a certain way, then that is just the way it happened. Now, as a science teacher, I want to keep an open mind and understand why, how, and when God created the earth, if those things can be known. There are some things we cannot understand, and some things I believe that we can. I will be quick to point out that "there is nothing new under the sun." Most of my ideas are the result of the input of hundreds of Godly men and women through the years. I have attempted in this book to simply explain the things I have learned through many years of studying both science and the Bible. In the last twenty-two years I have read hundreds of books by creationists and evolutionists alike on the subject of origins. Many great thinkers and scientists have had an influence on me. lowe much to many, but I must in the final analysis, take the blame/credit for what
is written in this book. Many things I can document and verify with the "experts" (whatever an expert is). Some things in this book I couldn't prove to anyone. I only ask that you realistically look at the ideas presented and ask yourself the simple question, "does this key open the lock, does this answer the question?" be right. If it does--it just might Only God knows all the details of how it really happened. I believe He has revealed many details about the original creation in His book the Bible. Everything else we come up with down here is just our theory. My weekly radio broadcast has been instrumental in answering a number of questions about the creation/evolution controversy. I have tried to answer questions as thoroughly and scripturally as I know how. Each broadcast dealt with a different topic. We have selected some of the most helpful topics and developed them into chapters toward this book. The chapters, and consequently the subject matter of the book, begins by discussing the history of evolution. Where did we get this crazy idea anyway? The second chapter deals with the fact that evolution is a religion and not a science, and therefore, should be excluded from public school curriculum. The third chapter deals with the effects of evolution. What has the teaching of evolution brought to the world in the way of good or harm? In the fourth chapter we deal with the subject of time. How old is the earth? In the fifth chapter we discuss the Big Bang theory. In the sixth chapter we give information about the Geologic Column, the foundation of all evolutionary teaching. In chapter seven we answer questions about radio carbon dating. Chapter eight gives the truth about cave men. Chapter nine discusses the "best evidence" evolutionists have for evolution, that is, archaeopteryx. Chapter ten answers the question, "Has science created life in the laboratory?" We took ten chapters of the book to destroy the edifice of evolution, and clear away the rubble so that we could build on a clean foundation. Several legitimate questions about the creation account given in the Bible need to be answered. Number one, "Don't all scientists believe in evolution?" In chapter eleven we discuss scientists, past and present, who were creationists. In chapter twelve, we answey a commonly raised complaint, "Genesis 1 conflicts with Genesis 2." In chapter thirteen we give interesting evidence that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. I believe that dinosaurs are not only in the Bible, but they have lived with man all through his six thousand yeay history. In chapter fourteen we deal with the question, "Are dinosaurs extinct?" In chapter fifteen we discuss the human and dinosaur footprints found together in Glen Rose, Texas. In chapter sixteen we give the creationists' alternative theory to explain the geologic features of the earth within a six thousand year framework.
While all of the evidence is not in yet, I feel it is still the best option to take God's word at face value. The Bible has never been proven wrong yet, and I believe it never will be.

John Ramirez #fundie search.stillsmallvoicetriage.org

John Ramirez, Escape from Hell Ex-Satanist

I grew up in a neighborhood that, first of all, the first killing that I experienced was feet away from me when I went to go in and get a gallon of milk. Was only 10 feet away from me, they shot a guy, like, 7 times. They shot him 7 times, it was a young boy. I've seen killings after killings after killings. In order to survive in the streets of the South Bronx you had to be a killer, you have to be a murderer, you have to smart, you have to be slick. On my father's side, it was all witches and warlocks. We lived on witchcraft, we had a contract right with the devil himself. I remember when I was younger, 8 or 9 years old, I seen him going through the room to worship the devil. I could see the presence of the devil come into that room. And my father was worshipping, speak in demonic tongues and worship and put flowers and put candles and put water out. 7:00 at night until 5:00 in the morning. I was already going to demonic church, I was going to witchcraft church. I was being trained to be a warlock, I was being trained with witches in the religion for 30 years, 40 years, 50 years. It was training me to know how to speak to principalities, spirits in the ground, the devil himself. You couldn't speak to the devil right away, you had to earn your right to speak to the devil.

In the first mass killing that they did in my neighborhood was at this house right here. The husband stabbed a lady 52 times and cut her ears off - here. And then me, my brothers would hang out with their daughter and we came to the house to walk them back home, to go hang out with the daughters right here and the daughters found their mother cut up to pieces here, in this house.

I was in a schoolyard playing with some friends in a schoolyard. A pastor came and they had this band came in, they were singing songs and people started to gather in the schoolyard. It was an amazing atmosphere, you know. Amazing joy in the schoolyard. I came from a broken home. This pastor's up on stage and he's talking about some Bible story and some Bible book and he's talking about how God loves everybody, ya know, this other stuff. And for the first time I'm getting kind of captivated. "Wow, maybe God does love me. Maybe God does want me. Maybe God wants my family. Maybe God wants to touch me and my family. Maybe He wants to change my family around." I said, "Wow, I can get some of that, I can get some of that. 'Cause He's coming my way." and for the first time ever I felt an incredible love that was indescribable. There's pastors coming off the stage, praying for people, touching people. So I said, "Now, it's my turn. Now he's gonna touch me." Ya know? Now Jesus is gonna accept me, Jesus is gonna show me what love is about. And this pastor passed me by. Never touched me, never laid his hands on me. He went down the line, and when he came up to me, he passed me by, he touched the other person. And I said, "Jesus don't love me, either. My dad don't love me, Jesus don't love me." I come from a broken home. Jesus - he likes the fact that my mother gets beat up. He likes the fact that I go to bed hungry. He like the fact that, you know, there's no heat in my apartment. he likes the fact that when we go to school, we're rejects, we're misfits in school.

So, this Jesus guy - he's just like my father. He's no different. He's just like my dad.

So, I went home, broken. I went home sad. I remember a week later, a couple of weeks later - two weeks later, I went to the schoolyard, hanging out, playing with a friend of mine's. I heard something fell and hit the ground. It was a voodoo necklace. So, I took the voodoo necklace - it had many colors - I took it, I put it on and the necklace was my first contract with the devil.

We went to a Tarot card reading, and when I went to a Tarot card reading, I was a little boy, I was 10 years old - we went in. The lady doing the Tarot card reading, called the witch lady, doing the Tarot card reading she was fascinated - had her eyes fixed on me. And she said, "This boy's got, this boy - we want him. We want him, we want him. The ___ which is Santeria want him. Spiritualism___ is Spanish, Santeria they call it worship of the saints, but it's not worship of the saints, it's worship of demons. We want him. And if you don't give him to us, he's going to lose his eyesight in 30 days." So, my mother was so desperate as a mother, my mother sold her furniture. My mother sold her bedroom set to get $250 to do my first ceremony, because this lady put so much fear in us, so much fear in my mother that my mother had to sleep on the floor, because there was no bedroom for her to sleep on, because she didn't want me to lose my eyesight.

So, they initiated me to the dark side. I was 8 to 10 years old. Their first love, the first contact I had, as a 10 year old boy, the devil showed up and took the offering of giving my life to him. And they put five beads around my neck. The five worst demons of principalities that are under Satan. They put them right around my neck, which is Santeria. They put them right around my neck and they said, "These are your spiritual guides. These are going to be your guardian angels, and they are going to take care of your life from now on."

(driving downtown) This is the building, this corner building here? Used to be almost abandoned, this building here - it's in the book. It used to be so broken down, my brother used to get the water from the pump - the pump (fire hydrant) right there. The apartment was all empty, all the apartments were abandoned, Only me and my family lived here. My whole childhood was stolen, my whole childhood was worshipping the devil, going to demon church. I would go to demon church from 7:00 in the evening to 5:00 in the morning, being trained by witches and warlocks, powers, principals, rites - who owned this region, who's in this region, who's running this principality, what principality name is this? I had...how to channel powers. By the age of 13 years old I was astro-projecting, my body - I would leave my body home and go to regions, in through the spirit and curse regions, curse a neighborhood, put the spirit of prostitution, the spirit of drugs onto the neighborhood. Homosexuality spirits here, demonic spirits here, a spirit of murder, spirit of suicide. I knew how to channel all these spirits into a neighborhood. At the age of 15, 16 years old, I was going into hospitals and putting death and ICU, death in one room so this person could die, because I wanted to be promoted with the devil. To move up the ranks, to be the biggest devil worshipper in New York City. The devil became my daddy. He replaced my dad, because I prayed - I said, "You kill my dad..." At the age of 33 years old my dad got shot in a nightclub, in the face, a woman that wasn't even his, when he had a good woman home - the devil took him out. The devil said, "I replaced the old to keep the new." And the devil became my daddy.

There was a club here, and my father died there. 33 years old. And we lived over there. And then, when I was 11 years old little boy, there was a store right here on the corner and a guy got shot in the street right there, right there - on the little corner here? Guy got killed there when I went to get the gallon of milk.

And I moved up the ranks, through devil worshipping, I moved up the ranks - I moved up through principalities and demons to the point that I was able to just sit with the devil like I'm sitting with you today. And the devil would manifest himself in human form, his presence would come into the room. And I would speak to the devil all night long. He would give me assignments. I would go to five clubs, five lounges a night, to look for people to recruit for the dark side. I would tell people their fortune. I would tell people their lifes, tell people the things that they did, things that was going to happen to them. Then they had no clue who I was, they didn't know who I was, I just had the demonic powers. I had a taste for blood. I would kill animals and drink their blood every week. If I didn't have money, didn't had time to buy an animal, I would cut myself and drink my own blood. The ring of the people that I was with, there was this demonic world: doctors, lawyers, principals, judges, police officers - they were all into witchcraft. Even singers today that are very well known. I would move principalities on that region to control demons on the ground operate to cut down the church, to cut down the growth of the church. To cut down the opportunity for people to get saved. I would be drunk, I'd come out of a club, half demon possessed, drunk. I was standing in the middle of the street and say to God, "Come down. You want some of this? You want me to slap you in your face? You want me to spit in your face? You come and mess with me."

I got married on Halloween. I had a demonic wedding on Halloween. I got married on Halloween. All the demons and principalities from different regions of around the work came to my wedding. No human beings came to my wedding, they were afraid to come to my wedding. So, I had a crazy...I sent out invitations, no one showed up. There were no wedding gifts. But demons came to my wedding, they baptized(?) my wedding. So my wife was a witch, I was a witch and then my daughter was born and I was training her to be a witch, too.

I remember the first time that I was going to sacrifice my first human being. The devil was sitting in the passenger side of my car when I parked. He said, "You love me?" I said, "Of course I love you, Dad." He said, "The guy on the rooftop, he's trying to...he's going to try to take you and hurt you and take your money. You'll kill him if you love me." So when I went up there to the rooftop, I lived on the 12th floor, I remember that. When I went up to the rooftop, I remember the part that he was hiding behind. He was hiding behind the stairway. This guy was 6'5", 250 pounds. I was half demon possessed. I felt that the demon went into me, it wasn't me anymore. So I was going to drag him into my apartment and stab him in the neck, 'cause I had a _____pot - it weighed about a hundred pounds plus, plus I had 9 machetes in it, it had knives in it that I ____ the roosters with. But when I went to grab this guy, I wanted to bring him to my apartment, he got off my hands, and just disappeared. He went down the stories - I mean this guy was like an Olympic athlete, he just - woosh - gone, he just disappeared. And I couldn't grab him and kill him. I was very disappointed that I couldn't kill my first human being.

(walking down a street, pointing to the side of a building) People wrote graffiti over it - this is a demon right here. Look at the demon that runs the gates of Hell. This is the one I was telling you about that is in my book on Santeria, right here. This little demon. This is the demon that runs Haiti. The principality over Haiti. The one that's over there is the principality over Islam. Look at this. To trap the people. The Truth. The Truth will set you free. They put that up there so that people can think they're part of this. (the cross.)

What is this place?

This a place where everyone in the park comes here to __? in witchcraft to hurt people, kill people. This is the place. We can go inside. Come on.

If I tell you I was going to kill you in 30 days, you prepare for your funeral, you was going to die in 30 days. I don't care who you were, I don't care who you knew, I don't care what religion you call yourself - you say you were Catholic, you were Christian, you say you were a believer - I was going to kill you. UNLESS you had a real relationship with Jesus Christ.

The lady that lived downstairs, she came up, she told me her husband was cheating. I want you to kill the woman he's cheating with, put a witchcraft spell on her and kill her. How much you charge me?

I said, "Look. Come back, I'm going to speak to the devil, my Daddy, for a time. Come back and I'll let you know in a couple days." The lady came back, the devil told me what to buy, he said to buy a coffin box, buy 21 black candles. Buy an image of the lady, put in the box, you know, to do the witchcraft to kill this lady. So we were going to do her for 21 days, she was going to die. after 21 days we were going to do her funeral. So the lady came to my house, we were going to charge her $10,000 dollars, I told her, to kill the lady. I said "Sure. I tell you what - I know you, you been good to me, everybody house parties...give me $7,000. I give you 30% off. I said, "I'll kill her. Give me - I'll take 30% off the 10, give me $7,000." So, when the lady was going to leave my house, she said, "By the way, the lady's a Christian. The lady's a Christian." I said, "I'll kill her for free." I said, "I don't need the money. I'll kill her for free. I'm going to teach these Christians a lesson they're gonna learn. I'll kill her for free." I told her, I don't want your money -I'll kill her for free.

So I did the voodoo thing, I did the witchcraft thing and 21 days went by and the lady didn't die. A month went by, the lady didn't die. And I was like, wow - what's going on? I mean, my reputation's on the line. So I called the devil, I called the demons that were assigned - I increased the witchcraft. I increased the witchcraft, I doubled the witchcraft on her, so she could die, like, overnight. Nothing was going on, nothing was going on. I was home at night and the devil shows up, the presence of the devil comes into my house. He tell me, "We have to abort the plan on the lady you want to kill." And I said, "Why would we want to abort the plan? My reputation is on the line. I'm a witch, I'm a warlock. If I don't kill the lady, people won't think that I have any powers." The devil say, "You don't understand. The God that she serves said don't - leave her alone. Don't touch her." And I said, "Who's this God?" He said, "The God that she serves."

I was so angry, I said no, give it one more week, but let's kill her. He said, "No. The God that she serves said leave her alone." From the witchcraft that I did on the lady, she should have been dead in less than 21 days.

(In a store)This is Jezebel. This is Jezebel in their religion. This is how it works. See these statues here, they don't mean nothing, but it's the demon behind it. So in order for me to identify with this, this has to be created, because i can't identify to a spirit. I can't identify to the spirit, we have nothing in common. I'm humanity, a spirit is immortality. A spirit is a spirit demon. I can't relate to it, so in order for me to relate to it, you have to put this guy in the middle, so I can relate to it, because he's human form. He looks like a human being. There's a story behind this guy, so you and I can related to him. so the demon operates through him. Understand? Same thing with these guys. And then they give themselves names and days and birthdays. The American Indians can get caught up with demonic forces, they can get caught up into the occult. These are the entrapment of the Native American Indians. But those are statues that the people use in demonic ways, in demonic religion. There's nothing in here that is holy, there's nothing...the only thing holy here is us standing here.

What happens in this place?

This here in the back, they do witchcraft in the back, they do voodoo, they do with spells in the back, they do cleansings in the back. All these demons they want you to buy a new statue so you can take a demon home. See, selected prayers. They make you believe that you're praying to God. Look. I used to use this book, selected prayers. They make you think that you're praying to God, but these prayers are not Godly prayers. Nothing in the Bible here, say nothing about the Bible, the crucifixion.

We had a book in New York City, in American. I was the third person to get this book that had symbols in the book of different demons, different principalities, of different ways of killing people with the witchcraft. I mean this book was so...no one had a copy of this book. You couldn't have a copy of this book unless the devil signed off on you. And I was the third person to receive that book. And I would take symbols in that book and do witchcraft to people, put people...make people lose their mind. I put witchcraft on people, make people get diseases out of nowhere. I put witchcraft on people, make people get leprosy. I put witchcraft on people, make people get cancer. I mean, I gave witchcraft to people, I gave people miscarriages, I gave people abortions, I put people in hospitals for surgeries, that didn't even have to go for surgeries. I did witchcraft so people would lose their minds. I spirits of bi-polar, of schizophrenia, spirits of disease on people. I put suicide spirits on people. I'd be up all night long, praying and talking to the devil - when Christians can't even go to church for one hour. When Christians can't even pray for one hour.

The spirit realm is more real than the natural realm. And we fail to see that. In whatever's not covered with Jesus Christ is an easy target to bring down. Like, and atheist - I could kill him easily. They are easy to kill. The Jehovah Witness was easy to destroy. The Mormon was easy to destroy. The people that walk around and say, "We don't believe in the devil." they were easy to destroy, because they didn't know how to seek any spiritual help.

I remember a time when Nicky Cruz came to...a Nicky Cruz group came into my neighborhood and they were called TRUCE. They would come and do drive-bys in my neighborhood. They would do, like, worship and then they would preach a word and then go to another corner and do the same thing. And I came after these groups to try to put, to try to bring them down, this group. And they were young kids, they were like 18, 17, 16, 20 - I mean. So I said how do they dare to place this junk, this filthy music in my neighborhood - see, they would call worship. This filthy music in my neighborhood, I would go after them. I would destroy these kids. So when I went up to where they were at, there was a wall of fire around them. I couldn't penetrate against them. And there was something that pushed me back, every time I try to throw demonic forces against them, something there would just push me back and I was never able to touch these kids. And I said, there was something here. It's not right. Something is not falling into place. So I walked away, I left them alone. I didn't want to deal with them, I said, okay - they won this first round.

(back in a store) So, it's obvious there are spirits here watching us.

Oh yeah, of course they're watching us.

Yeah, and so we're all protected, we're all...

Yeah, we're protected. We're under the Blood, brother. There ain't nothing like the Blood of Jesus. Amen? There's nothing that can touch us. We got a hedge of protection around us and we can walk into this place, we can chase demons out of here, we can curse the place to the ground, in Jesus' name and there's nothing that the devil can do.

I mean, I had so much money. Beautiful cars, beautiful woman, I had it all. I lived in a world that people...my neighborhood, my neighbors were terrified of who I was. They said, you mess with that guy, your family will die. You mess with that guy, he gonna get a gun, he'll kill you in your sleep. My daddy was awesome, my daddy was...he knew had had...he give me powers beyond what I could imagine. He gave me powers that people have fear of me, police have fear of me, the securities in my neighborhood fear me. People that knew that I was a devil - they would call me the devil's son. I brought Christians to their knees, not to pray, because they had no power. It wasn't because their God wasn't all powerful, don't get me wrong. Because their God was all powerful - the vessel was weak. The vessel had no prayer life, the prayer had no fasting life. And they had no relationship with God. There was a form of godliness in the person, but no power. The person was weak, the person had nothing going. He had a Bible, he had the right suit on, she had the right dress on - but there was no connection with Jesus Christ. Because they was out of His will, they was out of His promises and they was out of His divine purpose, and I had you. I owned you. I had you as a slave, I broke you, I put witchcraft on you. I kept doing that to Christian after Christian after Christian after families after churches. I'd chase everything down that represented the Cross of Jesus Christ.

(driving)Very demonic place.

So that place has an effect on the whole neighborhood, is what you're saying?

Oh yeah, of course. Oh yeah. This whole region unlocked that. That's the devil's throne, we just went into the devil's throne. (referring to the store they had been in)

That throne been there since the 80's. And then they go spend $100, $200 buying these things, and then they broke, they on welfare, public assistance. But they got money to buy all this junk, because they think their life is going to get better, they think that their life is going to improve, they gonna make progress in life, they think that they're going break generational curses. They think they're going break vex, spells, voodoo - they think they're gonna break all that, and basically, God says "I come. I'll do that for you for free."

He says give your life to Me, and I'll set you free. But they don't want that, that's too difficult for them. That's too complicated for them. But they can walk into a place like this and drop $200 and think that their life is gonna be free. And they're gonna live a life of abundance.

I had contact with the principality that runs Haiti. His name is Condero(?). I had contact with demons in Miami. I had contact with demons in Africa. I had contact with demons in New York City, principalities that run crossroads of the world. He owns 42nd street. Okay? There's a different principality that runs crossroads of the world here on 42nd street than the one that tries to run this neighborhood.

I didn't have a conscience. I remember I did witchcraft to my brother, I put him in jail for 5 years. Witchcraft - to my own brother, my own flesh and blood. I did witchcraft and put him in jail for 5 years. My other brother, there was a warlock. He came into my house one time with an attitude and the demon jumped on him. He ran out the house, he couldn't hold the pain in his stomach. My mother can bear witness to that. I did so much ceremonies in my body. I did so much ceremonies in my body, the last ceremony I did - I not only sold myself to the devil, I did a ceremony were I had to swallow animal blood and gunpowder. It was called (?) This is a ceremony of Haitian and French. If you do this ceremony with a demon - so when I go to people's houses and eat, they can't put witchcraft on the food. I did all the ceremonies you can do.

I would go to demon church. Every year, we would have a meeting, a secret meeting. All the high witches and warlocks would have this meeting to find out what principality was gonna usher out and bring in to run the region. We were more organized than the church itself. The kingdom of darkness was more organized than the church of Jesus Christ. We knew how to do ceremonies, we knew how to do things before the year was over to prepare ourselves for the next year. When Christians couldn't go to church and pray for one hour. When Christians couldn't go to church and have a consistent relationship with God. I even took a sabbatical from witchcraft and the devil punished me - took my eyesight for one year. I was completely blind for one year. Was registered with the Commissioner for the Blind. I was completely blind. They were training me to use a Seeing Eye dog, they were training me to use one of these sticks that you use to walk the streets. My mother took care of me for one year. My eyes went black. And a mist of gray went over my eyes. I was completely blind. And when I gave my life back to the devil, after 7 surgeries, the devil gave me back my eyesight. And I could see again. And that was my punishment for taking one year off, I wanted to take off. The devil said, you want one year off? I give it to you. He took my eyesight.

And that's the world I lived in. If you mess with the devil, he'll kill you, he'll kill your family. It was a fear that was great beyond measure, that you could not leave this religion. You could not leave Santeria, you could not leave ______, you could not leave spiritualism. The doctors could not explain how I lost my eyesight. Meanwhile, Christians - and would say, what Christians do bad, Christians sometimes missed the mark, and the only thing that shows up in their house is grace and mercy. When you're short with the devil, you do something the devil don't like - he kill someone. He kill your family member. I remember the devil warned this lady, he said you can't be with that person no more and she didn't care, 'cause she was in love with the person - the devil demon-possessed a homeless guy in the street. He took a hammer and hit her 17 times on her head, killed her.

One day, I was sitting home. It was amazing. I came from a nightclub the night before. I was sitting home watching a show called Jerry Springer, a crazy show - people beating each other up. I got joy outta that, I was getting joy outta that, laughing. For the first time I heard a voice say to me, "Son. I am coming soon. What are you going to do with your life?" An audible voice, shouting from across the room. And I thought it was the TV talking to me..But then I saw it can't be the TV, these people were beating each other up. This voice... I knew the voice of the devil, I would sit with the devil like I'm sitting with you today. He would come into human form, he would come in the room, he would come in sometime, the presence come into the room. The atmosphere changes and I now he was there for me, and he was talking to my conscience. I would talk back and we would talk all night long. I knew that, too. I knew him like you knew the back of your hand. I knew every demon, every principality that ran the region, that ran everything in America. Everything in Canada. Everything that ran - I know every principality that ran every occult, wicca, new age, buddhistism, Islam, Andria, spiritualism - I knew every principality that ran. I had a contract with every principality with them, I had straight A marks with every principality, with every demon in the ground, the devil, Jezebel. I had every - I knew demons that I couldn't even tell you names, because you wouldn't know who they are. I knew them all by name. And this voice was very different than any other voice. When I heard that voice come out of nowhere - it came out of the air. The Voice.

I went into shock. And then I saw a vision from the other side of the apartment like the sky was on fire, and people underneath - I saw people running for cover but there was no cover, where to hide. And I think, why did I see that vision? So I shook it off. But I remember I went to sleep, like a deep sleep, like someone put on anesthesia and I went to sleep. I ended up in a train full of people. I couldn't believe I was in a train full of people. And this train was going faster than you could ever imagine. I'd never been on something this fast on Earth. And it went into hell. And Jesus Christ took me to hell. And when I got to hell, the doors opened. I mean, there was a slam in the doors, there was an unspeakable echo that struck all the doors open and there was heat that came out of nowhere. It felt like you were gonna suffocate, the heat that came out. I ran, I got out the train and the people on the train, they had no faces. But you could see the fear on the people on the train. You could feel the fear, the impact of the fear that they were going to a place that they were never going to return. And the place was packed.

And then, I tried, I said, "I can't die here. I can't die here. This is not for me. I wasn't born to be in this place." I was saying this to myself, I was not born to be here. So I tried to find like a tunnel, a tunnel in hell. I was walking, trying to run through the tunnels in hell, trying to find a door. Maybe a window. Maybe there was a gap somewhere that I can come out and come back to reality. But there was no gap. I remember as I...the more I went into the tunnels, the more the fear gripped me, the more the suffering. I heard suffering, just draped over you. This fear drapes over you like you're wearing a garment. This fear drapes over you, something you can't even control. You have no control over. Something like, it grabs you. It don't let you go. I couldn't see the hand in front of my face. But I hear the wailing - I hear wailing. Like, you ever hear like a kid wail, an animal wail at the same time. It's like, they're kinda wailing, it's indescribable. And there was heat and a smell that was like...like if you was in the sewers or the gutters in New York City. I mean, but crazier than that. As I came to a part of the tunnel, the devil showed up. He said, "I was your Daddy. I gave you everything you needed. I took care of you. I blessed you. I protected you. I killed people for you. I did...I give you powers, I give you a name in the darkness, the kingdom of darkness. I gave you a name. When people came against you I destroyed them, because I knew you were going to be the vessel I was going to use to move my kingdom on the Earth. And now you want to leave me? Now you want to betray me? In demonic tongues, and I'm talking back to him in demonic tongues and telling him no, I'm not leaving, I'm just confused. I don't know what's going on. And he said, "No. I know what you're going to do. You're going to leave me and you're going to expose my religion. You're going to expose who i am and how I operate in the realm, in the spirit realm. Because I taught you things that I never taught no one else. I showed you. I trusted you with the things that I needed you to know so you can further my kingdom. Because I wanted to use you in a greater measure way." And in the confusion, he went to grab me. He went to grab and destroy me and the Cross of Jesus appeared. I didn't understand how a cross, a three foot cross appeared in hell, when I was wearing blue shorts and a T-shirt. And I put it on him. And when I put it on him, the devil melt like he was an infant, like an infant he melt and fell on the floor. Like, no powers. So I took that opportunity and I ran deeper into the gates, I ran deeper into the tunnels of hell, hoping that there was a door. I had...my hope was being...there was not hope in the hope at all. There was no place saying I'm coming out of here! This was it, this was the end. I had a fear that gripped me that was indescribable - I never felt fear like that, ever felt a despair - it was the opposite of what Heaven is, opposite of Joy, opposite of gladness, opposite of Peace. It was opposite of light and darkness. It was a place of torment, a place of...if I'm here, my family won't know I'm here. My daughter won't know I'm here. How would they find me? How would they look for me?

As I went deeper into the tunnel of hell, hoping that there was a door, a window, a crack somewhere that I can get out, the devil showed up again. "So now, we'll destroy you." I told him in the demonic language, I've got these marks, these are my contracts to protect me, to destroy you. He said, "Fool! I gave you those marks. Those are my marks that I OWN you. I OWN YOU. No one owns you, I do. And you're gonna live for me or you die." And he went to grab me a second time around. I said, this is it. He went to grab me a second time around - the Cross of Jesus Christ appeared in hell. There's no greater love than the Cross that would come for a sinner like me, in hell. So when David says, "If I make my bed in hell, He knows I'm there." Grace and Mercy showed up in hell. Grace and Mercy knew my address. Grace and Mercy have a plan for my life. To my unspeakable, demonic, selfish ways. Arrogant, self-centered ways in hell, when I was down for the count. Jesus Christ loved the misfit. And He said, "I have a plan for you. I love you more than you can ever imagine." And He showed up in hell. And when I woke up, my spirit came back into my body. I woke up and I bend my knee to Jesus Christ. I had $100,000 of witchcraft in my house. I threw witchcraft away, I threw religion away. I threw everything that had to do with darkness away. The people from Haiti, the people from Cuba, the people from Miami and New York said, "we have to kill him, because he knows too much. We have to destroy him. We have to kill him, because he knows too much. He's not one of us anymore."

And they came for the kill. They did their best, they came for the kill. I was asleep in the day. It was day and night when the demons showed up and tormented me 30 days. They tormented me for 30 days. They would grab me by my throat, pick me up off my bed. The room grew cold, I would lay in my bed. I'd feel another person laying next to me, ice cold, another person. I would look like this, and feel the presence. The presence was the devil himself, laying in my bed for 30 days. On and off, on and off trying to torture, trying to steal my mind, trying to rip my soul out of my body, trying to rip my spirit out of my body. I would tremble at night, like I never trembled before. 30 days. And I would cry out, I didn't know how to pray? I said, "Jesus! Jesus! Jesus!" I didn't know how to pray. I say, my sister prays - I heard her in church, she pray this way. I heard that person pray this way - I would bring all these prayers together, to try to pull them together like a puzzle, trying to fight for my life.

One day, I was in church worshipping. And I asked the Lord, "Lord, why are You letting this happen to me?" And one day I heard the voice of God again. He said, "I want to see how much you love Me. I want to see how much you trust Me." And never again, I was tormented by the devil. And I became an evangelist for Jesus Christ. Fourteen years serving the Lord and I would never trade it for nothing in the world. Over on Hallelujah Boulevard, there's a mansion for John Ramirez. And one days says, Welcome Home, well done faithful servant. And I tell you, there's nothing - I'm not talking about Christianity - I'm talking about a relationship with Jesus Christ. He is my Lord. He is my beginning and end. No weapon formed against me will ever prosper. I die when Jesus say I go Home. Not because of a witch. Not because of a person. Not because hex, voodoo, incantation - none of that can separate me from the love of God.

Vox Day #fundie voxday.blogspot.com

[Discussing a video of Eric Hovind answering questions from a sixth grader:]

Most modern Christian apologists are incompetent because they approach the discourse as a chance to explicate theology rather than understanding that it is a form of intellectual combat where the goal is to discredit the interlocutor. So, like Hovind, they explicate a little theology that looks like an irrelevant evasion while simultaneously managing to get intellectually discredited by young boys. Frankly, I'd be surprised and a little disappointed if I didn't have the kid in tears and questioning his faith in science within minutes after asking such a pair of stupid questions.

First things first. Destroy the interlocutor. Answer every question directly, on his terms, and then go after the vulnerabilities they reveal with a flamethrower. Only then, when you are standing upon whatever quivering ashes remain, can you explicate further if you wish.

David Mckinley #fundie motherjones.com

What it is...IS A SHAME AND DISGRACE that we as A people have allowed our country to go this far left in the first place. Yes...THE LEFT...THE LIBERAL LEFT!
Most may not remember when it was safe for our kids to play in the parks and neighborhoods. It was before all this out coming of the gays and lesbians...before all the racial strife we have now.
I'm not old...but I remember 50yrs ago being a kid who played safely outside.
Dont even try to say it's not about the safely our children face everyday...it's the VERY same law makers that have allowed this nonsense same sex and/or dual sex pubic restrooms.
I live in Alabama...proud of my Southern Heritage and Christian upbringing. Of you'll notice...1 of the few states to stand up and fight against all this NONSENSE.
This should NOT even be a topic of debate.
For the few that feel different...I ask 1 question.
If you have a same sex partner...how can you reproduce...you know...when you die off, someone needs to be left behind. Like children...? And..."you" people can't do that.
Maybe we could just stand back and watch you die off...? Aids...no chance if reproducing...hmmm...
Just rest assured that at some point in time a nutcase will get into a woman's restroom mind under the state laws that allow this NONSENSE and do physical harm to someone.
Just PRAY it's NOT MY WIFE...I promise they'll need more than bathroom police to protect them.
That is not a threat...that's A PROMISE...

heretical.com #conspiracy #racist heretical.com

Question: Why do you criticize the Diary?
Answer: Because it is not a diary. It is an unreliable mixture of fact and fantasy which Anneliese Marie Frank wrote for her own amusement. She later described her book as a novel. It was written or re-written between 2 and 26 months after the stated entry dates.

Question: Why had the Franks settled in Holland?
Answer: German measures against Jews became increasingly severe to encourage Jews to leave. The Franks, and many of the Dutch, thought that Holland was safe from invasion because the country had remained neutral during WWI.

Question: Were the Franks wealthy?
Answer: Yes. Otto Frank’s family had owned a bank and the family were used to having servants. This also explains why there are so many photographs: photography at the time was an expensive business, which only the wealthy could afford.

Question: Was their hiding place secret?
Answer: Ostensibly yes, in practice no. There was a long list of people who knew, such as their protectors, their protectors’ associates and their vegetable suppliers. In reality it was an ‘open secret’: it seems that harbouring Jews during the German occupation of Holland was almost the Dutch national hobby. The Franks’ existence was only revealed to the occupying Germans when the tide of opinion changed.

Question: Why did the Frank family never go out?
Answer: They were afraid that the Germans would capture them. However, especially in the later years of the war, many Jews were going around completely normally, having obtained false identity papers. The reason the Franks never went out was because they looked too Jewish.

Question: Who was Kitty?
Answer: In the published Diary, all the entries are addressed to Kitty. In the manuscripts however the “letters” are addressed to various members of her “club,” which consisted of at least eight imaginary people. According to the manuscripts, Kitty had blonde hair and bright blue eyes.

Question: How did Anne Frank die?
Answer: From typhus, in one of the many typhus epidemics which raged through the camps near the end of the war. Anne’s sister Margot suffered the same fate. Their father Otto Frank was admitted to the Auschwitz camp hospital and survived.

Question: How did the group in hiding amass so much food?
Answer: Mainly through Miep Gies, who is described as being “just like a pack mule, she lugs so much.” The eight accumulated so much food that they had more to eat than Dutch people who were not in hiding!

Question: What about the ballpoint pen?
Answer: Some claim that parts of the manuscripts were written in ballpoint pen, and that such pens were not available until after the war. According to H. J. J. Hardy in the Critical Edition (p. 160) however, the only ballpoint pen in the manuscript is annotation: “The only ballpoint writing was found on two loose scraps of paper included among the loose sheets.”

Question: What about the claims that Meyer Levin wrote parts of the Diary?
Answer: This would have been somewhat difficult, since the Levin affair was around 1955 and the first edition of the Anne Frank Diary was published in 1947 (entitled Het Achterhuis: Dagboekbrieven). This persistent myth originates from an erroneous article published twice in The Spotlight.

Question: What about the vacuum cleaner and the supposed need for silence?
Answer: Some critics, notably Faurisson, have pointed to the daily use of a vacuum cleaner and that Anne Frank claimed they had to be silent for fear of discovery. The reality is that Anne was an incorrigible chatterbox and the supposed need for silence was likely to have been a device to try and keep her quiet. Since she could not talk, Anne took to writing instead. Most of what she wrote was not included in the Diary and what was published was very selectively edited.

Question: Why did the group in hiding want more people to come and live with them?
Answer: There are several references to this is the manuscripts, and the answer may be rather a mystery. It is not as if the eight in hiding had plenty of space; the proposal seems to have been to house additional people in the living room. Possibly the best explanation is that of a Jewish characteristic of accumulating in large and dense groups to feel ‘safety in numbers.’ (The word ghetto originally described a Jewish quarter.)

Martin #fundie archbishopcranmer.com

Martin: That article is utter nonsense. Homosexuality is not innate, it is a chosen behaviour.

DavidS: When did you choose to be heterosexual?

Martin: I chose not to sin with a person who was not my wife.

DavidS: When did you choose you were going to be exclusively attracted to women?

Martin: The ultimate pathetic argument. I suggest you reread my last post.

DavidS: Typical avoidance tactics from you - do you have a phobia to answering questions? Perhaps an allergy? Does answering questions make you come out in a rash which is why you use avoidance and distraction tactics?
When did you choose you were going to be exclusively attracted to women?

Martin: Again
Read what I wrote above. The basis on which you ask your question is wrong, making the question meaningless.

DavidS: I see, going out of your way to avoid answering the question, because you have no real answer.
I suspect the honest answer (if you were ever able to give one) would be that you didn't choose because your sexuality is just a natural part of who you are, just as homosexuality is a natural part of who a person is. Or perhaps you haven't chosen, and are ignoring your true sexuality which might explain a lot. Studies have shown those who strongly oppose homosexuality often do it out of self-loathing and non-acceptance of their own true sexuality.

Martin: David
Can you show me where Jesus spoke of sexuality? Of course you can't, He didn't because it doesn't exist. He spoke of a man and woman marrying and becoming one, yet He never spoke of gay marriage. He knew that homosexuality is nothing more that sexual sin, like adultery or paedophilia, a rejection of God's design for mankind.
There is only one reason you speak of sexuality, and that is to excuse sin. There are no loving monogamous homosexual relationships, just people satisfying their lust.
So carry on with your little god and your little jesus that you have created. But remember this, one day you will have to stand before the real Lord Jesus Christ who will judge you on what you have done. On that day He will tell you that He never knew you.

Caiden Cowger #conspiracy youtube.com

[From a 14-year-old conservative radio host]

Many states throughout the country are trying to make it mandatory for students to go to school year-round. Now, believe it or not, President Obama is one of the main advocates of this. Now, their excuse for this is that students have been losing the information that they gained throughout the school year. Now, here's the truth: students have been losing the INDOCTRINATION that they have been receiving from their liberal educators, and, well, it makes it harder for the liberal left to accomplish their goal of taking over the entire country. Their agenda is to obtain all the brains of my generation, because if they win the youth, they get this country.

If they can indoctrinate the youth into believing that our founding fathers views do not matter, if they can trick the youth into believing that the constitution is not important anymore, then this country is dead. Everything that we know currently about this country, [the] next generation's not gonna know. This is what the liberal left wants. Their goal is to demolish the country as we know it ... and if we go to school all year round, guess what, it's going to make it easier for the liberal left to operate.

Jedi-Master-Yoda #fundie comments.deviantart.com

Well, I for one can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that G-d exists...

First though, you can't question or discount someone's belief anymore than they can set it before you as concrete fact.

When I was growing up, I went to religious school at my synagogue every Sunday. One week the Rabbi took questions from the students. It just so happened that there was a thunderstorm outside that day at that moment.

Eventually he got a question that asked if G-d really existed (these question were all hand written and pre-submitted).

After he had read the question allowed... but before he could answer it, there was a bright flash of lightening, followed by a loud rumble of thunder. Let's put it this way... after that he did not bother answering the question.

John Howard #conspiracy battlefieldacupuncture.net

Is there something different about the Sedatelec ASPs® that stands out from the semi-permanent auricular needles from other companies? That is the question I was faced with and wanted to know the answer to. Little did I know that the answer was right in front of me and it was the last and biggest clue that led me to why the Battlefield Acupuncture Protocol worked from an energetic standpoint.

Yes, not all needles are created equally. What is the difference between the Sedatelec ASPs® and the others? Like I said before its right in front of you.

Here’s how the Battlefield Acupuncture Protocol treats the root and energetically works. To give you a hint, it’s all one big mathematical formula, a Fibonacci sequence to be exact. Before I explain this to you, let me explain what the Fibonacci sequence is.

The Fibonacci sequence is named for Leonardo Pisano also known as Fibonacci (for filius Bonacci, meaning son of Bonacci). He was an Italian mathematician that lived from 1170 – 1250. Many consider him to be the greatest European mathematician of the Middle Ages. The Fibonacci numbers were originally defined to model the growth of rabbit populations but have been found to occur many times in the natural world. For example flowers tend to have a Fibonacci number of petals; plants tend to have a Fibonacci number of leaves, spiral shells exhibit patterns related to the Fibonacci sequence. The Fibonacci sequence is the infinite sequence of numbers in which each number equals the sum of the previous two numbers: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, etc.

The last clue was there were 8 needles per pack in Sedatelec’s ASPs®. When I was in Lyon, France this past November, I had the opportunity to meet and ask three people who might know why ASP® needles come in packs of 8. Think about it, how many needles do you know that come in packs of 8? I don’t know of any. The first person I asked was Thierry Garaboux, the President of Sedatelec. When I was Lyon I was given a tour of Sedatelec factory. I asked him, why are ASPs in blister packs of 8, why not 5 or 10 like most other needles? He looked at the second person who might know, Christophe Suffissais, Business Developer (International Marketing Manager) and he didn’t know either. The last person I asked was Dr. Raphael Nogier. He too could not answer that question either.

You have 1 ear on the right side of your head and 1 ear on the left side of your head. 1 + 1 = 2 You have 3 cranial nerves that run through the ear – Trigeminal, Cervical Plexus and Vagus Nerve, Number of Battlefield Acupuncture points – 5
Sedatelec ASPs® have 8 needles per pack

The Vagus Nerve has 13 branches that connect to most of the visceral organs. There is your root
treatment to how the Battlefield Acupuncture Protocol works. It works on an organ level (root) not just a symptomatic level because of the Vagus Nerve connection.

So you have your Fibonacci sequence:
[ul]
[li]1 ear right side [/li]
[li]1 ear left side [/li]
[li]2 ears (total) [/li]
[li]3 cranial nerves [/li]
[li]5 battlefield acupuncture points [/li]
[li]8 needles in a pack [/li]
[li]13 branches of the Vagus Nerve [/li]
[/ul]
Lastly we use Gold Needles, which relates to the Golden Ratio.

FEZZILLA #fundie christianforums.com

Yes. If you've speant the time studying and debating communism like I have you'd know that all those far-left liberals who go on their commy march against religious freedom (or actually, Christian freedom!) you would thoroughly understand that our country is under attack by communist ideology. I know several people in my local area who are involved with brainwashing people out of their American rights. The ACLU upholds the constitution of the U.S.S.R., but the U.S. constitution it is attacking! Our country was meant to be a country of religious freedom, not atheistic propaganda and fascism.

And thats the truth..

Marcus Ruiz Evans #moonbat amren.com

Message to White Nationalists from California

I read “What is to be Done,” published in American Renaissance. As a Californian and as the founder of CALEXIT — the California secession movement — I want to say that you are totally right. The liberal media do paint it as though the only people who support secession are conservatives, when we here in California support it just as much but for liberal reasons.

The American Constitution does say that states shall determine the direction of the country, not a direct popular vote. The majority of the states are conservative and will stay conservative, according to the US Census, until the year 2045. Liberals hate that, don’t respect the Constitution, and are willing to tear everything down so that conservative America doesn’t get to vote the way the Founding Fathers intended.

I know liberals think this way because I am one of them — I’m a liberal and also a Californian. I don’t share your values, but I was raised by conservatives and I learned that lying and cheating to win is not right. I don’t want to live in the America that you want to live in, but I also don’t want violence.

I know that my fellow liberals want to push their values on you because they think they know better than you, and they are willing to take away your rights guaranteed in the Constitution in order to push on you their vision of America. My fellow liberals believe that after their laws are pushed on you, you will eventually come around to see that they were right. As someone who grew up with conservatives, and who has family in Virginia and Texas, I know that is a fantasy. It will never happen.

I am deeply afraid that my fellow liberals don’t get that and aren’t going to until it’s too late. I see people on my side of the divide pushing America towards a super polarized and violently reactive era that will last decades — unless cooler heads prevail. I see the way liberals are pushing things, and that is why I support an amicable divorce. Let’s peacefully separate before we start fighting.

I write this letter directly to extreme conservatives to let you know that you alone have the power to put America on the path to peace and heal our polarized nation. Here is why you are America’s last hope for peace: You can expose the big secret that is keeping California from leaving tomorrow.

You know that the liberal media lie, but Californians don’t know that. They have been told by their media over and over that you conservatives in the middle of America love them and will never let them go, that you secretly want to be them, and will be weeping in the streets if they left. As someone who has family from the middle of America, I know that is not true.

Our movement was stopped in its tracks, not because we were told as Californians that we cannot survive as a nation, but because liberal media and liberal politicians and liberal professors told us we could never get the votes to go peacefully. They’re wrong. I know that a majority of the states, because they are conservative, would happily vote to let California leave America. Tomorrow there could be a majority of the states and the Senate that said, “Yes, you can go, CALEXIT.” This would happen if the people in conservative America stood up with one voice and spoke.

If the Senate and a majority of the states said, “Yes, California can leave the USA now,” it will expose the lies the media have told us here in California. Fifty-five percent of Californians were willing to think about leaving America when Donald Trump was elected. The media in California keep that hidden and claim that only 32 percent of Californians want to leave.

If you in conservative America can disprove the lie that conservatives would never vote for California to leave, it will let us who support Calexit force the media to acknowledge that a majority of Californians do want to leave. We liberal Californians can work with you conservative Americans to achieve a vision of America we both want and that will stop a violent future that liberals are pushing on us.

Here are your options:

California stays.
– “California Values” will be pushed on you. California has an outsized influence on Congress and pushes American Democrats further left.
– Californians will move to your town and change your local laws to reflect California values.

California leaves.
– Congress returns to a balance of left and right ideas. It stops pushing the extreme left because California is no longer there. The remaining liberals realize they have to work with conservatives to pass legislation.
– Because Californians are not American citizens, America can regulate the number of Californians who can move in.
– Shocked by the fact that Congress isn’t dominated by them, many liberals from across America will leave and move to the independent nation of California, making the rest of America even more conservative.

You can keep America. We’ll leave.

Professor Jonathan Brown #fundie thedailybanter.com

[In a Q & A session following a speech on Islam and slavery]

Brown: [1:02:22] Let me ask you this question. You started saying ‘wrongs done by Arabs to other people.’ What wrongs?

Questioner: Well—

Brown: Just tell me. I know what you’re going to say so I’ll answer your question for you. The fact that there was slavery is a wrong.

Questioner: Yeah.

Brown: Ok, that’s, how can you say, if you’re Muslim, the Prophet of God had slaves. He had slaves. There’s no denying that. Was he—are you more morally mature than the Prophet of God? No you’re not. I’ll answer your question for you.

[...]

Brown: Slavery cannot just be treated as a moral evil in and of itself because slavery doesn’t mean anything. The moral evil is extreme forms of deprivation of rights and extreme forms of control and extreme forms of exploitation. I don’t think it’s morally evil to own somebody because we own lots of people all around us, and we’re owned by people.

[...]

Brown: [1:08:35] In general, you don’t find the brutality that you see in American slavery. As far as I can tell, generally it is simply not very common. Slaves in Islamic civilization were mostly investments.

[...]

Brown: [1:19:20] The first question was about the concubines. So this is a very difficult discussion to have. We don’t have time to have it today, but I would say that…. It’s very hard to have this discussion because we think of, let’s say in the modern United States, the sine qua non of morally correct sex is consent. We think of people as autonomous agents. Everybody’s an autonomous agent and it’s the consent of that autonomous agent that makes a sexual action acceptable. Correct?

If you take away the consent element, then everyone starts flipping out. Right? At that but you get, rape you get sexual acts done by people who are too young we perceive to consent (1:20:15). And these are sort of the great moral wrongs of our society. So the idea of someone who is a by definition non-consensual sexual actor in the sense that they have been entered into a sexual relationship in a position of servitude that’s sort of ab initio wrong.

The way I would respond to that…

Brown: …is to say that as – I mean this is just a fact – this isn’t a judgment, it’s a fact. For most of human history human beings have not thought of consent as the essential feature of morally correct sexual activity. And second, we fetishize the idea of autonomy to the extent that we forget, again who’s really free? Are we really autonomous people? I mean what does autonomy mean? Can I just drive—can I be like a cowboy and in a movie or an action TV series where I just get on my motorcycle and just ride to the West? No, I got kids. I have a mortgage. I mean we’re all born into and live in a network of relationships and responsibilities and duties, but we have this obsession with the idea of autonomy. And the fact is that—and this is not to demean the status of woman in Islam or Islamic civilization at all, but a concubine’s autonomy was not that different from the autonomy of a wife, because for most of human history and most of Islamic civilization, women got married to the person that their family wanted them to get married to. The idea of being autonomous and saying, “I need to be in love with him. I need to go have this, you know, Jane Austen-like courtship with him. That was hogwash.

[...]

Brown: What’s the difference between someone who is captured in a raid in the steppes of Central Asia brought to Istanbul’s slave market, sold to an owner, who, by the way, might treat her badly, might treat her incredibly well. She’s going to bear him children. She’s going to be a free woman. She’s going to be the mother of his children. If he’s high status, she’s going to be high status. If he dies she might be a very desirable wife. That person’s situation? What’s the difference between that and some woman who’s a poor baker’s daughter who gets married to some baker’s son without any choice because no one expects her to have any choice? And that baker’s son might treat her well. He might treat her horribly. The difference between these two people is not that big. We see it as enormous because we’re obsessed with the idea of autonomy and consent, would be my first response. It’s not a solution to the problem. I think it does help frame it.

Michael & Stephanie Relfe #conspiracy metatech.org

The Lacerta Files

Interview with a Reptilian

[...]

Question: Can you tell me something about the natural history and evolution of your species? How old is your species? Have you evolved from primitive reptiles as mankind has evolved from apes?

Answer: Oh, this is a very long and complex story and it sounds certainly unbelievable to you, but it’s the truth. I will try to explain it in short. Around 65 million years ago, many of our unadvanced ancestors from the dinosaur race died in a great global cataclysm. The reason for this destruction was not a natural disaster—an asteroid impact as your scientists believe falsely—but a war between two enemy alien groups that took mainly place in the orbit and high atmosphere of your planet. According to our limited knowledge about the early days this global war was the first alien war on planet earth but it was definitely not the last (and a future war is coming soon, while a “cold war”—as you call it—between alien groups is ongoing since the last 73 years on your planet).

The opponents in this 65 million year old war were two advanced alien species, whose both names are again not pronounceable for your tongues. I’m able to say them but it would hurt your ear if I tell you the names in their original way. One race was humanoid like your species (but much older) and was from this universe, from a solar system in the star constellation you call “Procyon” today in your maps. The other species—about which we know not so much—was a reptilian species, but they have nothing to do with our own species, because we have evolved from local saurians without exterior influence (except the successful manipulation of our own genes by us. More about that later). The advanced reptilian species came not from this universe but from a—well, how should I explain it to you. Your scientists have not really understood the true nature of the universe, because your illogical mind is not able to see the easiest things and relies on wrong mathematics and numbers. This is part of the genetic programming of your kind to which I will come later. Let me say, that you are nearly as far away from the understanding of the universe as you were 500 years ago.

To use a term you will maybe understand: the other species came not from this universe but from another “bubble” in the foam of the omniverse. You would call it maybe another dimension, but this is not the right word to describe it correctly (by the way, the term dimension is generally wrong in the way you understand it). The fact you should remember is, that advanced species are able to “walk” between bubbles by use of—as you would call it—quantum technology and sometimes in special ways only by use of their mind (my own species had also advanced mental abilities in comparison to your species, but we are not able to do the matterstring/bubble changing without technology, but other species active on this planet are able and this looks to you like magic as it had to your ancestors.)

Back to our own history: the first species (the humanoids) had reached Earth around 150 years before the reptilians and they built some colonies on the former continents. There was a large colony on the continent you call “Antarctica” today and another one in the continent you call “Asia” today. These people lived together with animal-like saurians on the planet without problems. When the advanced reptilian species arrived in this system, the humanoid colonists from “Procyon” tried to communicate peacefully, but they were not successful and a global war started within months.

You must understand that both species were interested in this young planet not for its biology and undeveloped species, but for only one reason: raw material, especially copper. To understand this reason, you must know that copper is a very important material for some advanced species (even today) because it is—together with some unstable materials—able to produce new stable elements if you induce a high electromagnetic field in the right angle with a high nuclear radiation field to produce an over-crossing of fluctuating fields. The fusion of copper with other elements in such a magnetic/radiation field-chamber can produce a force field of special nature that is very useful for various technological tasks (but the base for this is an extremely complex formula you are not able to discover because of the restrictions of your simple mind).

Both species wanted to have the copper of Planet Earth and for this reason, they fought a not very long war in space and orbit. The humanoid species seemed to be successful during the first time, but in a last battle the reptilians decided to use a mighty experimental weapon—a special kind of fusion bomb which should destroy the life forms on the planet but should not harm the valuable raw materials and the copper. The bomb was fired from space and detonated at a point of your planet you call “Middle America” today. As it detonated in the ocean, it produced an unpredictable fusion with hydrogen and the effect was much stronger then the reptilians had expected. A deadly radiation, an over-production of fusion-oxygen, a fall-out of different elements and a “nuclear winter” for nearly 200 years were the results. Most of the humanoids were killed and the reptilians lost their interest on the planet after some years for (even for us) unknown reasons—maybe because of the radiation.

Planet Earth was on its own again and the animals on the surface died. By the way, one result of the fusionbomb was the fall-out of different elements and materials created in the burning process and one of that materials was Iridium. Your human scientists today see the Iridium concentration in the ground as an evidence for an asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs. That is not true, but how should you know that?

Well, most of the dinosaurs died (not all in the detonation but in the bad things which came after the war, especially in the nuclear winter and in the fall-out). Nearly all dinosaurs and reptilians were dead within the next 20 years. Some of them—especially those in the oceans—were able to survive for the next 200 to 300 years even in this changed world, but these species also died, because the climate had changed. The nuclear winter ended after 200 years, but it was colder on earth then before. Despite the cataclysm, some species were able to survive: fish (like the sharks), birds, little creepy mammals (your ancestors), various reptiles like crocodiles…and there was a special kind of small but advanced dinosaur which had developed together with the last large animal-reptilians like the species you call Tyrannosaurus.

This new reptile was walking on two legs and looked at little bit like your reconstruction of an Iguanodon (it originated in this family) but it was smaller (around 1.50 metres tall) with some humanoid features, a changed bone structure, a larger skull and brain, a hand with a thumb which was able to grab things, a different organism and digestion, advanced eyes in the middle of the head like your eyes and…most important…with a new and better brain structure. This was our direct ancestor.

There are theories that the radiation from the bomb took part in the mutations of the organism of this new breed, but this is not proven. Nevertheless, this little humanoid-like dinosaur evolved during the following 30 million years (as I have said earlier, a species need generally more time to evolve then you think, if the evolution is not artificially induced like in your case) from an animal to a more or less thinking being. These beings were intelligent enough not to die in the next millions of years, because they learned to change their behavior, they lived in caves instead in the cold nature and they learned to use stones and branches as first tools and the use of fire as help to warm them—especially to warm their blood which is very important for our kind to survive. During the next 20 million years this species was divided by nature into 27 sub-species (unfortunately, former reptilian species were prone to divide themselves in a more or less illogical way into sub-species during the evolution process. You can clearly see this in the unnecessary high number of animal-dinosaur species in earlier times) and there were many (mainly primitive) wars between this sub-species for dominance.

Well, nature was not very friendly to us and as far as we know from the 27 sub-species, 24 were extincted in primitive wars and in evolution, because their organism and mind was not developed enough to survive and (as main reason) they were not able to change their blood temperature in the right way when the climate changed. 50 million years after the war and after the end of Dinosaurs, only three (now also technological) advanced reptilian species were remaining on this planet together with all the other lower animals. Through natural and artificial crossbreedings this three species were united to one reptilian species and through the invention of genetic manipulations, we were able to “eliminate” the dividing-prone genes in our genetic structure.

According to our history and belief, this was the time when our final reptilian race—as you see me today—was created by use of genetic engineering. This was around 10 million years ago and our evolution nearly stopped at this point (well, actually there were some minor changes in our look toward a more humanoid and mammal-like appearance during the coming ages, but we have not divided again into sub-species). You see, we are a very old race in comparison to your kind, which was jumping around as small monkey-like animals in the trees at this time while we invented technology, colonized other planets of this system, built large cities on this planet (which disappeared without a trace in the ages) and engineered our own genes while your genes where still those of animals.

10 million years ago the small simians started to grow and they came down from the trees to the ground (again because of the change of the climate—especially on the so-called African continent). But they evolved very slow as it is normal for a mammal and if nothing extraordinary had happened to your kind, we wouldn’t be able to sit here and talk because I would sit in my comfortable modern house and you would sit in your cave clothed with fur and trying to discover the secrets of fire—or you would maybe sit in one of our zoos.

But the things had developed differently and you believe now you are the “crown of creation” and you can sit in the modern house and we must hide and live beneath the earth and in remote areas. Around 1.5 million years ago, another alien species arrived at Earth (it was surprisingly the first species since over 60 million years. This would be more surprising for you if you would know how many different species are here today).

The interest of this humanoid species—you call them “Ilojiim” today—was not the raw material and the copper, it were to our astonishment the unadvanced ape-humanoids. Despite our presence on this planet, the aliens decided to “help” the apes to evolve a little bit faster, to serve them in the future as some kind of slave-race in coming wars. The fate of your species was not really important for us, but we didn’t liked the presence of the “Ilojiim” on our planet and they didn’t liked our presence on their new “galactic zoo” planet and so your sixth and seventh creation was the reason for a war between us and them. You can read about that war for example partly in the book you call “Bible” in a very strange way of description. The real truth is a very long and difficult story. Should I continue?

Question: No, not now. I’ve made some notes about your history and now I have some questions.

Answer: Please ask.

Question: First of all, you handle with a very large time scale. You claim that your primitive ancestors lived together with the dinosaurs, survived the—as you called it—artificial cataclysm and evolved then over 40 million years and your evolution was completed 10 million years ago. This sounds very unbelievable to me. Can you say something to this?

Answer: I understand that this must sound absolutely unbelievable to you, because you are a young and genetically engineered species. Your historical horizon ends at a scale of just some thousands of years and you think this is right. But it isn’t. This is impossible. Your programmed mind is obviously not able to handle with such large time scales. Our evolution time may seem incredibly long to you, but this is in fact the original way of nature. Remember, your early mammal ancestors developed together with dinosaurs and they survived the bomb like us. They evolved slowly during the next millions of years and they divided into various species and shapes, some of them larger, some of them smaller. This is evolution of the body.

But what about their mind and intelligence? They were simple animals. The mammals evolved since—let us say—150 millions of years, but only in the last 2–3 millions of years they were able to become intelligent and thinking. And within this small period beings like you were created. From nature? 148 millions of years time for the evolution of animal-like mammals, 2 millions of years time for the development of (more or less) intelligent beings like you? Ask yourself: Do you really think this accelerated evolution is natural? Then your species is more ignorant then I’ve thought. We have not evolved wrong but you.

Question: I understand. But I have another question. You’ve mentioned many facts about the ancient war between the aliens 65 million years ago. This happened very long before your kind became really intelligent (as far as I have understood you). Why do you know so many things about that “first war” and about the evolution of your species?

Answer: This is a good question (much better then the previous) and I have not explained it properly to you. Our knowledge about the first war comes completely from an ancient artifact, which was found around 16,000 years ago from our archeologists on the continent you call North America today. They found there a round plate with a diameter of approximately 47 of your centimeters The plate was made of an even for us unknown magnetic material and inside the plate there was another smaller crystal plate which contained an enormous amount of information coded in the molecular structure of the crystal.

This “memory plate” was manufactured from the last bomb survivors of human race from “Procyon” already 65 million years ago but it was completely intact when we found it. Our scientists were able to encode the messages and data and so we heard the first time about the events which took place in the distant past and which led to the extinction of the dinosaurs. The plate contained detailed descriptions of both species (but more about the humanoids) and about the events and weapons, including the fusion bomb. It contained also a description of the animals and saurians on earth, including our pre-intelligent ancestor species. The rest of our knowledge about our evolution comes from skeletons and from the back-reading and de/encoding of our DNA. You see, we know the real truth about our roots since 16,000 years. Before that time, there was a more religious idea of our creation.

(Note by Michael Relfe: Assuming that this female is providing accurate information, from what she has been taught, it now becomes apparent that everything the “reptilians” understand about their history is from an unknown alien artifact, created by an unknown alien group at an unknown time for an unknown purpose. Just as the reptilians enjoy subjecting humans to propaganda and disinformation, it seems that some other group is “running a game” on the reptilians as well. So this “advanced” reptilian race has no hard facts on their history, contrary to what they would have humans believe.)

Dinesh D'Souza #fundie rightwingwatch.org

Conservative author Dinesh D’Souza compared left-wing protestors who destroyed a Confederate statue in North Carolina to the terrorist organization ISIS and violent fascist regimes.

D’Souza appeared on the August 15 episode of Fox News Radio’s “Todd Starnes Show” to continue blaming the left for violent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a white supremacist alt-right demonstrator killed one person and injured more than a dozen others after speeding his vehicle into a group of counter-protestors.

Before ending the interview, Starnes turned the discussion to “anti-fascist” protesters in North Carolina who forcefully toppled a bronze statue that memorialized Confederate soldiers. Starnes asked D’Souza if Americans should “be concerned about this whitewashing of history,” to which D’Souza responded by comparing the protestors to ISIS and other fascist groups.

“Just think about it. When is the last time somebody did this?,” D’Souza said. “The last time somebody did this is when ISIS was sandblasting and blowing up statues.”

D’Souza continued, “This whole idea that you want to erase history that you don’t like—this is a kind of behavior that is characteristic of a despotic mindset. The fascists did the same thing.”

Liberals, D’Souza claimed, are comparable to “black shirts” in Benito Mussolini’s fascist Italian regime and “brown shirts” in Nazi Germany. “The fascist mindset is revealing itself fully on the left,” D’Souza said.

D’Souza’s comparison is yet another installment of the pro-Trump right’s attempts to blame the violence in Charlottesville on the left. The conservative author has also capitalized on the violence in Charlottesville to promote his new book, which promises to expose “the Nazi roots of the American Left.”

Mark Jones #fundie markjones1388.com

On April 9, 2018, The Social, a YouTube channel linked to BBC Scotland, released a video entitled Homophobia in 2018 | Time For Love. The video is a propaganda piece for the liberal view being pushed on society at the moment. That view being, that love is love and we all should be able to experience it … no matter the cost.

In our current cultural climate, we live in a day and age where people are being convinced to believe this lie that love is anything you want it to be … no restrictions, no hindrances, and no judgement. Well, at least no inbound judgement on those who live their lives according to these principles. The reality though is largely different to what you’ve been told.

The video this article focuses on is worth watching so that you know the kinds of argumentation being used against anyone who does not blindly affirm the mantra of the LGBT+ propaganda machine. As the arguments in this video are the standard ones you will find, shame-mongering, judgement, iffy looks, and hate all rear their heads here. But there is one particular line of argumentation I want to pick up on here. That being the argument used against Christians. Let’s look at this by reviewing a quote that is featured in the film:

“And a Bible basher rehashing lies about Jesus like how Poundland rip off Mini Cheddars and sell them on as Cheese Savouries. Because it seems to me that Jesus saved a lot of time when He died for all crimes that He would’ve wasted teaching small minds that love is no sin. See him, he thinks it’s faith but under all that din, it tastes like cardboard and it smells like hate.”

Notice straight away the condemnation within that statement, “and a BIBLE BASHER”, the label of Bible Basher is a negative label. One put upon Christians who stick strictly to the word of God, sticking to it in a way that raises the ire of those who don’t see it in the same light as them. But the thing that really strikes me in this argument as being the thing we need to spot easily and be able to combat whenever is needed. That being the claim that those who object to homosexuality are telling “rehashed lies about Jesus” and as a result pushing an inauthentic faith on to anyone who may be listening. See this is a key strategy for the LGBT+ agenda, it’s a strategy that seeks to convince people that Christians are getting what Jesus said wrong, and are pushing prejudice and hate rather than love which is what Jesus was apparently all about. In reality, this is a similar strategy that the devil used to persuade Adam and Eve to eat the fruit in the Garden of Eden, back in Genesis 3:1 … using the argument of “did Jesus (or God) really say that?”

We see in the next part of the quotation why this argument is used. It’s not to show fault with our worldview. It’s not even to show fault with Christianity. It all boils down to a desire for affirmation … even at the cost of one’s faith. Now hear me out here, the people pushing these types of arguments, they know that the end result of those who take liberalism to its natural conclusion is atheism. However, there are many who blindly regurgitate these arguments, who don’t know the web of lies they’ve stepped into blindly. Taking that comment into context, who’s the authority here? It’s self, “and to me, it seems”, this is the phrase that holds this video together. It’s all about me! Me, myself, and I.

Ultimately the LGBT+ agenda is based on a selfishness that seeks to persuade the masses of love, niceness, and selflessness. Something that isn’t really the case, and is merely a faulty portrayal of the false reality those pushing this agenda want you to blindly believe.

All of this, and the video leads me to ask a question of us, one that I will answer here from my view, but one I would like you to think through and answer as well … that question being is it really homophobic to object to homosexuality?

Is It Really Homophobic to Object to Homosexuality?

To answer this question we need to understand two things, the first being what the world tells us homophobia is. And secondly, what homophobia really is … because they’re actually very different.

According to Websters Dictionary, homophobia is the irrational fear of homosexuality. The dictionary does include now the aversion to and/or the discrimination of homosexuals as part of the definition. However, this seems to be an updated definition of the term, as the notion of the aversion to is relatively new in terms of phobias.

Simply put, homosexuality is the irrational fear of homosexuals and/or homosexuality. This contrasts greatly with the variation of the definition, which simply means anyone who disagrees with homosexuality.

This definition of the term homophobe from Urban Dictionary really makes this note of mine very clear:

“Someone who repeatedly whines that homosexuals endanger family values and the sanctity of marriage until outed as a closet case, desperately afraid of the gay person looking back in the mirror.”

Notice how within that statement, there is an element of judgement. A line of thinking that says that no one can judge someone who practices homosexuality without making them the enemy.

So, what’s the answer to this question? Is it really homophobic to object to homosexuality?

The answer to this question is a resounding NO! See, God has defined homosexuality in His word as being sinful, and like with any other sin, it would be like saying we can’t question someone who commits murder, or someone who steals, or someone who commits adultery. And I could continue. Essentially by saying that someone is homophobic for objecting to homosexuality, it means that no sin on the planet should be questioned due to the precedent it sets.

So yes, we can question homosexuality, we can ask honest and open questions about it. We should not be deterred by this liberal agenda seeking to judge anyone who disagrees with them, while crying out for tolerance.

In future posts, I will aim to unpack this subject of homosexuality and the Bible further. As well as many other subjects.

Andrew D'Costa #fundie m.timesofindia.com

Priest beats up boy for failing Bible quiz, absconds

Mangaluru: A Catholic church priest was charged with assaulting a boy after he failed to answer questions on the Bible, during his first communion catechism class in Our Lady of Fatima Church, Mangaluru. Police said the priest is absconding.

The incident occurred on April 12 and the case registered on April 18. The parents of the 12-year-old boy said parish priest Andrew D'Costa got furious with the victim during the first communion catechism as he failed to answer some Bible-related questions. Later, he beat him black and blue with a stick.

After the boy narrated the incident to his parents, who are from a poor economic background, they filed a case against the priest. Police said the priest was booked under the Juvenile Justice Act and IPC 324.

Rev Fr William Menezes, public relations officer, Mangaluru Diocese, told TOI the accused priest confessed he had reprimanded the boy, but denied manhandling him.

Most Rev Aloysius Paul D'Souza, Bishop of Mangaluru, also asked the priest - who is reportedly under treatment in hospital - to cooperate with the police and meet the boy's family.

Footsoldier #fundie youtube.com

On the vegetable police:

Now, he's saying, "Oh no. I haven't got better. I've got to do the carnivore diet. I'm going to eat a diet comprised exclusively of the corpses of torture victims. That is my diet now. I'll wake up in the morning and I'm going to eat carcass. That's what I'm going to eat. I'm going to eat somebody's tortured corpse for every meal of the day. Every day, I'm going to eat nothing exclusively but corpse. Sod my ethics, sod all of that, I'm just going to eat meat from now on, because my health.", but this is the ridiculous thing. If you haven't seen this, GojiMan recently made a video saying "Bro, I know what's wrong with your intestinal issues. You've got this, this, this and you could probably cure it if you got this test arm to find out what you need to do and you can probably do this thing and that thing and then you'll probably be fine. So, your microbiome is basically trash, then you need to take a test to find out in which way it's trashed and then we can work together and come up with a solution and then you'll be doing great and you'll be absolutely doing really well", but instead of doing this, instead of taking that offer, he was "Oh no.". He just decided: "I don't care about any of that. I don't want to try. I don't want to put any effort in. I don't want to lift a finger or pay for any test. I'll spend loads of money on this, eh, new audio interface from audient I've bought and I've got this expensive camera here and I've got thios flute in Malaysia or wherever you've gone recently. Oh, don't worry about spending your money on that or spend any money on tests. Oh no. I'm just going to eat the carnivore diet. I don't care about the animals. I don't care about the environment. Oh, I don't care about any of that. I'm just going to do the carnivore diet because I don't give a shit. " That is what he's doing now. After GojiMan was like, "Not only I'm going to help you. I'm going to do it for free." and now he's made a video saying "Not only I'm going to help you and do it for free. Invest my time to help you for free. I'm also going to pay partially towards your test with all the money I've made from my YouTube channel. I'm going to give you that money to do the test. To see what's wrong with you and help you and walk you along every step of the way and we can get to the bottom of this together. I'm going to help you out and do all this. Not only all of that. He's going to do a GoFundMe to raise the additional money for Kasey. ". But no, he doesn't care about that, does he? No, he's too difficult. He doesn't want to do any of that. He just wants to do the carnivore diet. Why? Because he's just a bandwagon jumping cuck who doesn't actually care about the animals and he's never cared about the animals. He has only cared about his own health and just what's trendy and just doing the latest fad, gimmick bullshit, because he's hooked into any crap that people write on the internet because he has zero clue about nutrition and he's a spineless cuck.

The thing is that he was quite funny when he came out as a holocaust denying neo-nazi blame the jews all of the world's problems. That was the sort of funny, the sort of "Oh, what you're doing now" case. That was sort of funny, but now this. This just crossed the line. Just crossed the line. Lost all respect for Kasey now. Just what is he doing? He's just basically floating about, doesn't know what he's doing. The only reason why his channel is good and why anyone watches it is because he's somewhat entertaining. Now, he's not even vegan anymore. He's gone a 190 just eating murder victims. He's just eating corpses. He's demanding the death of innocent beings. I can't watch this guy anymore. He's just profoundly confused, lost all direction and just doesn't have a clue. But not only am I disappointed, it's so stupid, because he thinks he's going to heal his gut bacteria by eating the very food that inflames, eh, inflames intestines. Think of all those ulsters in his intestines. All of the damage, inflammation. How trashed his intestines are going to look compared to a normal person. He's got a disease. He's got gut disease. How trashed are his intestines going to look inside. Oh wait, in 48 hours, bam, it's all cured, so we got Shawn bacon, we've got milk jar saying: "Hey look. Meat heals, because in 48 hours he's gone from having gut issues to completely cured in 48 hours." Is that the case? Is that what's really happening here? No, it's not. What's happening is that he can't prabably eat oxalates or it's probably his gut flora because it's trashed. He can't ingest those things because it's getting a reaction to those oxalates or histamines or whateve GojiMan was talking about. He knows more about this than I do. Because not only that, he's actually been through this himself. So he's saying that when he eats vegetables and especially certain vegetables as high in oxalates, they're going to create a rotten reaction in his gut and he's going to get problems. You might get pain, indigestion, might run into the bathroom or something and that's because his microwaved bacteria, his gut flora, the microbiome is trashed currently and he needs to sort it out. But instead of sorting that out because he's getting reactions to certain copounds with implants which are obviously very healthy, but he just can't digest them properly because his microbiome is trashed. Instead of working on that so he can digest the healthiest foods on the planet which are plants. Instead of doing that he's just stopping eating plants entirely and he's going to eat the very food which causes inflammation of the intestines, causes cancer, causes Alzheimer's disease, causes diabetes. A whole myriad like Shaun Baker. He's got diabetes. His blood work shows he's got diabetes. So he's going to develop all these horrible things and then the second he starts eating normal food again he's going to be in a whole world of pain in a whole world of shit and if he doesn't jump off the bandwagon and of this meat carnival diet and start eating normal food again. Well, at some point, when is he going to get cancer? When is he going to get some sort of debilitating disease. It's only so long until he's going to get profoundly ill from eating nothing but flesh. Who eats nothing but flesh long term. That's not sustainable. Not for the environment and definitely not for his health. So long term, at one point or another, if he doesn't jump off the bandwagon at some point he's probably going to get cancer or some horrible debilitating disease. But if he decides at some points then decide in a few months or maybe even in a few weeks to start real food again and healthy food like plants then his gut is going to be even more inflamed and even worse than it is now. So he's just going down the rabbit hole and it's going to get worse and worse and worse until something really bad happens. So right now he might be symptomless, because he's not eating plants, the healthiest foods in the world, because he's bypassing that to mask symptoms or doesn't get the symptoms because he's not ingesting those foods, but the second he does ingest those foods again… What? You think his gut is going to heal by eating nothing but meat when its inflammatory and causes disease? At what planet is he on? He's just going down further down the rabbit hole and at some point he's going to get profoundly sick and it's just going to get worse and worse and worse from here.

Note:
* To know what the vegetable police actually wanted to do, check this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-3zVslk-xg
* GojiMan's answer is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BruGrSWz6to&t=253s
* The response by Vegetable Police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAcZwj1cYdI

James Adkisson #fundie crooksandliars.com

(Three choice quotes from church-shooter James Adkisson's manifesto)

Know this if nothing else: This was a hate crime. I hate the damn left-wing liberals. There is a vast left-wing conspiracy in this country & these liberals are working together to attack every decent & honorable institution in the nation, trying to turn this country into a communist state. Shame on them....

...

"This was a symbolic killing. Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book. I'd like to kill everyone in the mainstream media. But I know those people were inaccessible to me. I couldn't get to the generals & high ranking officers of the Marxist movement so I went after the foot soldiers, the chickenshit liberals that vote in these traitorous people. Someone had to get the ball rolling. I volunteered. I hope others do the same. It's the only way we can rid America of this cancerous pestilence."

...

"I thought I'd do something good for this Country Kill Democrats til the cops kill me....Liberals are a pest like termites. Millions of them Each little bite contributes to the downfall of this great nation. The only way we can rid ourselves of this evil is to kill them in the streets. Kill them where they gather. I'd like to encourage other like minded people to do what I've done. If life aint worth living anymore don't just kill yourself. do something for your Country before you go. Go Kill Liberals.

various commenters #fundie breitbart.com

(Reactions to James Delingpole's article)

(proreason)
This illustrates one of the core problems with liberals of all stripes. They have no limits on their unhinged desire to control everybody and everything around them.

(aka Randy Yonkers)
The left is driven by toxic emotions.
They thrive on the control they get from making themselves and everyone around them miserable. They label destruction and misery "Progress". They manufacture pain and rage and sell it for profit, by taxing a guilted public and forcing them to pay for the "cure".

(Eskel Gorov)
The entire concept of "AGW" is preposterous. Even if there were an AGW "consensus" (which there categorically is not), it's irrelevant. Consensus is not now, nor has it ever been, a part of scientific process. Relying on those more educated than you are is just fine until science becomes corrupted by politics and the politician's eternal quest for more tax dollars from the uninformed. AGW is indeed about politics, wealth redistribution, and crowd control. We can and should be better stewards of our planet; but, we don't need to abandon all scientific process and commit suicide in order to do so. This stewardship has little or nothing to do with CO2. Regardless, a consensus of people from NOAA, NASA,and the IPCC who have all been caught red-handed altering data to meet their failed modeling assumptions is worthless on its face. Failed models, failed theory, end of story.

(redpilldebtslave)
CO2 is plant food. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas too and the earth is covered by a bunch of it. Imagine if they went after water like they do the energy industry. We need politics to stay out of science. This all fell apart when they got caught falsifying data. Follow the money.
Leftists are the science deniers! LOL! Too funny!

(ricocat1)
Those liberals who are concerned about CO2 should hold their breaths until they turn blue. Don't exhale. No CO2. No liberals. Problem solved.

(Trump Train aka Honey Badger)
These liberals idiots would have rather breathed nuclear fallout by voting for HRC... end of the planet for sure!
There is no greater contaminant then of one’s mind, you can thank the liberal ideology for that!
Our youths minds are being poisoned all across the campuses in America by these liberal professors.
President Trump already saved the planet by defeating the nuclear holocaust know as HRC, ending the Paris Accord, slashing the EPA and ending big bureaucratic regulations!

(Johnny)
these people are seriously mental defects and delusional,, they dont stop to think who is going to fund these places without republican support,, liberals arent going to part with weed money to keep the lights on

(proreason)
Allow me to crystalize your comment a bit more. I think it has a core that is a real insight. You said: "these people...dont stop to think".

Liberals are too p*ssed off at everybody else for not complying with their manias to think about anything other than enforcing their will.

(Pleiades R)
"bite the hand that feeds them" comes to mind

both comments so valid, so many liberals I know think work is beneath them, they spend money on the latest cell/computer/clothing/shoes/entertainment/restaurants... then complain insurance, utilities, necessities are too expensive.... some are on assistance, but they own a "vape", a big screen tv and cable...

they make fun of me for having an old phone and not dressing expensively... I don't have cable or a tv.... but, I pay my own way...

amusingly they support open borders... if only they were destroying their own world, not the world we share...

(redpilldebtslave)
I often tell them they advocate their own destruction. By destroying the family and abusing the legal system, we have today's society. That is advocating for the leftists grand utopia. Leftists advocate their own destruction. Everybody must suffer as they do.
I usually say it just like that. They accuse me of making threats on the leftist sites. All I do is predict their futures.

(Jon)
These climate nuts are out of control.

Please support our Vets and Police! Boycott the Superbowl this weekend! #Boycottsuperbowl #PleaseStand

(Eric Simpson)
It's a consensus of ideology, not of science. Notice that nearly every conservative scientist does not believe the leftist scam.

(rennyangel2)
Not, "conservative" scientists but many REAL scientists who study cause and effect, are knowledgeable about history, and are not trying to impose their own views on outcomes or results.
There is a current complaint in the scientific community that too many "experiments" are not repeatable, as they should be if the same processes are followed, and I think the problem with replicating in today's science is because too many choose a pre-determined outcome and then force their "experiment" into the desired result. No wonder, one scientist has trouble producing the same conclusion, again.

(earlysda)
The problem in science is that they fell for a different god than the the Creator (Jesus Christ), and have been wandering in the darkness ever since.

(Reno Rivera)
Doesn't matter. The left lost on this one.

I don't feel sorry for the fickle, Rebekah Mercer. She's getting some payback here for betraying Bannon.

Also, she is not behind BB and never one who made BB popular.

I guess she is now since Bannon left and BB becoming effeminate with increased People Magazine type and news stories.

(earlysda)
Sadly, most of our youth are taught the doctrines of Evolution as "scientific fact", when actually, even Richard Dawkins admits: "Evolution hasn't been observed while it's happening".

(Mash Draggin)
Science is being subverted and swallowed up by politics, and the fact that there are so many marxists at our universities is a big reason why. The left wants to use science as a political weapon. It's actually slowing down real scientific advancement too.

Tina Korbe #fundie hotair.com

At The American, AEI resident scholar Andrew Biggs highlights an interesting study that confirms what most conservatives probably already know to be true of themselves: We understand why our liberal friends think what they think more than they understand why we think what we think.

[University of Virginia professor Jonathan] Haidt’s research asks individuals to answer questionnaires regarding their core moral beliefs—what sorts of values they consider sacred, which they would compromise on, and how much it would take to get them to make those compromises. By themselves, these exercises are interesting. (Try them online and see where you come out.)

But Haidt’s research went one step further, asking self-indentified conservatives to answer those questionnaires as if they were liberals and for liberals to do the opposite. What Haidt found is that conservatives understand liberals’ moral values better than liberals understand where conservatives are coming from. Worse yet, liberals don’t know what they don’t know; they don’t understand how limited their knowledge of conservative values is. If anyone is close-minded here it’s not conservatives.

Haidt has one theory to explain his results, while Biggs has another. Haidt says conservatives speak a broader and more encompassing language of six moral values, while liberals focus on a narrow subset of those values. Biggs says conservatives understand liberal positions because they’re inundated with them — by the media, by academia, even to a certain extent by the culture.

Haidt and Biggs both have a point. It takes just about a year of actively debating politics or witnessing the debate of politics to realize that (a) the two parties to the debate don’t speak the same language and (b) the liberal party will have few opportunities to learn the conservative’s language. It’s not only that we don’t use the same words, it’s that we also assign completely different meanings to the same words.

The president’s prattling about the Buffett Rule is a perfect example. He repeatedly uses the word “fair” when he discusses this rule that would require anyone who earns more than $1 million a year to pay at least 30 percent in taxes. The Buffett Rule is actually officially named “The Paying a Fair Share Act.”

Conservatives have been quick to cede the word “fair” to the president. Instead of debating whether The Buffett Rule actually is fair, we’ve focused on the idea that economic growth and entitlement reform are the keys to deficit reduction. We know that our definition of “fair” is different than liberals’ definition of “fair,” so we’re never going to be able to convince liberals that the Buffett Rule actually is unfair. In a world dominated by liberal influences in the media, academy and culture, we have no choice but focus on the fact that The Buffett Rule would do very little to reduce the deficit.

If liberals understood the conservative definition of “fair,” they might better understand how it’s possible to oppose the Buffett Rule. As the debate stands at this moment, it’s conceivable that the average liberal thinks conservatives actually oppose a rule we think is fair just because we don’t think it will adequately reduce the deficit. But why would anybody oppose a fair rule? In fact, we oppose the Buffett Rule because, by our definition, it is unfair — not to mention that it does very little to reduce the deficit. (As an aside, I’ve been searching for an article in which a conservative argues explicitly that the Buffett Rule is unfair and am finding it surprisingly hard to find. Has anybody read a good one?)

The word “just” is defined as “based on right.” Our concept of what is fair starts with our concept of what is a right. Whereas progressives think that rights are given by the government, conservatives think that “we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.” Among our God-given rights is the right to keep the fruits of our labor. So far, I have never heard a good argument that we have a right or a claim to the fruits of others’ labor unless they have promised them to us for some reason. We certainly never have an intrinsic a priori claim on the fruits of someone else’s labor.

As long as he is allowed to keep what he has earned, the conservative thinks he has been treated fairly — even if others have more than he has. The liberal has a completely different definition of fairness. Liberals seem to think we have a right to the same fruits no matter what our labor.

It is true that different kinds and quantities of work yield different kinds and quantities of fruits. That is sometimes hard to take — but if, in the end, we receive the fruits we agreed to when we selected our labor, then the fruits we receive are fair. (For example, if we agree to a particular day’s wages and we receive that day’s wages, then we have been treated fairly. Nobody changed the deal to which we agreed.) In making the choice to be a secretary and not a hedge fund manager, for example, the secretary forgoes some of the fruits of the hedge fund manager — but obtains some fruits the hedge fund manager never tastes, say the fruit of more time to spend with family or the fruit of less stress. If we are not content with the fruits of our labor, perhaps we ought first to consider changing our labor, rather than demand we be given different fruits.

One last thought: Conservatives clearly have a more expansive view of what constitutes “fruits.” We do not measure success and fairness solely by money. In the example above, I recognize the worth of time off and less pressure — two intangibles. For all that liberals like to talk about conservative greed, it’s interesting that conservatives can content themselves with less money in exchange for other benefits whereas liberals seem blind to those benefits and just want the money.

Paul Hellyer #ufo #conspiracy reddit.com

I Am A 95 y.o., former Canadian Minister of Defense and Transport Minister. I want to discuss my experience with the cabal/deep state, global warming, politics and extraterrestrials. Ask me anything!

Hello everyone! My name is Paul Hellyer and I am excited to be here today for my first Reddit AMA.

I am a Canadian entrepreneur, politician, writer, and commentator who has had a long and varied career. I am the longest serving current member of the Privy Council of Canada, just ahead of Prince Philip.

I have had a long political career, with notable designations such as Transport Minister, Senior Minister in the Cabinet and Minster of National Defense for Canada.

I also love to read and have written several books regarding a wide array of topics, such as The Money Mafia: A World in Crisis. I have recently made 3 videos for my YouTube Chanel regarding global issues, my understanding and experiences.

I am here today to talk about some of those topics! Ask me anything in regards to extra-terrestrials, climate change, the global financial cabal, politics or any other topic you are interested in.

I look forward to answering as many of your questions as possible! I will be answering intermittently between 9:00 am and 5:00pm EST.

Ask Me Anything!

Proof

[…]

Edit: Thank you everyone for your great questions and insightful comments! I will be answering as many questions as I can throughout the day.

Edit: I will be taking a small break for lunch. I look forward to answering more questions afterwards.

Edit: I will be starting up again answering question around 1:30 EST. Looking forward to seeing more questions.

Final Edit: Thank you everyone for your questions, comments, insights, and conversation. I appreciated your time and engagement during my first Reddit experience! I encourage you all to continue to seek further knowledge and research on climate change, the global financial cabal, banking reform, and extraterrestrials! We have a lot of things we have to accomplish together if our species is going to survive and prosper. So get engaged, and do your best. Together perhaps we can succeed. Hope springs eternal.

Sincerely, Paul Hellyer.

Valeri V. Cordòn #fundie rawstory.com

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints needs their members to give their 10 percent tithing money to the church so much that they don’t care if your children go hungry.

Patheos noticed that over the weekend at the Mormon’s biannual General Conference elder Valeri V. Cordón gave a speech demanding the church’s money. He explained that as a child he worked in his father’s factory during school vacations.

“The first question my father always asked after I received my salary was, ‘What are you going to do with your money?'” he recalled. “I know the answer and responded, ‘Pay my tithing and save for my mission.'”

His father asked him the same question each time but he clarified that he had already learned the lesson because his father couldn’t buy food for him after a civil war in Guatemala. He went hungry often times because his parents had to pay the church.

“One day, during those difficult times, I heard my parents discussing whether they should pay tithing or buy food for the children,” he told the audience. “On Sunday, I followed my father to see what he was going to do. After our Church meetings, I saw him take an envelope and put his tithing in it. That was only part of the lesson. The question that remained for me was: what we were going to eat!”

Jesus Christ spoke frequently about the church caring for the poor. “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God,” Christ said in Luke 6:20-21.

Earlier in Luke, Christ is quoted telling his followers, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Reports indicate the Mormon church earns $7 billion each year from the required tithing. No person can become a member of the Mormon church without agreeing to pay the required 10 percent tithing.

Korean Friendship Association UK and Dermot Hudson #moonbat nknews.org

Update at 1745 KST: The KFA UK has responded to this article in a post on its Facebook page, which can be read here.

After almost eight years in the Korean Friendship Association UK (KFA UK), it was an official trip to North Korea that resulted in Alex Meads being slowly, but decisively, purged by his former comrades.

“I started asking questions,” he tells NK News. “We went to various museums, various factories, and in these museums, you would find objects owned by or just touched by Kim Jong Un or the other leaders… these would be pencils, chairs, just random objects.”

Baffled, he shared his thoughts with fellow KFA UK members: “this to me seems absolutely obsessional. This isn’t natural. I find this very strange, very weird.”

“They started to become quite hostile. Whenever I’d ask a difficult question, they wouldn’t answer it. They’d just accuse me of my mind being perverted by a bourgeois education.”

Eight months on, Alex is now officially “excommunicated” from the organization, one of the world’s most high-profile pro-Pyongyang “friendship” organizations — though the reasons for his expulsion remain somewhat unclear.

“I was shunned,” he says. “Then I received an email from Dermot saying I’ve been expelled. I’m absolutely shocked by it, and by how quickly it happened as well.”

“Dermot” refers to Dermot Hudson, a former British civil servant and now a close-to-full-time pro-DPRK activist, who has long served as the KFA UK’s very own Supreme Leader.

[...]

But Alex paints a different picture: one of an increasingly paranoid, cult-like organization, dominated by a leadership that cannot be questioned.

“What I really want is other people to be aware of what this group is really like because they sell themselves as just a friendship body – cultural exchanges, music, food, et cetera,” he says. “And they are not.”

Dermot Hudson did not respond to any of Alex’s allegations against him, instead telling NK News in an email that he would be “taking legal advice with a view to suing both you and Mr. Meads.” Just hours after being contacted by NK News, he warned followers on Twitter that “fascists are planning an anti KFA article.”

Alex, now 22, joined the KFA at a very young age. He was 14 years old, and, like many at that age, had a growing interest in politics.

Coming across an advert for a group called “Friends of Korea” in a communist newspaper, he decided to attend a meeting — accompanied by his mum, of course.

“She was very impressed by Dermot,” Alex says. “He was a very lovely man, came across having a great interest in me, wanting to know about me, encouraging me to go to his meetings.”

After that, Alex was hooked: “I started going to more and more meetings. And he would encourage me to come back, he would pay my rail fares, he would pay for my food.”

But the pressure to get more deeply involved in the movement came quickly, with Alex being encouraged to take a more keen interest in the ideological pillars of the North Korean state: the Juche idea and the politics of Songun.

“They slowly would increase the pressure like that,” he says. “Everybody else in the group came across as very nice, very friendly towards me when I first joined. It’s like a family environment.”

The leadership changed, however, going from warm and encouraging to suffocating and domineering.

“He’s become very controlling. He wants to know where I was going on holiday, what I was doing,” Alex explains. “It’s developed into a cult.”

Alex now says he believes he was being, as he describes it, “groomed” — encouraged to go deeper and deeper into an organization that would consume his life and eventually excommunicate him when his thinking changed.

[...]

The purpose of his new job as commissar, Alex says, was “basically to research anyone who Dermot felt was a threat to him.”

Dermot had become more and more afraid about the infiltration of the KFA, by the British security services or far-right groups, Alex says.

“He thought that the government would keep trying to do that, keep trying to infiltrate these fascists into the organization.”

[...]

Fear of how others might perceive members of the KFA, Alex says, even extended to concerns over how some chose to dress — and hints at a social conservatism influenced by his North Korean counterparts.

He says, for example, that he was told not to wear jeans: “[Dermot] told me on multiple occasions that jeans were worn in the Eastern Bloc in the late 80s as a sign of rebellion.”

[...]

“He would wear a skirt, and Dermot didn’t like that,” he says. “He thought that was totally inappropriate. He said to Shawn [his deputy], ‘can you imagine if the embassy sees it?’”

These comments hinted at other more regressive attitudes, Alex explains — attitudes that he says are a cause of disagreement within the KFA.

“Dermot himself, is very against the whole LGBT issue,” he says. “He’s not pro-homosexual at all. And then you’ve got members who are. The only point of differentiation is on the issue of LGBT.”

[...]

“Towards the end, [Dermot] was pressuring me for donations for the KFA, and he would hint that I have to give money, but it’s money I don’t have at my age,” he says. “I can’t afford to be giving large sums to the KFA.”

smarmyanarchist #fundie smarmyanarchist.tumblr.com

image

Michelle and her friend can suck my antifa dick


Only in the mind of a social justice warrior can look at a positive sentiment like this be seen as something negative.

Only in the mind of a liberal, reactionary status quo warrior can being friendly and accepting of fascists and those that support them be seen as something acceptable.

Go fuck yourself.

im sorry but do you actually know what a liberal is?
A liberal is a person who holds left leaning political ideals. (Pro gay/womens/trans rights pro abortion and all that good stuff)
Another name for a liberal is a progressive. In other words your political beliefs are likely very liberal in nature.

Just that in my case i am a classic liberal where as you are probably more of a neo-liberal/neo-progressive.
Hope that clears that up somewhat for you.

Ill gladly discuss this further if you are open to it. So just ask me a question if you want to.

when liberals try to mansplain the word “liberal” to you, not knowing you’re using the word in the maoist sense lmao

anyways all fascist supporters and fascist sympathizers (the people in the above comic) can choke

weev #fundie kiwifarms.net

Hey weev! For now I have two questions.

1. Are there moments where you think that most of the Western hemisphere's ills are a reflection of what the Krauts would call the "Zeitgeist" rather than the result of one single nefarious plot?

No, this has all been inflicted upon us by scheming hooknoses.

...

To put it differently: How likely, without a total disintegration of the current society, do you think things would go back to 'the good old days' on their own if Jews were removed from all influential positions of power? Or are people in current year +2 willing to continue with the current course of society without outside "motivation" since they're too comfortable with or apathetic towards the current state of affairs?

To put this in perspective, Denmark did a bunch of ad campaigns in 2015 encouraging women to have children and it caused a baby boom, and that's a much weightier and more consequential decision than so much of the undesirable behavior that I would like to see ended. Give me control of a nation for a year and you'll have a bunch of healthy families and redeeming social standards at the end of it. Would they do it entirely of their own volition with no guidance? No, there needs to be a proper government to tell them what to do.

[Question on who his favorite Roman emperor, below is a followup]

And what would you do if on the first date the woman answers the question with Constantine the Great?

The answer to this question should be obvious: never will I take the thoughts of any woman into account for any course of action. I suppose it is slightly commendable as far as women go that she knows a little bit about Rome, but this is not really a great answer. Regardless, as a woman, she deserves rape.

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Operation jade helm is not about takeover ,but cover for nibiru preparedness

Once nibiru is visible, there will be mass panic. The reason why mil is being excersizing in border states is to allow refugees from central america to be dispersed to usa and canada which will not make it when the great event happens. There is a reason for the Chinese ghost cities, fema camps and 34 million green cards being issued by the govt.

For more info read the glp thread "incoming celestial object"


Thread: Incoming celestial object
Thread: Incoming celestial object (Page 76)

quotes
What is coming is both terrible and marvelous. All governments are fully aware and engaged. The "ghost" cities are located where they are for a purpose. They will be filled before the end. The Central Americans are being brought to North America to be saved.

Be prepared. The start will be a great earthquake in California. Move in and away from the seas when it happens.

Since November I have had the opportunity to converse with Zoramheahel and meet his father Nephiel. Nephiel relates that a promise was made by the Marvelous beings to the ancient inhabitants of Central America two millennia ago that their descendants would survive the coming event that is to impact the earth. Thus – the governments of the earth have agreed to bring them to the United States and disperse them throughout North America (including Canada). Fully one-third of the Earth’s population will not survive what is coming. The sixth and final cycle of mortal Adam upon the Earth is closing upon us.

You will not have much time -- less than a few hours -- to make it to safety once the great earthquake of California occurs. Be fueled, stocked, packed, and good to go if you live along the coasts -- any coasts.

Question: What happens when the earth stops rotating?
Answer: The equatorial bulge releases its water.

Question: What make the earth stop rotating?
Answer: The same event that causes the great California earthquake

Question: What is the event?
Answer: The Marvelous beings recapture the Moon and begin to return it to Mars.

Question: How does Ebola play into the events?
Answer: Those going to Mars have already migrated to their homes inside of the Moon.

Jason did not return from his mission. Location unknown.
Status unknown.

God speed.

The moon is being repositioned around Mars as this is how the Marvelous beings compensate for the entry into our solar system of a giant planet and mini solar system. This entry will push Mars closer to the Sun and pull the Earth away from the Sun. Mars will begin to team with the life that is dormant beneath the surface in vast underground oceans and the Earth will enter another ice age. Life will continue on Earth as it has in previous ice ages until the final event.

The final event will transform Earth and it's inhabitants into a new and eternal realm. This includes those who have previously lived on Earth.

Marvelous beings will be among us and assist the human family in meeting the coming event.

An0maly #fundie plwomen.net

Hallelujah! Welcome to the real world with eyes wide open! Your video is awesome and so encouraged me personally. Ive spent my life warning and sounding the alarm early on when few americans were out there laboring to inform others to wake up. Now the relevant next question you will need to ask and know the answer to - WHY? Why are the liberal lefts doing what they have been doing for so many years? Because they ARE willing Lucifer satanic occult worshippers. That IS why. Their goal is to move everyone into their ideal satanic occultic NEW WORLD ORDER SYSTEM. Every abortion is a human blood ritual sacrifice unto lucifer. They also want everyone to become satanic occultists and since they eat human flesh regularly and drink human blood regularly and take human life at all stages regularly, they want everyone else globally doing it too. What is THE ORDER? IT IS THE TIP TOP OF THE SATANIC OCCULT. Top ruling satanic wizards and warlocks...who are they? They are the Jesuits. The head of the vatican..the actual rulers over all humanity. They know jehovah God is real, alive and well and they war against HIM. Thats what they are really up to.

Got Questions Ministries #fundie gotquestions.org

Question: "Where was God on September 11?"

Answer: On September 11, 2001, God was exactly where He always is – in Heaven in total control of everything that happens in the universe. Why, then, would a good and loving God allow such a tragedy to happen? This is a more difficult question to answer. First, we must remember, “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9). It is impossible for finite human beings to understand the ways of an infinite God (Romans 11:33-35). Second, we must realize that God is not responsible for the wicked acts of evil men. The Bible tells us that humanity is desperately wicked and sinful (Romans 3:10-18, 23). God allows human beings to commit sin for His own reasons and to fulfill His own purposes. Sometimes we think we understand why God is doing something, only to find out later that it was for a different purpose than we originally thought.

God looks at things from an eternal perspective. We look at things from an earthly perspective. Why did God put man on earth, knowing that Adam and Eve would sin and therefore bring evil, death, and suffering on all mankind? Why didn’t He just create us all and leave us in Heaven where we would be perfect and without suffering? It must be remembered that the purpose for all creation and all creatures is to glorify God. God is glorified when His nature and attributes are on display. If there were no sin, God would have no opportunity to display His justice and wrath as He punishes sin. Nor would He have the opportunity to show His grace, His mercy, and His love to undeserving creatures. The ultimate display of God’s grace was at the Cross where Jesus died for our sins. Here was unselfishness and obedience displayed in His Son who knew no sin but was “made sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). This was all to the “praise of His glory” (Ephesians 1:14).

When thinking of September 11, we tend to forget the thousands of miracles that occurred on that day. Hundreds of people were able to flee the buildings just in the nick of time. A small handful of firemen and one civilian survived in a tiny space in a stairwell as the one of the towers collapsed around them. The passengers on Flight 93 defeating the terrorists was a miracle in and of itself. Yes, September 11 was a terrible day. Sin reared its ugly head and caused great devastation. However, God is still in control. His sovereignty is never to be doubted. Could God have prevented what happened on September 11? Of course He could, but He chose to allow the events to unfold exactly as they did. He prevented that day from being as bad as it could have been. Since September 11, how many lives have been changed for the better? How many people have placed their faith in Christ for salvation as a result of what happened? The words of Romans 8:28 should always be in our minds when we think of 9-11, “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, and are called according to His purpose.”

Nikolas Cruz #racist edition.cnn.com

(CNN)In a private Instagram group chat, confessed school shooter Nikolas Cruz repeatedly espoused racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic views and displayed an obsession with violence and guns.
Wednesday, 19-year-old Cruz opened fire at the school that expelled him, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Authorities say he killed 17 with his legally purchased AR-15.
CNN, investigating comments the shooter may have left on a now-deleted YouTube channel, was added to the private Instagram group by one of the active members in it. The responding group members, who appear to be younger than 18, have refused to confirm their identities to CNN on or off the record.

When asked for comment or whether they knew about the private chat group, the FBI directed CNN to the Broward County Sheriff's Office.
Most of the conversation in the group since Cruz joined around August 2017 is between six people -- including Cruz.
"I hate jews, ni**ers, immigrants"
Racism was a constant theme in the chat group, which was called "Murica (American flag emoji) (eagle emoji) great" -- a name it was given by Cruz.
The hatred he and others in the group espoused met little resistance from its active members. In one part of the group chat, Cruz wrote that he hated, "jews, ni**ers, immigrants."
He talked about killing Mexicans, keeping black people in chains and cutting their necks.
There are hundreds of racist messages, racist memes and racist Instagram videos posted in the group.
One member even joked about Cruz's particular venomousness, saying that although he hated black people, too, he didn't "to a point I wanna kill the (sic) like nick."
Cruz said he hated black people simply because they were black; Cruz hated Jews because he believed they wanted to destroy the world.
After one member expressed hatred for gay people, Cruz agreed, saying, "Shoot them in the back of head."
White women drew Cruz's hatred as well, specifically those in interracial relationships, whom he referred to repeatedly as traitors.

There are no indications in the group chat that any member, including Cruz, is or was part of a white nationalist or white supremacist group.

Cruz used paycheck for body armor
Cruz purchased an AR-15 rifle in Florida approximately a year ago, legally. A law enforcement source told CNN's Evan Perez that Cruz purchased at least five guns in the past year.
In a public post on his Instagram page, Cruz showed what he called an "arsenal" on a bed -- seven guns and body armor. Another post on the page is a view down the barrel of a gun with a holographic sight out a window onto the street.
His AR-15 and other guns were a frequent topic of conversation in the group chat.
They even critiqued Cruz's rifle grip. He posted a short video of himself shooting a rifle outside a window at night. The video cuts out shortly after the round is fired.
They discussed which guns they liked better: M16s or AKs.
At one point, one member told Cruz, "Nick get this for your AR." He directed Nick to a website offering an after-market accessory that would turn his AR-15 into a fully automatic weapon.
A law enforcement source speaking to CNN's Evan Perez said that the gun used in the school shooting was not automatic, and there's no indication he bought the accessory, or a similar type of accessory.
When it was payday, Cruz let the group know where the money was going to be spent.
"Guys I got paid 330. I am buying body armor," he wrote.
Cruz did purchase the body armor, according to receipts he posted in the chat -- with a $30 discount and free shipping.
Then he asked the group whether it was legal to wear body armor to school.
"School shooters," he replied, when someone asked why he wanted to know.
"I think I am going to kill people"
The bio on one of his Instagram accounts read, "annihilator."
At one point in the chat, he wrote, "I think I am going to kill people." After a member told him not to say things like that, he said he was just playing.
During one of the anti-Semitic rants in the chat, Cruz spoke of his birth mother, saying, "My real mom was a Jew. I am glad I never met her."
Roger and Lynda Cruz adopted Cruz when he was a child. Roger died in 2004, and Lynda died last fall after an illness.
In his first message to the chat group, Cruz bragged about writing a letter to President Donald Trump -- and receiving a response. CNN reached out to the White House for comment about any correspondence to and from Cruz but has not heard back.
Jim Gard, his former math teacher, told CNN's Brian Todd that although he never had problems with Cruz, he did receive an email from a school administrator around November 2016 asking to be notified if Cruz came on campus with a backpack.
In two instances, Cruz also discussed killing small animals.
He posted a photo on his Instagram account of a disemboweled frog, saying he had killed it because one had killed his dog. In the Instagram chat, he describes killing a number of birds with his gun.
Some members of the chat were worried he might have killed endangered animals.
"He seemed nice but also had some mental issues," one member told CNN. "All (I know) is that he likes guns and really hates liberals."

Roy Batty #sexist dailystormer.name

10-Year-Old Drag Child Becomes Canada’s Greatest Cultural Icon

Oof.

What the flip is going on in Canada, mang. This is some heavy shit, I kid you not.

A photo showing a 10-year-old Canadian drag queen posing next to a half-naked adult performer sparked outrage online. But the boy’s mother thinks it’s all OK and the child is not overtly sexualized.

The world of drag queens – male performers taking on exaggeratedly female personas and taking to the stage – may seem like an inappropriate place for minors. After all, sexuality plays a major part in a drag performance, and the common wisdom is that sexualizing young children for entertainment is a taboo.

Yet there are child drag queens. One of them – Nemis Quinn Mélançon-Golden – received some unwanted attention online after a photo of him posing in a black dress and fishnet tights next to an adult drag queen was posted online.

This child tranny thing… I’m writing about it a lot now and I’m not sure why this is even a thing.

If you had asked me 5 years ago, “Hey Roy, where do you see yourself in 5 years?”, I can guarantee you that trying to convince people that little boys in drag is a bad idea was not what I had in mind as my first answer.

It’s one of those things that’s so absurd it’s hard to explain why it’s bad.

I feel like a conservative Boomer stuttering and trying to explain what I believe and finding that I can’t because I haven’t had to ever give it any thought.

I just get angry and start banging the table and yelling about how much money I make.

Here’s an interesting take from the article.

The article mentions conservative speaker Ben Shapiro, who is described as an “alt-right mouthpiece and fierce critic of child drag queens”, who criticized the mother of another child drag queen for exploiting him “for attention.” The “child drag debate” is an example of “the widening gap between Liberals and Conservatives in North America and beyond” in the age of Donald Trump, Turton believes.

“Alt-right mouthpiece and fierce critic of child drag queens” is MY preferred monicker. Ben stole it.

Imagine a conversation with a liberal.

Xir: Like, why is it wrong for mothers to drag their 10-year-old boys to male strip clubs, dress them up as women and let gay AIDS-infected men grind up on them?

Me: …I… I… I don’t know how to answer that.

The very premise of the question angers and confuses me.

I don’t have the energy left to keep an open mind. My worldview can’t tolerate any more shocks and disruptions. I know what I know and I want to go back to a better time.

Besides, I shouldn’t have to explain such basic principles to people. And frankly, I don’t want to explain them. If you’re so fucked in the head that we even have to have this conversation, well, you belong in the bog. CASE CLOSED.

I’m just going to dig my heels in here and not even try to explain why allowing your nation’s sons to become mommy’s little twinks is wrong.

Fuck that.

Like, if a liberal is going to start a conversation on, say, Global Warming, okay, we can have that conversation. It’ll be annoying and frustrating, but I can get where they’re coming from. I used to be concerned about greenhouse gases once upon a time too and the issue sometimes does come from a genuine place of concern for the environment, which I totally get.

But my reasonableness has limits.

This child tranny/drag thing is just so beyond the pale that words fail me.

Stormer needs to hire a young Zoomer finishing up high school who can pick the ball up from here and provide commentary on these little guinea pigs. Because I’m just too damn old. I can’t even begin to relate or even contemplate the idea.

Clearly, this child tranny thing is here to stay and these kids are going to need someone to provide in-depth rebuttals to child-tranny theory.

Can’t do it, mang. Sorry. I tap out.

Moses David/The Family International #fundie deeptruths.com

image

It's easy to hear from the Lord. You just have to have faith. When you ask the Lord for an answer to a question or problem, expect an answer and take the first thing that comes. If you want the Lord to answer and really believe He can and will, you won't be disappointed. What you see or hear with the eyes or ears of your spirit, that's the Lord answering. It will be such a comfort to you. Expect God to answer. Just open up your heart and let it in.

Hearing from the Lord is your spiritual nourishment: You've got to be able to hear from Him in order to grow spiritually. A baby is a good illustration of this principle: When you're asking the Lord to speak, you're like a baby crying for food --in this case, the spiritual food you need to live on.

When a baby is crying for his mother, she wouldn't think of refusing him. That little baby has more faith than a lot of adults do when they pray, because the baby expects someone to hear him when he cries. He knows --God put it in him to know --that if he calls, his mother will answer. He expects an answer, and he gets it. If he asks for milk, his mother is certainly not going to deny him or give him something else (Luke 11:11-13). She's going to give him what he needs. Just so, when you ask God to speak to you, you must believe that the next thing that comes into your mind or heart is from the Lord.

Shutting your eyes helps you to see in the spirit and to become less conscious of the things and people around you. It helps you get your mind on the Lord and in a relaxed position where nothing distracts you. When you ask the Lord to speak to you, believe that whatever you hear or see is a message or vision from Him. When you are asking Him to speak, you are like a baby crying for food --in this case, the spiritual food you need to live on.

When a mother picks up her child to nurse him, what does she do? She reveals herself to him. If he's a tiny baby, she also has to bring the nourishment to him. She has to show him where it is; she has to place her nipple in his mouth. As he gets older, he automatically knows where to find the milk and he can reach out for it himself. It's the same with hearing from God. The longer you practice receiving nourishment from the Lord, the better you know where to find it. You just open your spiritual eyes and see it and reach for it.

Faith is the hand of the spirit, which reaches out and receives. It is the part that you do, your spiritual effort. After the nipple is in the baby's mouth, he automatically starts nursing. When you ask God for spiritual nourishment, He puts it there for you, but if you don't start sucking, you'll never get it. You have to have the faith to begin to receive. You literally have to draw God's nourishment. If you don't suck, you won't get anything. The child sucks because God has put that automatic reaction in him to do it. A lot of times he has to suck for a while before he gets anything, but if he doesn't give up, eventually he will.

Faith is a type of drawing power. It is you drawing power from God. What is it that brings the mother's milk out of her breast? How is this explained in scientific terms? When the baby sucks, he creates a vacuum inside his mouth, which pulls the milk out. Similarly, you have to create a vacuum in your spirit: "Lord, here is an empty space. Please fill it!"

When you reduce the pressure in one area, what fills that vacuum? In the case of the nursing child, it's his mother's milk. All the child does is create the vacuum. He reduces the pressure inside his mouth, which then becomes lower than the pressure inside his mother's breast, so the milk flows out into his mouth. That sucking on the part of the baby is his effort; the mother does all the rest.

In prayer, you create a vacuum and the Lord's pressure fills it. Every time you open up your spirit, every time you create a low-pressure area, His Spirit will flow in, in all His power! What if the baby took one big suck and got discouraged? "Well, I didn't get anything, so I'll just quit!" Sooner or later he would get so hungry that he would start sucking again and not give up. When you start sucking for dear life and really desire that spiritual nourishment with all your heart, you'll get it.

You have to believe that when you create that vacuum in your spirit, the first thing that comes into your mind is from the Lord, and you must go straight on from there. If the baby didn't swallow the first mouthful, he couldn't get any more! His mouth can only hold so much at once. He gets a mouthful and swallows it, and then he gets another mouthful. He's got to swallow each mouthful as it comes, or he won't get more --and it's the same with receiving messages from the Lord.

He gives you a little to start with, but then you've got to expect and make room for more. In this case you empty your mouth, you "swallow," by believing the first words or Scriptures that He gives you, and repeating them out loud or writing them down --and you've got to keep swallowing. The Lord's not going to squirt milk out into the thin air where it will be lost, or into some baby who won't swallow it. You only get one mouthful at a time, and if you don't swallow that mouthful, you won't get another!

Likewise, when you ask the Lord for a vision and you begin to see something, you need to start describing it. Describe what you see, and then the Lord will give you more. What do you do when you watch a movie? You have to keep drinking it in, scene by scene. You couldn't possibly get it all in one picture. You have to keep "swallowing."

Unlike the mother, God has unlimited capacity to give. What you get is only limited by your capacity to receive. When receiving messages from the Lord, pretty soon you get so full that you can hardly stand it. The Lord will keep on feeding you until your vacuum has been filled, your "stomach" is satisfied and your spirit is content.

The Lord is always there, ready, willing and able to speak to you if you're willing to listen, but He won't force you. The mother can place her breast in the baby's mouth, but if the baby takes one gulp and doesn't like it and quits swallowing, he's not going to get any more. You have to be willing to receive what God gives!

conservativekids.net #fundie conservativekids.net

Since you are on this website, you probably have a general knowledge of the two competing political camps in America, liberalism and conservatism. Surprisingly, a lot of people who live their lives in a conservative way vote for liberals, which is against their self-interest. To understand why this happens, let's look at the basic idea behind liberalism.
Liberals core principle or ideology is that the government should do for people what they cant do for themselves. This gives the government more power at the expense of the freedom of the people.
For instance, liberals don't think that people in general are capable of taking care of their own health. So they set up huge government agencies like Medicaire, Medicaid, and are even trying to nationalize health insurance. Of course, it takes a lot of tax money to pay for these liberal programs.
Liberals don't think people are capable of providing their own meals or paying their bills, so they set up Welfare programs and hand out food stamps and WIC (more tax money).
Liberals don't think people are capable of planning their own retirement, so they set up Social Security and block any efforts to change that broken system (more tax money).
Liberals don't think people are capable of managing their own education, so they set up public schools which happen to be run by more liberals (more tax money).
Liberals don't think people are capable of choosing their own lifestyle, so they pass laws that tell people what they can and can't eat and drink, where they can live, what they can listen to on the radio or watch on tv, what kinds of cars they will drive and how parents should raise their kids (less personal freedom).
Basically, liberalism is the belief that the average person is too dumb to take care of themself, so they need a big government to take care of them. Liberals believe that they are the smartest and most caring people, so they should run the government (more tax money) that takes care of the poor dumb people .
People vote for liberals because the idea of helping their neighbor through liberal social programs sounds good. But instead of helping them, these government programs create huge groups of people who will not be responsible for their own well-being.
Today, more than half of the people in the United States receive some kind of money from the government, and they are supported by the tax dollars of the minority. Financially, this cannot work in the long run.
Liberalism is socialism and marxism. It fails every time it is tried.

Avizvitoria #fundie moviebob.blogspot.com

I am not going to answer any of your question because we both know you don't care about the answers, let me tell you instead why you will fail:

Before non-whites become a voting block strong enough to render white votes irrelevant in the US general elections, they will render white leftists irrelevant in the decision making of the democratic party, in fact, with the utter failure of the overwhelmingly white leftist "Bernie movement" you might say this already happened.

This will transform the parties into explicit vehicles of racial politics, the GOP will become the white party, the Democrats, the non-white party, as i understand this was the plan of people like you all along but here is the problem: This was supposed to happen after white people became a plurality yet its happening now while they are still a majority able to secure some of the elections for the next decade even if they numbers diminish at the current rate.

The new White nationalist GOP will begin to win and put policies in place that reverse the march towards white minority status, closing the borders, mass non-white deportation, rendering the Democrats politically irrelevant.

This transformation is underway as we speak and it is unstoppable, the "POC" you so dearly recruited from the third world is just not interested in a "Joe Biden progressive", they want a brown face, just like them.

As for white people, they learned in this election to vote like a racial block, they in turn, want a white face, just like them.

You will never again be able to please both.

justforlulzandkeks #sexist reddit.com

Re: "Stupid inkel, women don't care about size, and they definitely won't tell their friends about it"

image

Lmao, look at this roastie's comment (which she later deleted), she spills the brutal truth

As a girl I can tell you, OP, that when I tell my friends I slept with someone new their first question after "how was it?" is always "how big was he?"

I'm sorry because of course that sucks and society should change to be more genuinely body positive, but it's a fact of life right now. Your gf might have only been answering a direct question from her best friends at first, and once they know something like that they're going to keep bringing it up. It's okay to feel hurt, obviously, because we all want to think that our SO is showing respect to our feelings at all times. But I wouldn't say you should set fire to the whole relationship, because this is, unfortunately, a fairly normal way that girls talk. So if she's a good gf for you otherwise, I'd say to at least try to work on it with her or tell her your feelings and give her a chance to work on it. Without ever looking through her phone again.

It's OVER for dicklets, this is why euthanasia needs to be legalised

You can literally ignore anyone who says size doesn't matter, they're either lying out of malice or to virtue signal, or they are completely ignorant

the-conservative-feminist #fundie the-conservative-feminist.tumblr.com

[ Also, do you know what hyperemesis gravidarum, pre-eclampsia, and ectopic pregnancies are? Do you know how physically hellish pregnancy can be for a woman? Do you know all of the different ways that pregnancy can cause mental and emotional distress to a woman? Do you know how emotionally scarring it can be to give a child up for adoption? Or do you just not care about any of that, which proves that your views on abortion are incredibly hateful?]


I’ll just answer both your questions here, first you assume I don’t care because I don’t believe in killing the child they don’t want? This is, in fact, false. Though I suspect you assumed I’d answer that way, I’ve yet to meet a person who’s pro-life because they don’t care about women. So yes, I’m aware you’re trying to bait me but that’s alright.Moving on to the rest, yes I know what hyperemesis gravidarum, preeclampsia, and ectopic pregnancies are. My mother had hyperemesis gravidarum while pregnant with my youngest brother. Yes I know that pregnancies can be tough, again I’ll direct you back to my mother who almost died with both my younger brothers. Was she pushed to have an abortion during her third pregnancy? Yes, she almost died with my first brother and the second was due within a year of that, her mother pushed her simply because she was worried about my mother’s life. I understand that and so did my mother, she didn’t actually intend to become pregnant with my youngest brother when she did, but life happens and she intended to take responsibility for that. Not to mention she knows what it’s like to feel a child inside of your body and she can’t convince herself that what she’s feeling isn’t human. So yes I know what those are and I know that women can survive them. I’d like to know why do you believe women are so weak?

If you’re wondering whether I believe women should have an abortion ever, under any circumstances, my answer is yes. If the mother is dying, that’s all, and that’s because I’d prefer to lose one life rather than two, and even then I feel that the situation is an awful one.

As for the emotionally scarring part of adoption, do you truly believe that women are callous enough to not care what happens to a child as long as they don’t see it happen? You believe that a women would rather kill their child because it would be easier on them than giving it away. Also are you able to explain the logic behind thinking that a women would become emotionally scarred from seeing her child go off to have a chance at life in a good home (because she didn’t want it) so instead she’d rather have it killed.

Perhaps it would have been easier to simply tell you that my views don’t stem from hate in any way, but I doubt you’d have believed it if that were all I said, there’s still a good chance you don’t. So if you prefer to call it hateful that I believe women are stronger and more compassionate than the pro-choice side gives them credit for, I can’t stop you.

Johnathan Bradford #fundie answersforhope.org

I know that 2 + 2 = 4. I don’t know this inductively because I have examined all possible answers to the question ‘what is 2 + 2?’. I know it deductively through other methods. As such, I don’t need to have examined all possible answers to the question (thankfully, since there are an infinite number of possible answers). If someone told me that 2 + 2 = 5, I know that they are wrong. I’ll examine their reasoning to help show that they are wrong, and why they are wrong.

Now, if someone came up to me with a twenty page paper, with hundreds of equations, big long explanations and proofs, and at the end it appeared that they have proved 2 + 2 = 17, well, I know that they are wrong. Even if I go through the paper quickly and don’t identify right away where they went wrong, I know that they are wrong, because I know that 2 + 2 = 4. And I know that for reasons other than the need to disprove their apparent proof here in this paper. So I can happily stand on the truth of my position while I try to determine where their proof falls apart. Maybe they divided by zero in some complex, easy to miss equation. Maybe they made a logic error. It could be all sorts of things. So I’ll go through it and try to see where it fails, all the while knowing that I am correct about 2 + 2 = 4, because my knowledge of that doesn’t rely upon disproving this person’s apparent proof that 2 + 2 = 17.

It’s similar with Christianity. I know that Christianity is true via divine revelation. My knowledge of this isn’t based upon inductively proving other worldviews false. It’s based upon the revelation of God which He has made evident to me in such a way that I can know it, and can’t be wrong about it.

So when discussing the issue with someone else, and critiquing their worldview, I can stand completely firm on the knowledge of the truth while I examine the ways the other person’s worldview falls apart. Some are simple, like atheism or deism – they essentially refute themselves before getting out of the starting gate. Others may be quite complex and difficult – Judaism and Roman Catholicism both have many aspects of the truth in them, and therefore it’s more difficult to peel back the layers and show people where their position falls short or breaks down. But ultimately, all non-Christian positions fail to provide a foundation by which a valid epistemology, metaphysic, or ethic can be held in a consistent, non-arbitrary way.

Dreams of Dunamis #fundie dreamsofdunamis.wordpress.com

When my mother-in-law passed away, some of her old stuff was shipped out to us in case we might want it. In this box, were some statues and trinkets that she had purchased as souvenirs from her travels. One of them, was an all-white porcelain statue of a Chinese geisha girl, holding out her arms and hands in a peculiar way. One of the hands looked like it may have at one time been broken off and temporarily repaired, so I was wondering if I should apply a permanent fix to it, or if it was even worth saving at all.

As I was holding it, I began to feel vaguely uncomfortable with it, and wondered if it was spiritually o.k. or not to keep. So I asked my kids for a second opinion.

One shrugged and said they had sensed something evil about it at first, but as that feeling quickly went away, they couldn’t be real sure. So they went to see if there was more information on it over the internet.

My oldest son however, wanted it out of the house immediately. He said he could hear foreign voices coming from the statue, singing and chanting in tongues, and he knew that they were demons. As the minutes went by, he became more and more distressed over it, because their voices were getting louder and louder, and more threatening.

So I decided to bless it with our blessed olive oil and claim it in the name of Jesus. As soon as the blessing oil touched the statue, my oldest said the demons were shrieking and howling in pain and anger, and were coming out of the statue. But they soon went back to their odd chanting and singing, this time even louder than before. My internet searcher then reports back to me, telling me that this statue is an actual demon goddess that people in China pray to, in their homes. My oldest interrupts to say that he felt the Holy Spirit telling him that we NEED to get rid of the statue, NOW.

At that point, one of the demons physically attacked my son. It threw him down onto the stairs, (as he tried to run away,) and then wrapped its tendrils around his throat and tried to choke him, while another smaller one sat on his chest to try and silence him by suffocating him. My kids could only stare at the demons, unable to move or speak, frozen in fear and terror, as they watched them viciously attack their older brother. (This was odd behavior for some of them; normally they don’t let them spook them, they simply cast them out in the name of Jesus.) It sounded horrible; I could hear my son’s screams of sheer terror; he kept repeating over and over: “NO! DON’T LET IT TAKE ME! GET IT OFF OF ME! MOM!! HELP ME!” And then a moment later, ”PLEASE! GET RID OF THE STATUE!!! NOW!!!!”, as he tried to claw away at his own neck the suffocating strangle hold of the demon’s grip. I looked into my son’s eyes, and could see the absolute panic and terror that he was feeling reflecting out from them. But I myself could not see any demon at all; all I could see were strange markings of something around his neck, and his face grow red and bulge as he kept struggling and gasping to pull in a breath of air.

At first I looked for the obvious signs of a ‘too-tight’ shirt collar, or anything else that might have caused such a reaction, and a part of me couldn’t help but wonder if my son was just faking it to get attention. Till I looked up and seen all the eyes of my children starring at the same demons that was on top of him in horror. They were all starring at the demons, not at my son. Then I knew it was indeed real.

I cried out for my husband, (who had heard all the commotion and had been wondering what was going on, but had remained downstairs working on his computer,) and asked him to quickly take the statue and “get it out of this house!”

So he came up and took the statue outside. Meanwhile I went and grabbed my book entitled “Prayers that rout demons”, (scriptures and prayers based on them that are indexed for immediate battle-ready use,) and started claiming them out loud, and casting out in Jesus name whatever was attacking my son. I had to shout them out, and say them with great energy. I could then slightly sense the demon sneer at me, as it seemingly loosened its grip on my son and disappeared.

So I asked the kids if they still felt the demons, and one told me that they could still hear them, and another told me they could see the thin black ropes, coming from the outside, still trying to attack us.

I asked the child that seen the thin black ropes where they were coming from, and was pointed towards the window, on the left side. We go outside, following the trails of black rope, not knowing where their father had put the statue, (he was back downstairs working again,) and were led directly to the statue, right where the lines were seen to be coming from.

I took the statue, and along with my kids, went down to the fire pit. We built up a fire, lit it, and when we thought it was going strong enough, we put the statue in it.

Within the next minute or so, the fire went out.

So we rebuilt the fire, this time making it bigger and stronger, right on top of the statue. It was not easy. This was a fire that for some reason did not want to burn. But I asked the Lord to please help us with the fire, so it got going pretty good. Ten to fifteen minutes later, the fire around the statue had dissipated, leaving the rest of the fire around it still burning. We kicked the rest of the fire out, and I went to go pick up the statue with a stick, figuring it was now way too hot to hold. But the Holy Spirit told me to go ahead and pick it up with my bare hands.

It was icy cold. Not a single blemish or smear of soot had disfigured it.

My eldest son cried out to me again, asking me to smash it, but I was already one step ahead of him. I was trying to find a brick to smash it with, but most near me were still way too hot from the fire to use. (I had just burned my fingers on one, finding that out the hard way.) So a brick from the other side of the fire pit was found, and with great force, I smashed the delicate porcelain with one square blow. I must admit, at this point I half expected it to be resistant to being smashed as well, so I think I may have used a bit too much force, for the bricks above it and underneath it ended up being cracked and broken as well. I was going to keep breaking it up into dust, but the kids said it was no longer necessary, as the black trails had now dissipated in the air like smoke does on a breezy day.

AIAyeti #fundie debatingchristianity.com

I mean Neo-Liberal when I use the word Liberal. I think you know that. I cannot walk with you politically until the Godless anti-Christians who promote sexual perversion are gone as a political platform issue of the Democrats. I cannot look at Jesus and knowingly support Democrats.

You are caught up in hating George Bush. I'd be a Democrat in a heart beat if they weren't bald-faced liars. And, there is no proof of Bush lying. Being wrong is not complicity. Unfortunately, no politician can ever admit they are wrong or they are doomed. But I have confidence that Bush repents. He just shouldn't cast pearls before Liberal you know whats.

Nextrush #fundie freerepublic.com

I have watched this pretense of conservatism play out in the GOP all my life.

Donald Trump was elected to change that by "draining the swamp" of corrupt business as usual Republicans who put business and banking interests ahead of the national interest.

His supporters love the POTUS and want him to take action that is real and meaningful and sacrificial to reverse the decline of this country.

Steve Bannon said when he spoke at Roy Moore's rally last week that to get to the Democrats we first have to get past the Republicans.

They must be replaced en masse and if that can't happen politics isn't going to Make America Great Again.

The Left-Progressive-Liberals are conned by the Democrats too because they are bought and paid for by the business and banking elites as well.

I read on Facebook a post the other day that said "Republicans aren't conservative and Democrats aren't liberal".

That guy gets it and more of us need to get it.

Michelle #fundie moonbattery.com

Hey, if these sorry bastards are looking for a civil war, I'm sure we can accommodate them. Who owns all the guns?

Anyway, what would they do if they won? A parasite that kills it's host isn't going to live very long, either. If they lose they lose, and if they win they lose, too.

Face it, if every liberal left the country, you'd be left with a country of productive, self-sufficient people. If every conservative left the country, you'd have an instant third-world nation.

Stephanie Relfe #conspiracy metatech.org

One blessing of having a website like this one, with such extraordinary information, is that we get to talk on the phone with some very interesting people, many of whom have had really unusual and paranormal things happen to them. That’s often what brings them to this site. This is one reason why we are able to believe all the weird stuff we write about, and have a much better understanding of it, than isolated individuals can.

These are generally not crazy people. They are intelligent, well spoken, from an enormous variety of backgrounds and trainings. Many are, or were, professionals in the business world. A number of them have connections to very famous people.

Many of the people who have talked with us felt that they were going mad with the strange things happening to them, and no one around them believing in such stuff, and therefore it was a great relief to them to find us and learn that similar extremely strange happenings have happened to thousands of other people. While each case is unique, it is amazing how many people who we have talked with often have two or more of the following characteristics:

Metaphysical abilities, even if they had only a glimpse of what was possible, from a few experiences.
Interesting bloodlines, often including a famous or aristocratic person in their background.
Close family member in the military, often the father, and usually not something simple like a soldier, but often a high-ranking officer and/or member of intelligence.
Close family member a high ranking Freemason.
Close experiences with interesting locations, such as Area 51 or other military bases.
Part of childhood spent in Germany, or time spent in other countries with Masonic connections, such as Scotland or Egypt (the only two countries ever to wear kilts), that seemed out of character with the family.
Plus it is very common for them to also have, due to programming –

Extreme money difficulties, even though they were well educated and had no apparent cause for this.
Terrible relationship problems, usually on their own, even if they were good looking, nice, professional people from reasonably happy families.
A few days ago, I was talking with a very nice man who has some interesting abilities, and he had a most interesting story to tell.

He had a very bad childhood. He realized later on that he had been groomed his whole life for a particular position. He was good looking, studying to be an actor in the USA, and dating a daughter of a very powerful member of organized crime. A relative at another college had his photo on her dresser, and his soon-to-be girlfriend saw the photo and said – “I’m going to marry that man.” Presumably, the demons were speaking to her, as you will see.

That girl changed colleges to pursue him. Later on when they were dating she asked him if he would like to have a spirit guide. He agreed, and not much later after that she went to join her witches’ coven that was meeting for Halloween. The man was in his bedroom that Halloween night, when out of a full length mirror, an adult-sized being stepped out.

The being was wearing a long, black cloak and a Quaker hat. He had glowing red eyes. He floated along the floor, three inches above the ground. No feet could be seen. Yet he was present in a total physical, 3-dimensional form. The man whom I am talking about was fully awake. This was no dream.

The being asked the man if he would like to join them. The being was meant to be the man’s spirit guide for life. In return, the man would receive all of the material things that he could ever wish for – fame as a movie star, immense riches, the girl for his wife, everything that he had been programmed to desire. The being was not there to sell the man on the benefits, he was just stating what the deal was. The being assumed that everything had been prearranged by the girlfriend, that this was a done deal.

However, I guess the girlfriend had not sufficiently done her homework, because the man looked at the being, and could clearly tell that this being was evil, and not with God. He chose instead to serve God, and refused the being, even if that meant material hardship to himself.

When he did that, the being reached to grab his heart. To protect himself, the man closed his eyes and meditated. He saw himself surrounded by Maharishi (he had done Transcendental Meditation – we don’t recommend that, but include this information as part of the story) and Christ’s light which was warm and golden. The being was not able to get through to him.

So the being returned to the mirror. The man was told later by his girlfriend that the being appeared at the coven that night, and hit the leader of the coven in the chest. The leader of the coven died, but was taken to hospital, and was revived later in the hospital (I guess that was a near-death experience). However, the coven leader was very sick for years later on.

Note about spirit guides: We do not recommend you have any spirit guides. Years before I met Michael and became a Christian, I occasionaly talked to two spirit guides I had. Eventually, however, I realized that they weren’t too smart, and that I did not need them. God and my higher self provided all the information I needed. I therefore asked them to leave (which they did). You have the Holy Spirit in your heart, and do not need to go anywhere else for guidance.

———–

The being with the Quaker hat used the mirror as a portal. A portal is an unseen vortex that connects two places through time and space, and even dimensions or other realities or timelines.

I absolutely believe the story of the being coming out of the mirror and talking with the man. I was thinking about that story when Michael sent me a video of a psychic investigator, a woman who can see energies in and around people. In the first video she says that cell phones open up portals to other dimensions. We had already much reason to believe that, having seen the effect they have on people, and how super addicted people are to their phones, particularly smart phones.

I have also seen posts on a forum where people were discussing how within the last few years people have become extremely rude, lazy and self-centered at work, and that this started almost exactly the same time that the smart phones were introduced.


In the second video, she says that a mirror opens up a portal to another dimension. A hallway that has mirrors on both sides, so that they are opposing each other, is described as “a tunnel from Hell”.


HOW I STOPPED MY SCREAMING NIGHTMARES

It was watching the above video, and thinking of the story of the being who walked out of the mirror that a major realization hit me: The appalling nightmares that I had been having for the past three years, all started when we moved into a house that had mirrors on a closet in the bedroom! And the second house we moved into, the one we were in at time of writing, also has a mirror within line of sight of the bedroom.

I was having the most terrible nightmares you can possibly imagine for the past three years. They were so bad I would wake up screaming so loudly that my throat was sore for a while afterwards. They were so bad and so unique that I feel that they were not just a nightmare – something was trying to kill me.

The first time this happened was around 2011. I had virtually never had nightmares my whole life, except for some in my childhood of monsters taking me and my siblings (these no doubt came from the fact that we had to walk quite a long way on our own to and from elementary school, and I was scared to, after being told that people try to pick up and murder children, and my mother refused to take us in the car. Plus being abducted once as a child probably contributed to them as well).

Nearly all of these nightmares were similar. They lasted much less than a second, about as fast as a gun shot, thus giving me no time to respond. I am sure these nightmares were meant to kill me. There was a blast of energy, so powerful, that I was convinced it had killed me and everyone around me, and there was nothing but blackness and despair and the most awful feeling of total hopelessness you can possibly imagine. When I woke up screaming, I was surprised to find that I was alive.
The first time it happened I immediately remembered the story that if people die in a dream, they die in real life (Ref: Movie Dreamscape with Dennis Quaid).

The screaming was so bad my throat hurt for a while afterwards. These nightmares reminded me of the stories I have heard of totally healthy people going to bed and never waking up again. In some cases in China, the person’s hair was been found to turn white.

I have had maybe 30 or 40 of these dreams, averaging around one a month. We continually prayed and muscle tested to find out how these attacks were getting through. There is always a reason for something like this happening. The curse causeless shall not come. Proverbs 26:2.

Unfortunately, the body can only say “yes” or “no” when muscle testing, and we weren’t able to find anything to do. I had prayed off everything to do with family lines, past life sins and other related subjects. We had done everything possible to get all cursed objects out of the house. We had no ‘welcome’ mat inviting demons in. We also have a mezuzah stuck on every door leading to outside, plus the bedroom door. (A mesuzah is a small container which contains quotes from the bible). But still the nightmares continued, so something was still letting the demons in.

And then, shortly after talking with the man on the phone and seeing the above videos, it hit me! The nightmares started when we moved into a house with mirrors covering the closet in the master bedroom. The mirrors were an open portal to other dimensions!

I knew from feng shui that one should not have mirrors in the bedroom, because it causes restless energy. I realize now that mirrors do more than just increase the energy in a room. They let in evil spirits. We were renting, and because the mirrors were on folding doors of the closet, I could not work out how to cover them, and did not realize at the time how important it was that I do so.

Then, a year later, when we moved into another house, the one we were in at time of writing, I hoped that the nightmares would stop. They did not. This time while there were no mirrors in the bedroom, the idiots who designed the house did not put a door between the bedroom and the bathroom, just an open arch. Since we were renting, there wasn’t much I thought I could do. Part of the large vanity mirror looked almost directly into the bedroom, and I ignored the part of my mind that told me it was important to do something about it.

Once I realized that the bathroom mirror was letting something in that was causing my nightmares, I had two choices – cover up the mirror, or put bible verses on it, similar to the way the mezuzahs protect doorways. We know that words have more power than we know of, since, for example, aliens use them as part of their technology,

drone-pacl-q486-photo-4-fullsize-650B

and even CERN, the large hadron collider, that’s 17 miles (27 Km) long, seems to use words as part of whatever strange things it is used for. See the sanskrit words that are on CERN, pictured below.

Some people have even suggested that the purpose of CERN is to create black holes that will let in evil beings from other dimensions. All we know for sure is that it is very strange to put a statue of Shiva the destroyer out the front of a supposedly scientific research station, and that these sanskrit words in CERN likely do not have a good purpose:

CERN-sanksrit2

CERN-sanskrit

In addition to the power of words, we know that there are legal laws that Lucifer and his gang have to follow. For example, when Bill Schnoebelen was a vampire, he could not go into anyone’s house until they invited him in. For example, if he and his wife visited someone for a party, they would stand around and talk on the front doorstep, until the host would say something like, “What are we all standing around here for? Come on in.”

So I chose to print out the following, and tape this on every mirror in the house. Even hand mirrors have this now in super tiny, font size 4;

In the name of Jesus’ Christ, may we, this house, our finances and possessions be protected from all spirits who do not serve God the Creator and Jesus Christ.

Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Corinthians1, 10:31

He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. John 6:47

Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Proverbs 3:5

He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying “This is my body which is given for you, do this in remembrance of me”. Luke 22:19

————–

Update – 6/17/15

It works! Normally in the 9 months that has gone, I would have had over many dozens of horrific nightmares. I have had not one of the really, really bad ones. In the few weeks after I posted on the mirror, I did have a few minor nightmares, but we found a cursed object (some comic pictures) that had been accidentally left in the bedroom, and removed them. Since doing that, I have been nightmare free!

We are also waking up with more energy.

Around the time that the nightmares started, I started feeling old sometimes, for the first time in my life. This seemed strange because we have a very healthy diet and lifestyle. It seemed that I could have this feeling of weariness, even when I had plenty of sleep, and no sleep debt. That feeling has not been with me since I put the quotes on the mirrors. Sometimes I feel almost 30 again (I’m 54).

Update – 1/4/16 –

REMOVE ALL PICTURES, BOOKS, MAGAZINES, TOYS FROM YOUR BEDROOM

It’s now been 15 months with no nightmares, except for last night. Last night was a shocker; I was completely ‘dead’, hit by lightning, blackness and devastation everywhere etc, and screaming for a long time, with a very hoarse voice.

I realized that the demons got in through a glyph; that is, a special kind of picture. I learned from a woman who made the mistake of being involved with journeying, that glyphs are portals to other dimensions.

The glyph was something in a copy of the Robb Report magazine, that I had foolishly left in the bedroom. This happened again one other time later when a catalog was accidentally left in the bedroom.

Get anything with a picture or logo out of your bedroom; all magazines, catalogs, books, toys and pictures, especially anything that is connected with corporations.

——-

More evidence that mirrors are portals to other dimensions, and allow evil spirits into the room, or maybe even into the whole house:

1) According to Japanese Legend,

If you reflect two mirrors into each other at midnight a demon pops out.

2) In Animal Planet’s The Haunted, some haunted houses are caused by demons who can’t get back into the mirror.

They believe that mirrors are possibly portals for spirits and that some spirits were invoked by mirrors. Once the spirits were called through by the use of the mirrors, who ever did it, just walked away and did not send them back through the mirror portal. So the spirits were trapped.

They also found that some of the mirrors had been covered and some had actually been painted black preventing them from going back through.

3) Chinese cover up mirrors to stop bad things coming out.

Posted on a forum:

“I lived in China for two years working in the fashion industry…I used to visit many factories, etc, and could never work out why all the mirrors always had covers over them. Because I needed to actually use the mirrors lol, I’d have to constantly take the covers from them.

I finally asked … ‘why do you guys always cover the mirrors?… they were not very good at answering this question…

I kept up my questioning, and the only answer I got that made any sense was…. “bad things come out”

… I guess they meant demons…”

4) Alice in Wonderland.

The Illuminati, who make full use of black magick, seem to have an obsession with this book, which is chock full of imagery to do with mind control and perverted predations on children (See some creepy photos of Lewis Carroll and 10-year-old Alice here if you wish).

Alice’s MK-Ultra/abuse probably started with her Oxford University Vice-Chancellor father Henry Liddell, who was also the Dean of Christ Church and he probably allowed her to be used by people like the Reverend Robinson Duckworth (was a chaplain/member of the Order of St. John, with its Maltese style cross always used by the powers that be) who rowed the boat [this nursery rhyme was probably sung in their “entertaining” of the girls: “Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream. Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily life is but a dream.” (more dissociation ((don’t worry about the abuse, just keep rowing ((keep following the white rabbit, keep following the yellow brick road etc etc))… it’s all just a dream anyway, in MK-Ultra this is partly how dissociation is used; dreams, fantasy and reality are confused)), nursery rhymes/fairy tales are all full of it)].

After Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll wrote Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There, in which Alice enters a fantastical world, this time by climbing through a mirror. Here is a quote about that:

“Members of the bloodlines intentionally insert Illuminati symbols in popular movies and other media in order to bring what Fritz Springmeier calls the “Externalisation of the Hierarchy”…

Walt Disney was commissioned by the Illuminati to produce films such as Fantasia and Alice in Wonderland for mind control purposes. Disney movies are the main films used in mind control but other films such as Wizard of Oz, Star Wars, Star Trek and even The Holy Bible are used in Monarch Mind-Control Programming.”

mirror-mickey-mouse

Demons love mirrors, and many occultists believe mirrors are a way in which to see into the spirit world. Many mirrors are used in movies and cartoons in order to see into the spirit world. Walt Disney is infamous for portraying mirrors in this way.”

For more information on this, and to see some creepy pictures, see this article.

5) Astral projection practitioners get stuck in mirrors.

Posted on a forum:

“If you are astral projecting, have an out-of-body-experience and you move through a mirror you get trapped in a parallel plane. Very hard to get out of, most get out when the natural body awakens and you are sucked back.”

“I’ve heard of more than one astral projector getting stuck in a mirror.”
6) Bloody Mary ‘game’ and folklore

Do not let children or anyone play this game! Chanting “Bloody Mary” is said to conjure up a demon from a mirror, so much so that it is a well known ‘game’. Explain to children how bad this is. The best way to do that is to watch the Interview with an Ex-Vampire interview (warning, there are references to doing horrible things with children).

Also be very sure to burn all ouija boards. Many people have been cursed after playing this game.

7) The superstition that breaking a mirror brings seven years’ bad luck.

Maybe this is a warning from the demons to not do it?

8) Jews cover up mirrors after death.

Maybe in the old days, before vaccines prevented people from having spiritual eyes, people knew that mirrors could trap the spirit in the mirror, after the spirit left the body, as the astral projectors get stuck?

9) Demons seen in mirrors.

Comment on a forum:

“Many years ago I knew an antiques dealer, he had a mirror that he sold, the people that bought the mirror, returned it to him. The reason for this return, was that they didn’t like seeing other people in the mirror, people that weren’t there!”

10) Full length mirrors are too cheap.

Recently when we were looking for a full length mirror, we were rather surprised at how cheap they were. You can buy a really nice wooden one for just $50, and simple ones for just $8.

Since the evil ones own the printing presses and don’t care about money, just serving evil spirits, subverting people and getting access to children, we think it not unlikely that some mirror-making companies are owned by the reptilians and/or Illuminati, and they are deliberately making them available at a cheap price, to encourage more people to put full length mirrors in bedrooms, so that beings with long, black capes and Quaker hats and red, glowing eyes can come into the room.

11) They are building more and more houses and condominiums with NO door between the bedroom and bathroom, ensuring that there is no barrier between a large mirror and the bed. Even luxury condominiums worth hundreds of thousands of dollars do this!

12) The book of Enoch: Fallen Angels taught Men to make Mirrors

“Moreover Azazyel, taught men to make swords, knives, shields, breastplates, the fabrication of mirrors, and the workmanship of bracelets and ornaments, the use of paint, the beautifying of the eyebrows, the use of stones of every valuable and select kind, and all sorts of dyes, so that the world became altered.”

Chapter 8. 1. (Azazyel is Lucifer’s aide-de-camp General).

————–

Final Comment

It makes sense that the bigger the mirror, the bigger the demon that can walks out of it. I imagine it would have been hard or maybe impossible for the being who appeared to the man on Halloween night, to have walked out through a small face mirror. The thought of aristocracy comes to mind, and all the giant mirrors they have all over their houses. These are the people who need our prayers the most as they are so often controlled by the forces of evil, and helping them to free themselves from demonic control is crucial to freeing ourselves and creating Heaven on Earth. For example, read the true story of the statue that came to life in the grounds of an aristocrat’s mansion.

Please remove all mirrors from your bedroom, if you can, and put some bible verses on all mirrors that you keep, and see what difference it makes to your happiness and wellbeing.

Please tell your friends and family about this. Imagine the huge difference it will make to the world when creepy beings and demons cannot get into people’s houses so easily!

Brenden Dilley #wingnut #psycho rightwingwatch.org

MAGA “life coach” and right-wing broadcaster Brenden Dilley admitted during his program today that he doesn’t care about the truth of the things he says and that he has no problem “making shit up” because his “objective is to destroy Democrats” and “anything that opposes President Trump.”

Dilley, who has openly admitted that he creates and spreads fake news several times before, chastised his viewers today for caring when he spreads disinformation.

“I don’t give a fuck about being factual,” Dilley said. “I make shit up all the time.”

“I don’t give a fuck,” he continued. “My objective is to destroy Democrats, OK? To destroy liberals, liberalism as an idea, Democrats, and anything that opposes President Trump. That’s my goal. I’ve never made any bones about that.”

“You don’t have to fact check me because I don’t give a fuck,” Dilley added. “I fucking make up shit sometimes, from time to time. I don’t care. I don’t care. Democrats know it. Republicans know it. I don’t mind admitting it. I don’t give a shit … When I get a chance to shit on the left, I don’t mind making shit up. No, not at all.”

MarineSentinel #racist freerepublic.com

White democrats, liberals, elitists, leftists, progressives, left wing-nuts, communists, socialists, gays, lesbians, leftist loons, mentally handicapped—meaning their vocabulary is so small it would fit in a navel cavity of a flea, Nazis, republican rhinos who are really democrat insider fools, traitors, anti-Americans, and yes last but not least my favorite—lying maggot politicians are the most racists individuals around. This is a fact that these racists purposely try to shove off on their opponents namely Conservatives. The truth hurts and if ever there was a time where racism is more visible than today it is none other by these kooks I’ve mentioned.

Dr. Ben Carson a renowned neurosurgeon who put it truthfully and factually that “Liberals are the most racist people there are.” He is right and they can’t deal with a black man telling the truth about them and how they really think. This isn’t something new; these crazies have always been racists who date back to the “KKK” and slavery. They are the ones responsible for the many deaths associated with and committed by the “KKK” period. Dr. Ben Carson has made all of these kooks nervous and they don’t know how to deal with him especially coming from a successful educated black man.

I recently saw this racism on full display yesterday when a known liberal such as Bob Beckel went nuts over Dr. Ben Carson telling the truth about liberals. Bob Beckel said about Carson, that most liberals don’t care what he Carson says or thinks. This was his whole point genius Beckel couldn’t wrap his mind around that “White liberals and the rest of these kooks don’t care about blacks or other minorities who are different from them, ergo he and his “White liberals are racist.

The reason the liberals and the rest of their kook fringe are after Dr. Carson is they view him with the Uncle Tom tactic they tried with Herman Cain. Its funny how these crazies call us racist but when a decent Conservative black man who believes in God and tells it like it is they turn the table on him. Dr. Martin Luther King said it’s not the color it’s the content. This alone sheds 100% light on their racist’s views. Dr. Carson is the mesquite thorn in the racist lefts a**, both uncomfortable and poisonous which the truth does that.

Dr. Carson revealed what a loser Obama and his ilk really are; at the bottom of the barrel if you ask me. The liberals and the rest of these kooks are scared of him because he is a brilliant man and he is everything that they and Obama are not. Obama and his ilk=affirmative action and Dr. Carson=All Merit. The liberals and the left remain on their road to destruction and they are dragging the country down with them. The true Patriots of America must do all they can to take back our country.

I recently read a column about Dr. Ben Carson’s up and coming book where he makes a great and valid point. He says that it is just as much about racism to vote for someone because he is black, just because he is black even though you don’t agree with his politics. I have never voted this way for any President and those who have should be ashamed. Liberals may not care what Dr. Carson has to say now, but soon they will know if they don’t already he is their worst nightmare. Dr. Ben Carson is a prime example that America truly does work and liberals despise him for it. This President really thinks “White Liberals” actually like him. I’m here to say NOPE, they don’t. They are just using him like Bob Beckel to help him bring down the country. I say keep talking “White Liberals and the rest of their kooks, you are making our point.

The flip side to “White Liberals” is the “Black Liberals” who espouse to the same playbook. These crazies have fallen into the trap of actually believing “White Liberals” care for them when in reality they think blacks are not capable of doing things on their own. “White Liberals” truly believe that if you’re not white you are not capable. Why else would liberals demand affirmative action? Affirmative Action has done nothing more than exacerbate black poverty period. Look at most poor neighborhoods; they are all Democrat represented areas, Always. “White Liberals” always pat you on the head and tell you you’re so brilliant, but not brilliant enough to get anywhere on your own. We 20 years later have a President reaffirming everything we know to be true about “White Liberal” mentality. From his lips to our ears—“You didn’t build that, you didn’t get there on your own.” Molon Labe.

Mat Staver #fundie covenantjourney.org

In his journal, John wondered where the elderly were on the island. He only saw young people of short stature. Since the Sentinelese are so isolated, we do not know the answer to John’s question. Maybe their life expectancy is so short there are no elderly. Maybe the elderly are kept in isolation. Maybe the tribe kills them when they are no longer productive. Maybe the Sentinelese who killed John and who have opposed outsiders (even humanitarian relief following an earthquake and tsunami) are similar to rogue gangs we have in parts of the U.S. How can we assume that the people who appear on the beach with bows and arrows and spears represent the entire tribe?

With such lack of information about the Sentinelese, how can we assume the entire tribe want no contact with the outside world? How can we assume the island is free of domestic, child, or elder abuse? How can we assume that there are no people on the island who long to leave and explore a new life but who are forced to stay? We have no way of knowing, and therefore we cannot flatly assume that isolation is the best course of action for these people.

Without proper medical treatment, a young child who falls from a tree and suffers a severe broken leg or arm will likely live a difficult, if not short life, even by the Sentinelese life expectancy. Minor sicknesses in developed countries can be treated by proper medicine. But, minor sicknesses for the Sentinelese can be fatal. How can we assume the Sentinelese would rather watch their children die than have modern medicine save them? Few people would volunteer to give up all medical treatments in exchange for isolation. Who are we to deny the Sentinelese the choice of their future? George Washington died a painful death from a throat infection that could have been treated with modern medicine. How many Sentinelese die painful deaths because they lack modern medicine? Who are we to say they are better off left alone?

Despite their isolation, the Sentinelese no doubt get cut, sometimes severely. Even minor cuts without proper medical care can become infected. A broken jaw, tooth, or toothache can cause excruciating pain. These, and a host of other medical conditions and physical injuries, can result in prolonged disability or painful death. Are the Sentinelese better off left to suffer what otherwise could be an easy cure or treatment by modern medical standards? If you think so, then on what basis can you make that decision? Certainly it is not because of the known wishes of the Sentinelese people. We must not be so arrogant or so cold to make these life and death decisions for them. The children born on North Sentinel have no choice in their destiny. How can we assume they do not want better if they knew an entirely different future awaits just beyond the horizon?

If the Sentinelese are doing so well without contact to the outside world, then why is it estimated that as few as 50 people inhabit the island? The only way to have so few people without migration of the tribe leaving the island is due to a very short life expectancy. Life expectancy is shortened by lack of clean water, lack of good nutrition, and lack of proper medical care. What if the Sentinelese kill other tribe members? We know they do kill other human beings. What prevents them from killing each other? We simply do not know the answers to these questions, and it is problematic to assume we do and then make decisions about the Sentinelese that affect their well-being.

To the objection of whether Christianity is harmful, I neither have the space, nor is it my purpose in this short space, to thoroughly address this question. The weight of history, however, supports the conclusion that Christianity has greatly benefited society. At the time of Jesus, women in all cultures were treated with distain. Women were often separated from men. In the Greek, Roman, and Jewish cultures, women were often considered unclean because of their menstrual cycles. The Roman author, naturalist, and naval and army commander, Pliny the Elder, penned writings that today woul

...

One objection by some people is that John should have had a long-term plan and used better judgment. It is astounding that anyone who does not know John or the particular facts could jump to such a conclusion. From what we do know, John did have a long-term plan that began ten years ago while he was still in high school. He trained for years to be a missionary. He went on multiple mission trips. Before this year, he went to India in 2015 and 2016, including to the Andaman Islands. He received extensive missionary training in 2017, according to All Nations. He was a trained EMT and knew how to survive in hostile climates and conditions. He carried with him an extensive medical kit that, among other things, included a hemostat to pinch arteries, a chest seal in case of a puncture, and dental forceps to remove arrows. He remained in isolation for 11 days prior to visiting North Sentinel, so that he would not be exposed to sickness.

Another objection raised by some self-identified Christians is that John was operating in his own will, not the will of God. The audacity of someone to make such a judgment without knowing John is astounding. Some will point to the fact that John was shot by an arrow on Thursday, November 15. The Bible he held over his chest stopped the arrow from penetrating his body. This warning, some say, should have been enough to make John retreat.

Sara #fundie blog.myspace.com

There is nothing more stupid [in my eyes] than not being a believer. Not believing only brings you suffering, pain, confusion, and more. So.... why not be a believer?

There can't not be a God. If there wasn't, then how would there be a prayer language? How would we even exist?

The number one thing I'm faced with through non-believers is proof. The thing is, there is proof, if your eyes and ears are open, which unfortunately, most non-believers eyes and ears aren't.

The most revealing form of proof is one we're all familiar with. Prayer. Certain non-believers think all that prayer is just a bad enough wanting of something [in other words, determination] that it just comes. But as we all know, it's not like that. God knows what's best for you, and doesn't always give you what you pray for, or say "Yes" to your prayers. For example, if you're praying about some guy to like you, God may answer you by showing you that the guy doesn't like you back, or that he doesn't want to date anyone, or anything like that.

But when you pray for someone to receive salvation, and they end up seeking salvation like a month later, that's God acting. Unfortunately, non-believers are usually so blinded that they don't notice this.

Another form of proof is the prayer language, otherwise known as Tongues. The night I got annointed with Tongues [April 14th], all my doubt was destroyed. It's not always like that, but it certainly was to me. True faith comes through spending time with God and reading the Bible. But once again, non-believers don't know that.

They also don't know that the answer to all of their questions are in the Bible. I was talking to a friend of mine on the phone one day, and looking in my Bible to answer some of his questions, and I didn't have a clue how easy it was to answer the questions he had that I thought would be difficult to answer.

And another thing. Why would there be a Bible if there was no God? The Bible isn't just a book of guidelines. It's the key to living a good life, and to bringing others happiness. The Bible reveals things to Christians and believers that they need to know to become a better Christian. It also reveals how to bring non-believers to Jesus and how to bring yourself peace, and much more.

The Bible isn't a lie. These people wouldn't have written it if they didn't want other Christians to believe it. It wasn't just written by one person; it was written by several. The Bible is like a testimony. It's like advice, coming from real people at real times in the world. It can also be considered as a warning to non-believers--of what will happen if they don't come to Jesus on time. The Bible is another form of proof, right in front of your eyes.

There is another one that I want to mention. It's Jesus Christ. Christ isn't actually His last name. The name "Christ" means "The Annointed One". I'm very sure that not very many people are aware of that... at least not as many that should be. Non-believers will ask, "What is Jesus annointed to do?", and every Christian should be able to answer that. Jesus is annointed to save the souls of everyone on this earth!

To all non-believers or non-Christians: there is proof. You just have to open your eyes.

Ai Jun #fundie globaltimes.cn

Have Western media given up duty of objective reporting?

Time magazine recently published an article about Mihrigul Tursun, a Uyghur woman who claimed she came from a Xinjiang vocational training center, and tweeted a video clip of her testimony of alleged torture with tears and sobs.

I did an experiment: Sending the link to ordinary Chinese I know. Most of them laughed when they heard Tursun's testimony. "It's nonsense," was their first reaction. Why did they react this way? The question should be left for editors from Time magazine to answer. If they treated her testimony more skeptically, figured out how outdated was the language she used and whether her remarks were reasonable, then the magazine wouldn't have made such a fool of itself. China has made enough explanation. But those editors are still unimaginably ignorant of China. Will more explanation work?

Similar reports and interviews with Tursun can be found in many other Western media outlets. Western media love her, as if they hit the jackpot and finally seized the testimony of a witness to attack China, while being so indifferent to all the loopholes in her words.

Some foreigners buy Tursun's stories as they have a severe misunderstanding of China which stems from ignorance. Quite a few Westerners still believe that China is generally an underdeveloped country where its people work in sweatshops and have very little freedom. Does China have cars? Does China have electricity? Do Chinese love freedom? These are the tip of the iceberg of questions raised on the Quora question-and-answer website in 2017.

It is supposed to be the mainstream media's responsibility to answer these questions with objective and comprehensive information. Sadly, editors from Time have no basic knowledge of China and they have become the creators and spreaders of rumors.

Their mind-set is still stuck in the Cultural Revolution. Before publishing relevant articles, they might have hardly had any chance to actually visit China or talk to a real Chinese. How can people trust their reports?

Tursun's stories alike are hardly new. It happened more than once that the testimonies given before the US Congress were found to be false with fabricated stories. The purpose was to support US political and military actions.

It is unfortunate to see Time magazine, which enjoys an influential readership among US intellectuals, degenerating into one of the media that focuses more on selling eye-catching, groundless stories rather than proven facts.

At least these reports showed some insights into the US perception of China. Why did the trade war occur? Why are there always radical thoughts against China in the US? Why is there constant untrue speculation about the number of Muslims who have been sent to vocational training centers, which can be 1 million today or 2 million tomorrow? One can't help but wonder if the Western media have given up their responsibility to objective reporting.

GOP Tea Pub #fundie gop-tea-pub.tumblr.com

Ahhhh you poor poor delusional moronic douche canoe. It is truly sad that people LIKE YOU have access to the internet and refuse to do any actual research. Then have the audacity to post BS statements that have ZERO actuality to them. But, let me just school you and show you EXACTLY how asinine you and those that follow and believe you, truly are. Those that know the truth are laughing at you and your followers…laughing hysterically as a matter of fact. It must be painful to be that out of touch.

Prior to 2010, the following is what readers got when they clicked on the Democrats.org “History” button….
Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws, and every law that protects workers. Most recently, Democrats stood together to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act.
On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight. We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America.

This is the kind of BS spewed by Democrats on a daily basis, and unfortunately the media and other so-called watchdogs are so apparently ignorant of American history, Democrats continue to LIE through their teeth to their constituents, and via academia, to our kids. Despite the truth being out there for years, it’s probably not going to explode until some big shot news anchor gives us an “exclusive expose” bringing us all those facts first, so he/she can proudly receive a Pulitzer…

October 13, 1858 During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee

April 16, 1862 President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

July 17, 1862 Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

January 31, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

April 8, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

November 22, 1865 Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

February 5, 1866 U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

April 9, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

May 10, 1866 U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th
Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to
all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866 U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

January 8, 1867 Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19, 1867 Republican Congress overrides
Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans

March 30, 1868 Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”

September 12, 1868 Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell
and 24 other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a
Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by
Republican Congress

October 7, 1868 Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

October 22, 1868 While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan

December 10, 1869 Republican Gov. John Campbell
of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to
vote and to hold public office

February 3, 1870 After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race

May 31, 1870 President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights

June 22, 1870 Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South

September 6, 1870 Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell

February 28, 1871 Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters

April 20, 1871 Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups
which oppressed African-Americans

October 10, 1871 Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands

October 18, 1871 After violence against
Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S.
troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan

November 18, 1872 Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”

January 17, 1874 Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government

September 14, 1874 Democrat white supremacists
seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated
administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed

March 1, 1875Civil Rights Act of 1875,
guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race,
signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican
support over 100% Democrat opposition

January 10, 1878 U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong

February 8, 1894 Democrat Congress and Democrat
President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act,
which had enabled African-Americans to vote

January 15, 1901 Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans

May 29, 1902 Virginia Democrats implement new
state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing
African-American voter registration by 86%

February 12, 1909 On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP

May 21, 1919 Republican House passes
constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans
in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans
would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no

August 18, 1920 Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures

January 26, 1922 House passes bill authored by
U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate
Democrats block it with filibuster

June 2, 1924
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by
Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native
Americans

October 3, 1924 Republicans denounce three-time
Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the
Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention

June 12, 1929 First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife
of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the
White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

August 17, 1937 Republicans organize opposition
to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black,
appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden
until after confirmation

June 24, 1940 Republican Party platform calls
for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in
office, FDR refuses to order it.

August 8, 1945 Republicans condemn Harry
Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and
criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima
bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a
friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing
of women and children, revolts my soul.”

September 30, 1953 Earl Warren, California’s
three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential
nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown
v. Board of Education

November 25, 1955 Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

March 12, 1956 Ninety-seven Democrats in
Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of
Education, and pledge to continue segregation

June 5, 1956 Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

November 6, 1956 African-American civil rights
leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican
Dwight Eisenhower for President

September 9, 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act

September 24, 1957 Sparking criticism from
Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President
Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR
to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools

May 6, 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower signs
Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour,
around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

May 2, 1963 Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff
of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American
schoolchildren marching for their civil rights

September 29, 1963 Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School

June 9, 1964 Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV)

June 10, 1964 Senate Minority Leader Everett
Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights
Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil
Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority
of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern
Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of
them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on
Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois,
to get the Act passed.

August 4, 1965 Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

February 19, 1976 President Gerald Ford formally
rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order
authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII

September 15, 1981 President Ronald Reagan
establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges
and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal
education programs

June 29, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act

August 10, 1988 President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR

November 21, 1991 President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation

August 20, 1996 Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan
Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of
Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law

And let’s not forget the words of liberal icon Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood…We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably
with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The
most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious
appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate
the Negro population…so the next time any Democrat claims they’ve been supportive of civil rights in America (and been so all along), ask them to explain their past. “We’ve grown” is not gonna cut it, considering they continue to
lie about their past to this day, and only someone lacking in common
sense would believe two distinct political parties could juxtaposition
their stances on civil rights seemingly overnight.

The left is quite annoyed that myself and others dare link the racist, segregationist past in this country to Democrats, at that flies
in the face of everything they claim to champion, when it comes to civil
rights, racial tolerance, etc.

The Democrats’ own website,
to this day, attempts to take fraudulently credit for the civil rights
movement and legislation, and when called on it, the recitation is the
same: “we’ve grown” and “don’t forget about the Dixiecrats”.

Defensive liberals claim the Dixiecrats, as a whole, defected from the Democrat Party when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (no thanks to Democrats), and became Republicans which they claimed were more accepting of segregationist policies.

Well, I decided to get some opinions on the matter from some historians.I contacted Professor Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton for advice. Larry and I worked on a documentary based on a chapter on Ronald Reagan from his best-selling book, A Patriot’s History of the United States.

The idea that “the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans” is
not quite true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is
accepted as a fact. What happened is that the **next** generation (post
1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft,
Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP.

So it was really a passing of the torch as the old segregationists
retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly
galling aspect to generalizations about “segregationists became GOP” is
that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted
the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of
what would become “New” Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore.

Larry also suggested I contact Mike Allen, Professor of History at
the University of Washington, Tacoma (who also appeared in the Reagan
documentary) for input.
There weren’t many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesn’t mean the birth of the souther GOP was tied to “white racism.” That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to thoseacts were southern Democrats. Southern Democrats led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The confusion arises from GOP Barry Goldwater’s vote against the ’64
act. He had voted in favor or all earlier bills and had led the
integration of the Arizona Air National Guard, but he didn’t like the
“private property” aspects of the ’64 law. In other words, Goldwater
believed people’s private businesses and private clubs were subject only
to market forces, not government mandates (“We reserve the right to
refuse service to anyone.”) His vote against the Civil Rights Act was
because of that one provision was, to my mind, a principled mistake.

This stance is what won Goldwater the South in 1964, and no doubt
many racists voted for Goldwater in the mistaken belief that he opposed
Negro Civil Rights. But Goldwater was not a racist; he was a libertarian
who favored both civil rights and property rights.

Switch to 1968.Richard Nixon was also a proponent of Civil Rights;
it was a CA colleague who urged Ike to appoint Warren to the Supreme Court; he was asupporter of Brown v. Board, and favored sending troops to integrate
Little Rock High). Nixon saw he could develop a “Southern strategy”
based on Goldwater’s inroads. He did, but Independent Democrat George
Wallace carried most of the deep south in 68. By 1972, however, Wallace
was shot and paralyzed, and Nixon began to tilt the south to the GOP.
The old guard Democrats began to fade away while a new generation of
Southern politicians became Republicans. True, Strom Thurmond switched
to GOP, but most of the old timers (Fulbright, Gore, Wallace, Byrd etc
etc) retired as Dems.

Why did a new generation white Southerners join the GOP? Not because
they thought Republicans were racists who would return the South to
segregation, but because the GOP was a “local government, small
government” party in the old Jeffersonian tradition. Southerners wanted
less government and the GOP was their natural home.

Jimmy Carter, a Civil Rights Democrat, briefly returned some states
to the Democrat fold, but in 1980, Goldwater’s heir, Ronald Reagan,
sealed this deal for the GOP. The new “Solid South” was solid GOP.

BUT, and we must stress this: the new southern Republicans were
*integrationist* Republicans who accepted the Civil Rights revolution
and full integration while retaining their love of Jeffersonian limited
government principles.

And what did Malcolm X say about the “Dixiecrats”…?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkgA2rUAY-o&feature=player_embedded


http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

http://www.black-and-right.com/2010/03/19/the-dixiecrat-myth/

So, there you have it. YOU are WRONG. YOU are UNEDUCATED. YOU refused to do RESEARCH. YOU look like a FOOL. Next time, try actually looking something up, instead of blatantly spewing lies and expecting people to believe you. BUT, if you need more clarification…I have that too, because I, unlike you, am not afraid to search for the truth.

REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS DID NOT SWITCH SIDES ON RACISM By Frances Rice

As a result of unrelenting efforts by Democrats to shift their racist past onto the backs of Republicans, using the mantra: “the parties switched sides”, a lot of people have requested an article addressing this issue.

It does not make sense to believe that racist Democrats suddenly rushed into the Republican Party, especially after Republicans spent nearly 150 years fighting for black civil rights. In fact, the racist Democrats declared they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.

From the time of its inception in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, the Republican Party has always been the party of freedom and equality for blacks. As author Michael Scheuer wrote, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. Democrats have been running black communities for the past 50+ years, and the socialist policies of the Democrats have turned those communities into economic and social wastelands.

An alarming view of what America will be like in a few years due to unbridled socialism being pushed by President Barack Obama and his Democratic Party cohorts, is contained in the article: “Detroit: The Moral of the Story” by Kevin D. Williamson that is posted on the Internet.

Democrats first used brutality and discriminatory laws to stop blacks from voting for Republicans. Democrats now use deception and government handouts to keep blacks from voting for Republicans. In his book, “Dreams From My Father,” Obama described what he and other Democrats do to poor blacks as “plantation politics.”

The racist Democrats of the 1950’s and 1960’s that Republicans were fighting died Democrats. One racist Democrat who survived until 2010 was US Senator Robert Byrd, a former recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan. Notably, the Ku Klux Klan was started by Democrats in 1866 and became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party for the purpose of terrorizing and lynching Republicans—black and white. Byrd became a prominent leader in the Democrat-controlled Congress where he was honored by his fellow Democrats as the “conscience of the Senate.”

Byrd was a fierce opponent of desegregating the military and complained in one letter: “I would rather die a thousand times and see old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen of the wilds.”

Democrats denounced US Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about US Senator Strom Thurmond. However, there was silence when Democrat US Senator Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been “a great senator for any moment.” Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and, after he became a Republican, Thurmond defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. While turning a blind eye to how the Democratic Party embraced Byrd until his death, Democrats regularly lambaste the Republican Party about David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

Ignored are the facts that the Republican Party never embraced Duke and when he ran for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 1992, Republican Party officials tried to block his participation. Hypocritical is the word for how Democrats also ignore Duke’s long participation in the Democratic Party with no efforts by Democrats to block him. Below is Duke’s political history in Louisiana, which has an open primary system.

Duke ran for Louisiana State Senator as a Democrat in 1975. He ran again for the Louisiana State Senate in 1979 as a Democrat. In 1988, he made a bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Then, on election day in 1988, he had himself listed on the presidential ballot as an “Independent Populist.” After his unbroken string of losses as a Democrat and an Independent Populist, Duke decided to describe himself as a Republican, then ran the following races where he lost every time: in 1989 he ran for Louisiana State Representative; in 1990, he ran for US Senator; in 1991 he ran for Governor of Louisiana; in 1992 he ran for president; in 1996 he ran for US Senator; and in 1999 he ran for US Representative.

Contrary to popular belief, President Lyndon Johnson did not predict a racist exodus to the Republican Party from the Democratic Party because of Johnson’s support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Omitted from the Democrats’ rewritten history is what Johnson actually meant by his prediction.

Johnson feared that the racist Democrats would again form a third party, such as the short-lived States Rights Democratic Party. In fact, Alabama’s Democrat Governor George C. Wallace in 1968 started the American Independent Party that attracted other racist candidates, including Democrat Governor Lester Maddox.

Behind closed doors, Johnson said: “These Negroes, they’re getting uppity these days. That’s a problem for us, since they got something now they never had before. The political pull to back up their upityness. Now, we’ve got to do something about this. We’ve got to give them a little something. Just enough to quiet them down, but not enough to make a difference. If we don’t move at all, their allies will line up against us. And there’ll be no way to stop them. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Johnson, who pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, Dirksen was instrumental to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968. Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.

Democrats condemn Republican President Richard Nixon for his so-called “Southern Strategy.” These same Democrats expressed no concern when the racially segregated South voted solidly for Democrats for over 100 years, while deriding Republicans because of the thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party.

The “Southern Strategy” that began in the 1970’s was an effort by Nixon to get fair-minded people in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were discriminating against blacks. Georgia did not switch until 2004, and Louisiana was controlled by Democrats until the election of Republican Bobby Jindal, a person of color, as governor in 2007.

As the co-architect of Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, Pat Buchanan provided a first-hand account of the origin and intent of that strategy in a 2002 article posted on the Internet. Buchanan wrote that Nixon declared that the Republican Party would be built on a foundation of states’ rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense. Nixon said he would leave it to the Democratic Party to squeeze the last ounce of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.

The Claremont Institute published an eye-opening article by Gerard Alexander entitled “The Myth of the Racist Republicans”, an analysis of the decades-long shift of the South from the racist Democratic Party to the racially tolerant Republican Party. That article can be found on the Internet.

Another article on this subject by Mr. Alexander is entitled “Conservatism does not equal racism. So why do many liberals assume it does?” and is posted on the Internet.

More details about the history of civil rights can be found in the NBRA Civil Rights Newsletter that can be found on the Internet.
An excellent video about civil rights history entitled “A pebble in Your Shoe: Why I am a Republican” by Dr. James Taylor is posted on YouTube.


Frances Rice is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and Chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She may be contacted at: www.NBRA.in

KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party
By Frances Rice

History shows that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the
Democrat Party. This ugly fact about the Democrat Party is detailed in
the book, A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row
Publishers, Inc., 1990) by Dr. Eric Foner, the renown liberal historian
who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University.
As a further testament to his impeccable credentials, Professor Foner is
only the second person to serve as president of the three major
professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians,
American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians.
Democrats in the last century did not hide their connections to the Ku
Klux Klan. Georgia-born Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Grand Dragon
of the Ku Klux Klan wrote on page 21 of the September 1928 edition of
the Klan’s “The Kourier Magazine”: “I have never voted for any man who
was not a regular Democrat. My father … never voted for any man who was
not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in
reconstruction days…. My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat….
My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic
party.”

Dr. Foner in his book explores the history of the origins of Ku Klux
Klan and provides a chilling account of the atrocities committed by
Democrats against Republicans, black and white.

On page 146 of his book, Professor Foner wrote: “Founded in 1866 as a
Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every
Southern state, launching a ‘reign of terror‘ against Republican leaders
black and white.” Page 184 of his book contains the definitive
statements: “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the
interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who
desired the restoration of white supremacy. It aimed to destroy the
Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state,
reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial
subordination in every aspect of Southern life.”

Heartbreaking are Professor Foner’s recitations of the horrific acts of
terror inflicted by Democrats on black and white Republicans. Recounted
on pages 184-185 of his book is one such act of terror: “Jack Dupree, a
victim of a particularly brutal murder in Monroe County, Mississippi -
assailants cut his throat and disemboweled him, all within sight of his
wife, who had just given birth to twins - was ‘president of a republican
club‘ and known as a man who ‘would speak his mind.’”

“White gangs roamed New Orleans, intimidating blacks and breaking up
Republican meetings,“ wrote Dr. Foner on page 146 of his book. On page
186, he wrote: “An even more extensive ‘reign of terror’ engulfed
Jackson, a plantation county in Florida’s panhandle. ‘That is where
Satan has his seat,‘ remarked a black clergyman; all told over 150
persons were killed, among them black leaders and Jewish merchant Samuel
Fleischman, resented for his Republican views and for dealing fairly
with black customers.“

Frances Rice is the Chairman of the National Black Republican Association and may be contacted at: http://www.nbra.info/


Care to try again? I will be waiting for your response of hyperbole and rhetoric with no facts. I also doubt you lack the balls to post this info on your own wall, lest you look more like a fool. The golden part is, the notes will show my response and the TRUTH will once again be out there. This is what you call: game, set, match. Buh-bye!!

mike the wiz #fundie evolutionfairytale.com

NNJamerson, in another thread you have ALLUDED that I am an ignoramus and you are the informed one saying, it "appears you don't even know what an insect is". The word "insect" in fact can and is used for a spider, as a colloquialism, by most people.

. If it is true that I/we as creationists, am worthy of derision, then since I myself invented these following questions that pertain to evolution theory, it would be quite silly for you to then believe that if I know all of the answers but you don't, that I am the uninformed ignoramus. And so I made the thread for evolutionists so I can link them to it when they play those cards.

(Reductio Ad Absurdum = if I was an ignoramus I WOULD know the answers)

Absurd, I would obviously not know them nor be able to invent the questions therefore I am not an ignoramus. (modus tollens)

Similarly we can also say that if you are superior to me in knowledge, you would certainly know the answers since I do know them.

1. Could the evolutionist now explain to me why the more heterozygous alleles in one gene-pool would be better in regard to sickled blood cells, as opposed to the more homozygous allele frequencies in another gene pool, in relation to a certain disease?

2. Could the evolutionist explain the difference between the cursorial theory and the arboreal theory in regards to the different way to achieve morphological flaps/rudimentary wings, for gliding. Clue: Crocodilomorphs. Please explain the two conjectural ways to achieve flight.

3. Could the evolutionist explain to me the difference between a retrogressive feature and a homoplastic feature?

5. Could the evolutionist explain to me what a monophyletic group is as opposed to a polyphyletic one?

6. Could the evolutionist give me another name for differential reproduction.

8. Could the evolutionist explain the difference between homological structures and morphological function in them, by giving an example.

9. Could the evolutionist please explain what the term is for a change in the use of features for a function such as protofeathers initially being used for insulation but then used for flight. --------.

10. Could the evolutionist tell me the term used for the reintroduction of information into a gene pool? ---- ----.

11. Could the evolutionist tell me the difference between an acquired characteristic, and a shared, derived characteristic by explaining in full, the difference.

?12. The seahorse is the only real v------- fish.

13. What is the term that can be used in place of this term; "stasis" = n--------- ---------.

14. What homoplasy do oil birds and whales share?

15. Apes are, a------, as they dwell in trees. Humans are -------, because we sleep at night.

16. The law of ------------- means that the tertiary cannot outdate the cambrian, according to the long-age paradigm.

17. A fossil is starting to p------------ if it is starting to lose it's actual boney remains.

18. What is another name for conjectural excuses that are invoked posteriori in order to explain why facts don't fit with a theory; A ----- ----------.

19. Karl Popper shown that a good way to predict what a theory would evidence is by using the form of a ----- -o--- by placing confirmation evidence in the place of the c---------.

20. What is the type of reasoning for confirmation evidence in the form of a tally or statistics, ---------.

LOGIC QUESTIONS NOW:

1. The opposite of a contradiction by definition is a ---------.

2. What is the name of this fallacy; "you are either with me or against me".

3. What is the name of this logical error that depends on coincidence; "X before Y therefore X caused Y" --- --- ---------

4. What is the latin name for this fallacy; "Professor X said it is true therefore it must be, and here is all of the work he has done on the subject...."

5. Give an example of a a false No-true scotsman fallacy, that has not actually been committed.

(I think I will just keep this thread to show to evolutionists that enjoy making it seem like creationists are totally ignorant.)

The Young Earth Creation Club #fundie creationists.org

Website title: Steve Irwin (The Crocodile Hunter)
was not a hero or a role model

Was his death an accident or a judgment from God?

This first issue I'd like to address here is why ask this question? There are two reasons. First, it should be acknowledged that in conservative Christian circles all around the world this question has probably come up many times already. Christians who are familiar with the Bible know that God can and will take this kind of action if he has a mind to do so. So it's a fair question from a Biblical perspective. Second, if this truly was a judgment from God, then it may have been done to make a point he wanted the rest of us to understand. That point could be a) there are limits to his patience, b) he's watching and keeping score, c) a reminder that he is not just a God of love and mercy, but also of wrath and judgment. Again, Christians are already considering that possibility, but the secular media seems oblivious to it. If you're not aware that it at least could have been a judgment from God, then you may completely miss the point(s) God was trying to make.

Only God knows with certainty the answer to that question. However, it is naive to dismiss the possibility that God may have directed his wrath against him just because of how "good" one thinks Mr. Irwin may have been. It also demonstrates a poor understanding of what God tells us about himself concerning his wrath and judgment. There are several reasons to at least consider the possibility that his "accidental" death may in fact have been a judgment from God.

1. Mr. Irwin engaged in what God tells us in scriptures that he considers to be an exceptionally wicked practice of causing Christians to stumble in their faith. He did this by his unrepentant promotion of evolutionism.
2. Because he had such a large worldwide audience and was so entertaining and likeable (and therefore very influential), common sense would suggest that he was probably a very large blip on God's radar screen.
3. God tells us in Romans 9 that he sometimes will put up with (what he refers to as "longsuffering") with those who are engaged in unrepentant wickedness so that at some point he can make an example of them by eventually directing his wrath against them.
4. Given the completely unexpected way Mr. Irwin was killed by a normally docile creature that has only killed 2 other people in Australia prior to this, it almost looks like God may have caught him off-guard the very same way he's going to catch millions of other non-Christians off-guard when he returns to the Earth in his glorious second coming. See if the way Mr. Irwin died doesn't bear some small resemblance to this prophecy in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 about the end-times, but on a much smaller scale.

Kevin Rigby Jr. and Hari Ziyad #racist racebaitr.com

We want whiteness banished to history—to an other-space of that which is unknown and impossible. There is no way in which whiteness can move that is freeing or liberating for Black people, so there is no way for white people to free or liberate.

Whiteness is indivisible from white people. To identify as white is to claim the social structure of whiteness, is to always wade in the waters of anti-Blackness. Sociologist Anthony Giddens criticizes our general conceptualization of social structure for having “a tendency to view structure and symbols as somehow alien to the actors who produce, reproduce, and transform these structures and symbols” (The Structure of Sociological Theory, Turner 1991: 523). It is this tendency that so easily clouds our understanding of whiteness and motivates us to embrace white allyship. Black liberation would mean the destruction of whiteness, but whiteness is upheld by all white people. White people cannot escape upholding it.

Constitutive of progressive white people and spaces has always been the question; “How can I, as a white person, work affirmatively in the struggle for Black liberation?” People have engaged this question as a genuine possibility throughout history; of there being a way, however not-yet-understood, for white people to do whiteness well, and, in doing so, aid Black people in getting free. But on a very real level, Black liberation would radically necessitate the refusal of anyone knowing themselves as white. It would mean the actual end of white selves, including the well-meaning white selves seeking the answer to how they can address racism. Black liberation means that white people can only destroy their own whiteness or be destroyed with it. White people cannot exist as white and do anything to address racism, because whiteness in action is racism.

But as much as this argument is a stance against whiteness, it is also a deep affirmation of the totality of Blackness; a declaration that Blackness is enough. More than considering the place or non-place of whiteness, we are concerned with the dream-work of Black folks, that reflexive work we do and have always done trying to better know how to love and be with and in community with ourselves and each other. That work has forever been Black, has never needed whiteness, has best succeeded when we refused whiteness.

There is no answer to the question of what white people can do for Black liberation, but racism veils reality so easily and efficiently. It is anti-reality. It makes the impossible seem not only possible, but a worthwhile endeavor. It truly does keep you, as Toni Morrison said, “from doing your work. It keeps you explaining, over and over again.”

The dilemma of what white people should do to address racism has the same exhausting function of racism, because this dilemma is racism. Because for white people “to do” anything means that whiteness must be centered in a way that would perpetuate its oppressive essentiality.

There is nothing redeeming or redeemable about whiteness—by definition. Only the radical negation of it is helpful or freeing. And it is not enough for us as Black people to encourage or allow white people to try their hand at addressing racism. It is necessary instead to adopt a politic of exclusion. This is to build upon Malcolm X’s claim in The Autobiography of Malcolm X that “Where the really sincere white people have got to do their ‘proving’ of themselves is not among the black victims, but out on the battle lines of where America’s racism really is,” (X, Haley 1964: 383–384) with the vital understanding that Black victims exist everywhere whiteness does.

Therefore, white people should move comfortably in neither Black spaces nor white spaces. Even those who are well-meaning should drive themselves into the ground trying to figure out how to occupy a positive whiteness—because it is impossible. Only in this frenzy, when the sense of order that is critical to whiteness turns to chaos in every place, can the motivation to destroy it overcome the compulsion to reform it.

Contending that whiteness has no value or role in the struggle for Black liberation is an immense claim, but it is a necessary one if we are to be free. The sooner we take seriously that Black people are the best articulators, dreamers and fighters for the future in which we are liberated, the closer we are to the manifestation of freedom. Important to remember is what is made possible for Black people, is made possible for all people. There is no need to consider how whiteness can operate in this. It can’t. It shouldn’t. It won’t in any future in which we are free.

The question of “doing whiteness well” is a question which centers a discussion about Black liberation on the actions of white people. We know that white people maintain hegemonic presences in all institutional forms of power. So, to have a conversation about white people working for Black liberation is to have a conversation predicated on the need for white people to wield institutional power and influence to help Black people. In this context, white people maintain systemic power, and Black people are the recipients of their benevolence. That white people might maintain power in shaping and dreaming up Black liberation is counterrevolutionary. Black liberation must always center on the assault against and defiance of these institutions. “We do not negotiate with terrorists.”1)

Indeed, when we’ve seen white people try to do whiteness well, try to operate their spheres of power and influence well, we’ve also seen the martyrdom of Black women murdered by police to bring white people to reckon with their sins. We’ve seen white men starting campaigns professing the beauty of Black women, only to soon after realize it came hand in hand with the violent claiming of and sense of entitlement to Blackness and Black bodies.

This is all to say, importantly, that whiteness cannot be done well, cannot be done without violence or without being in opposition to Blackness and Black freedom. But the extent of this lies far beyond ashy campaigns and disturbing open letters begging other white people to atone for their sins using the blood of Black women. We must critically engage the possibility that whiteness is only violent to Blackness, is only and can only ever be antithetical to Black liberation.

That we conceptualize whiteness as having a positive operation in the fight for Black liberation is perhaps the single greatest success of the normative functions of a colonialist State. That is to say, we have been successfully hoodwinked to believe that which harms us most vitally might also be able to save us.

“Rather than emerging from a scientific perspective, the notion, ‘race,’ is informed by historical, social, cultural, and political values,” writes Teresa J. Guess in The Social Construction of Whiteness: Racism by Intent, Racism by Consequence, “thus… the concept ‘race’ is based on socially constructed, but socially, and certainly scientifically, outmoded beliefs about the inherent superiority and inferiority of groups based on racial distinctions.” What this means is that race is designed as a hierarchal structure, and whiteness is constructed for no other purpose than to occupy the space of racial superiority. Therefore, to exist and act as white is to reinforce the dominance of whiteness.

Indeed, there would be no white race, no “race” as we know it, if whiteness weren’t positioned in violent dominion. That is the only thing it can do. Whiteness cannot operate in any way that does not first perpetuate white supremacy.

This, of course, is not to say that white people have not been the conduits for necessary Black liberation work. White people surely played integral roles in the freedom rides, abolition movement and the Civil Rights movement. But those roles were meticulously crafted by the toils, lives, death and suffering of Black people. The energy forced through those conduits was painstakingly produced by Black folks. To credit it as anything else is to fall prey to the same tempting veil of racism that motivates us to seek the impossible from our white allies. White people playing a role in liberation work are always merely actors, and the work done with them always done entirely in spite of their whiteness, not because of it.

All ways of addressing Black liberation for which white people are praised is always work Black people—Black poor and working class women, trans, non-binary, disabled and queer people especially—have already done and been doing and have made possible for white people to know.

Even John Brown, the white abolitionist who was executed in 1859 after leading an insurrection against pro-slavery forces, furthered the legacy of the likes of Nat Turner and other Black folks who fought and died for their own freedom before him. We must be sure in recognizing that dying for freedom did not begin with Brown, was not his legacy to create. Though perhaps in death, in a significant sacrifice of self, he and those like him have shed light on what it could mean to give up whiteness for good. When whiteness is so seeped into your being, might giving it up necessitate a threat to one’s safety and existence?

And where do white people exist in safety? In settler colonial societies, positions of power are designated and protected for whiteness. Perhaps the only action white folks can take—barring physical disappearance—in the struggle for Black liberation, for them to successfully put an end to their own whiteness, is the absolute absolving of their places and power. Their literal disappearance from the State and its institutions. It is worth exploring what this would mean for the the persistence of capitalism and the State. Is demanding the destruction of whiteness from the State to demand the destruction of the State, which was created by and has only ever known itself in service to (and in tandem with) whiteness? Which, each together, have only ever worked to maintain capitalism, anti-Blackness, and the disappearance of Indigenous people?

As John Stanfield writes in Theoretical and Ideological Barriers to the Study of Race-Making, “Racism and race-making are part and parcel of the manner by which major industrial, European-descent nation states such as the United States have originated and developed” (Stanfield 1985:161-162). This is how capitalism, anti-Indigeneity and anti-Black racism are intrinsically tied. None can exist in any way that is good for Black people. The presence of each is specifically predicated on Black subjugation.

After whiteness is obliterated, at that point, what the people who now identify as white should do is a giant theoretical exercise: what comes after whiteness? How does someone become not white? That is the legitimate and critical work of many. But our focus is always on Black folks figuring out new and better ways to get free—independent of white people and capitalism and the entirety of western empires. We are confident that our dreamings of freedom can crumble whiteness, capitalism and empire without giving deep consideration to the question of “what do we do with it”. We’re only interested in the work of building past it.

Kevin Rigby Jr. and Hari Ziyad are Black, queer, non-binary dreamers who, in some reality not yet here, are married, gendered or ungendered without colonial restriction, and free.

Nick Fuentes and commenters #racist twitter.com

Nick FuentesWe are witnessing the decolonization of America— the uprooting and destruction of European civilization built on this land. It will be replaced by the same savagery that European explorers found on this continent centuries ago. It’s critically important that the statues of Columbus are the first to go. The effect of European colonization was to civilize the Western hemisphere. And soon the reverse will be true— the effect of decolonization will be to un-civilize this hemisphere.

Bon Sheckerman: These cosplayers are terrified of people in Suburbs & Rural Areas. 90% of our Military, Police, Gun Owners, Hunters & MMA Fighters are Red. A real war would be a 1 sided blood bath. They want none of that

StoryRory: “Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.”

Anonamouse: One of the biggest faliures of the right was ceding social issues for chasing profits around the world (muh free market). We are seeing the demise of Americana and our culture while a bunch of 1%ers virtue signal in their compounds.

Julia: It’s not decolonization. It’s colonization. They are trying to colonize US in the nations WE built.

theicarlyangel #fundie comments.deviantart.com

thanks to them, I call myself homophobic because of how mean and nasty they are. One of them sent me a gay porn fanfiction and I was disgusted, but I dealt with him maturely and blocked him. Now I really DO consider myself homophobic because they're terrifying. As one a cartoon animated character once said, "You think the only people, are people who think like you."
Be proud of being homophobic/hating homosexuality. I get bullied too and been told to die in Hell. :XD: Idgafudge though. :D That just shows them how immature they can be. :) I am never teaching my kids homosexuality is okay, but I will also not let them bully the LGBT. The LGBT is just hurt and confused, if they would just stop being so mean and respect others' beliefs, that'd be great. And accepting a belief is not the same thing as supporting a belief.


[ "Do you know the reasons WHY the LGBT community is often hurt and confused?" ]

Bullied, kicked out of their homes, etc. So yeah, I do know. Why should that change my viewpoint that I don't agree with homosexual rights?

[ "Have you seen the way society treats homosexuals?" ]

No, but I surely do see how homosexuals treat non-supporters of homosexuality.

[ "They are constantly being shunned simply for their sexuality. I've heard of people who can't get a job just for being gay, gay children are being disowned and kicked out of their houses by their own parents, people have even been MURDERED just for the sake of being homosexual. The treatment towards REAL homosexuals is more than just "bullying the LGBT"." ]

Yes, and guess what? People who don't support homosexuality also get shunned simply because of their own belief and viewpoint AND on what they wish to follow. People also get fired from their jobs if they disagree with homosexuality which isn't fair either. Yes, in OTHER COUNTRIES. I did nothing. Don't bash me, someone that's innocent who doesn't wish death upon homosexuals. People have also sent me death threats for not support homosexuality. I guess being on both sides sucks.

[ "Homosexuals aren't just sensitive or butthurt about people having different beliefs. They're not being "mean"; they're biting back." ]

But I did NOTHING. Why bash someone innocent when I did NOTHING? Do you think every freaking non-support of the homosexuality club wishes death upon people or wants them to die or wants them to be bullied? NO. What they're doing is sick and wrong. (I'm talking about the whole biting back issue.) They are butthurt and sensitive when someone doesn't follow their ways, so yeah. There's a HUGE problem here.

[ "Now I'm not saying that I HAVEN'T seen any rabid or immature LGBT members, but the main reasons for homosexuals attacking the homophobes back is NOT simply because of the fact that they don't support LGBT; it's because they're fighting to earn the same rights for not being judged by their sexuality, since enough homophobes have already judged gays simply by their sexuality. Telling a gay person to respect a homophobe's opinion is basically like telling a black person to respect a racist's opinion." ]

A skin color is different from a sexuality. Don't even compare the two. -_- I do not wish for gay/lesbian coupling to be as equal as straight coupling. What REALLY needs to happen here is for the LGBT to fight back the bullies and search for someone who is open-minded and kind. Religious people also get bashed as well. Now, imagine if everyone followed the bible, THEN everyone get along as well, but NO. Not going to happen, want to know why? Because not everyone believes God exists, not everyone thinks he made our world. They believe in the Big Bang Theory. Sure, it would be easier if everyone got along, but not everyone is going to see eye-to-eye and you need to learn to cope with it.

[ I am sorry, but the fact that you are ONLY looking at rabid LGBT members who have attacked YOU on the Internet makes you sound biased. NOT ALL homosexuals attack homophobes for not following their beliefs, but you treat it like they do. You probably still missed my point that LGBT is MORE than just an "opinion". I brought up race with sexuality because... as I said, they are both a matter of human rights. You can't just simply tell gays to respect homophobes' opinions and get over it because "Oh everyone thinks differently and we should all respect each other's beliefs just fine and dandy like that", no. Then can we just simply say that blacks should respect racists' opinions or that women should respect sexists' opinions just because they think differently. ]

First of all, I don't need to be 'educated' when I obviously am going to disagree with you. No, I don't. Also I know that, and I know not all homosexuals are bad and they actually accept me for me. No, a sexuality is NOT human rights. Yaoi and Yuri is wrong and it will forever BE wrong. You may think whatever you'd like, go on. You've got a choice to be gay or not, I don't think they should be as accepted as straight couples because homosexuality IS wrong. I don't know why you bring racism into something that is gay. I don't know enough about racism to debate about that so I am going to leave you be for someone else to argue with you.

[ Really? You're just going to let a serious issue slide like that? Being oppressed/disowned/killed over one little aspect means nothing to you? ]

Ummm... I'm gonna say, yes. Because hey, everyone's been through Hell and that's me included, but you gotta stay boss and move onwards and don't let people drive you down in the dirt. You gotta think happily and positively and whatever has been done has been done. I can't do anything about that. Do I think it's okay for them to be oppressed, disowned, and killed? No. Do I have to worry about it? No. Because I don't live where they are and I can't help them out when I am probably half-way across the world. Like someone said, ya gotta leave the past behind ya. It's not my fault it's still going on. No need to bash on me.

[ So you're basically saying an inferior group is not allowed to be equal as a superior group just based on their sexuality? Welp, I'm sorry, but that IS judging people by their sexuality, saying that homos don't deserve the same rights as straights. You are basically okay with oppressing human rights there. No, I disagree! ]

How on Earth is that judging someone on their sexuality?! JUST HOW? I don't understand your logic, what gave you that conclusion?! I NEVER said I want homosexuals to die and rot in Hell, seriously and that they should be treated like garbage, WHAT made you come to that conclusion? Are you that dense and close-minded or what? Agreeing with someone's rights is not the same thing as accepting someone for who they are.


[ Also, I have often seen you try to use "I hate homosexuality, but not homosexuals" as an excuse. That doesn't even make any friggin sense. It'd be like saying "I hate black skin color but I don't hate black people!" or "I hate vaginas but don't hate women for having them". Here's another reason I bring up sexism/racism to homophobia. Like different races with their skin color, homosexuals can NOT control their sexuality. They can't just wake up one morning and decide "Oh I want to be gay from now on!". Sexuality is a NATURAL aspect that people carry with them from birth or at a very young age. You can't change sexuality, and that is why most homosexuals hate homophobes. They are being oppressed for having a natural trait that they can't control, and that is another form of anti human rights. ]

Okay, first of all, it does make sense. It means I hate same-gender coupling and I could care less about it, but to people who like it or who are gay, then fine. I won't stop you. Be whoever you want. Give me one good reason why I should hate you over your sexuality. Don't you dare compare someone's skin color to a sexuality. Those are TWO different things. Look, I don't think racism is that much of an issue because from where I live, there's not much of it here... and anyways, loving someone versus a color of a skin are two completely different things. Sure, you can't help if someone has a skin color or if someone's gay, that's just who they are. It doesn't mean I hate them, it just means I would either hate their skin color or a sexuality. Just like if someone wore an outfit you personally don't like. You don't have to like it, it's their style and their choice. I for one don't hate anyone for being black/tan. It is not NATURAL. Okay, I can't change a sexuality, but what I can do is be against homosexuality. I am not supporting the idea to oppressed people. Seriously, how does someone NOT support homosexuality made you even come to that conclusion?

Ugh, I am done here. You're way too thick-headed for me. Go do something that makes you happy and positive. We are obviously gonna disagree here and nothing you say will change my mind and I will not change my beliefs just to please you. Have an awesome day and remember: Treat others the way you like to be treated.


[Also, regarding your last comment there; Just because you have not been oppressed it doesn't mean that you simply shouldn't care. There is a thing called empathy. If you could just put herself in a homosexual's shoes for once, you would know that being abandoned and killed just for being gay is not something you can just "think positively and get over with" about.]

I do care and I do feel bad for them, but I shouldn't worry about it. I should worry about myself and what needs to get done and what I can do to help make things a better place. Heck, I've been sexually abused since I was little, been bullied and harassed since the 3rd grade, and have gotten my heart broken. When people debate with me, my heart and liver hurts even more. It REALLY does. Which is why I tend to block people and think happily and positively and worry about myself first. I still need to worry about the work I need to get done and how am I going to succeed in life.

[ When you say that famous line 'treat others the way you want to be treated' , you need to understand that it also means that involves human rights as well. And that no one should be denied them. You wouldn't like your rights being taken away I'm sure. ]

Straight is normal and since two of the opposite gender can make a baby, I feel okay with that. I'm sorry, I disagree. Don't debate about me on this though, just please don't. I really think the LGBT should just stick up for themselves for once and call the cops. Maybe it's not easy, but I am here to help out whenever someone is needed. This involves NOT harming the innocent and shoving their beliefs down others' throats. Sorry, my mind has not changed and I don't want to debate about this.

Pastor Scott #fundie sbcopenforum.com

Responding to the Chart “So You Still Think Homosexuality is Sinful?”

Here is a post I recently put up at my “pastor’s blog” for my church. I am starting a regular post entitled ‘Ask the Pastor’ to give me an opportunity to answer question our folks have about theological issues, and living-out a biblically faithful life in the presence of the challenges we face in our world today. Here is what I posted:

In this post, I am going to answer the challenges put before us by someone who advocates in favor of same-sex marriage and against a biblical world view. Below is a picture of a chart which is making the rounds on the Internet, especially Facebook. The title of the chart is “So You Still Think Homosexuality is Sinful?” with the tag line of “And Therefore Gays Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Marry?” Here is that chart:


The question brought to me regarding this chart is pretty straightforward, “How do we answer the objections raised here?” In other words, when someone makes what sounds like a legitimate argument regarding the issue of homosexuality and what the Bible has to say about it or a related topic, how are we to respond? This is a great question which gets to the heart of what I hope we are able to do with these Ask the Pastor posts: When faced with the issues in our world today how are we as biblically faithful followers of Jesus Christ to think about and respond to them?

The bottom-line answer is really quite simple, we think, trust, and live according to what God’s word says. This statement is absolutely true, yet is somewhat incomplete. We must ask ourselves if the Bible is reliable and how do we find the assurance that our understanding of the Bible is correct. I do not wish to get side-tracked into a discussion of the apologetic for the reliability and veracity of the Bible. Perhaps that could be another post at another time. Suffice it to say that as Christians we place all our trust in God’s complete revelation found in the sixty-six books of the Bible. Upon that trust, we then embark upon diligent study of Scripture and develop our theological convictions. The consistency of right understanding is borne out in a logical cohesion of all biblical texts, proper understanding of the original languages and translation, the history of the time, and the continued witness of Christians throughout history. For example, we can assert much about the orthodox fact that God is triune–the Trinity–because we see numerous passages referencing our One great God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We also benefit from biblical linguistic scholars who have diligently studied the Hebrew and Greek to assure us of right understanding of the words in the Bible. We know of the history in which God revealed Himself, and we see established the unique nature of God in contrast to pagan religion. Finally, throughout church history Christians have come together and labeled any other description of God as unorthodox heresy. These same factors figure in to our understanding of what God says in His word about homosexuality.

For my focus here, I’m going to respond to each one of the reasons listed in the chart in rejecting homosexuality as sin thus advocating for same-sex marriage. I take them from left to right across the presentation of the chart:

“Jesus Never Uttered A Word about Same-Sex Relationships”:

This is simply FALSE. Jesus has spoken at length regarding the immorality of homosexuality. He is part of the eternally triune God and as such is the author of ALL SCRIPTURE from Genesis to Revelation. Those passages in the Old and New Testaments outside the Gospels–in which are found specific prohibitions regarding homosexuality–are just as much the words of Jesus as are the ‘red letters’ found in many of our Bibles which are attributed to Him during His earthly ministry.

A similar ‘argument from silence,’ as the one attempted by the author of the chart, could be made that in those passages where Jesus spoke directly to the issue of marriage–such as Matthew 5:31-32; 19:1-12, etc.–He took no opportunity to affirm same-sex marriage as valid, which one would assume He would want to do, so as to not be misunderstood.

“The O.T. Also Says It’s Sinful to Eat Shelfish, to Wear Clothes Woven with Different Fabrics, and to Eat Pork. Should We Still Live by O.T. Laws?”:

The question embodied in the final box of this section–“Should we still live by O.T. laws?”–does not have a simple yes-or-no answer, thus the question is ill-conceived and short-sighted. The reason the answer is not-so-simple lies in the fact that OT laws fall into three categories–civil, ceremonial, and moral. Civil laws applied to how Israel, as the people of God were to live within society. Ceremonial laws applied to matters of worship and special identity for Israel. Moral laws applied to right and wrong–what God calls righteous or sin. In the NT we read Scriptures which tell us that the ceremonial and many civil laws were no longer to be applied to God’s people (Acts 10:9-29; 11:1-14). Nowhere in the NT do we find nullification of the moral laws; in fact, Jesus Himself even shows us all just how deeply those laws still apply (Matthew 5:17-48).

“The Original Language of the N.T. Actually Refers to Male Prostitution, Molestation, or Promiscuity, not Committed Same-Sex Relationships. Paul May Have Spoken Against Homosexuality, but He Also Said That Women Should Be Silent and Never Assume Authority Over A Man. Shall Modern-Day Churches Live by All of Paul’s Values?”

The answer to the question posed in the bottom box is ‘Yes.’ We’ll return to the reason for that answer in a moment.

First we must address the error of the lengthy attempted justification of homosexuality based on the Greek words and context of the NT discussion. The assertion made by the originator of this chart is simply not proved. It is what biblical scholars call eisegesis, or reading into a biblical passage something which is not already there. The words used to describe homosexuality deal with a general description of sexual relationships involving people of the same gender. The most notable of these passages is Romans 1:18-32. Also, nothing in the context of Romans 1 or the other NT or OT passages which reference homosexuality draw any distinction between consensual or non-consensual same-sex relationships.

Returning to the question: Yes, we should live by “all of Paul’s values.” In this case, the author of the chart highlights “women should be silent and never assume authority over a man,” so let’s deal with that specifically. This statement references 1 Timothy 2:8-15. The referenced statement is made within the context of Paul’s instruction to Timothy on the structure and leadership of the local church (1 Timothy 3:1-7, & all of 1 Timothy). Paul’s assertion pertains to his argument that women are not to be pastors or deacons within the local church. Nothing is being said about women in positions of secular authority.

“That Was When the Earth Wasn’t Populated. There Are Now 6.79 Billion People. Breeding Clearly Isn’t an Issue Any More!”

This, aside from the ‘argument’ addressed on the very right side of this chart (which is nothing more than a stereotyping, straw-man attack on personality rather than a matter of substantive consideration), is the weakest of the arguments on this chart. The author concedes the actual statement of biblical truth. The simple fact is that the Bible explicitly states the order of creation is man and woman, who are created for sexual intimacy with those of the opposite gender (Genesis 2; Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:7; 1 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 5:31). Also, the fact that no population parameters exist within the Bible emphatically indicates that the commands limiting marriage to men to women are still applicable today.

“Wrong. The Bible Also Defines Marriage as One-Man-Many-Women, One Man Many Wives and Concubines, A Rapist & His Victim, and Conquering Soldier & Female Prisoner of War.”

To use the chart’s author’s own words regarding this statement…Wrong. The author is guilty of a confusion of categories, or category error. He attempts to equate two different types of Scriptural writing–prescriptive and descriptive. A prescriptive passage asserts something to be followed–Do not murder; Do not forsake the assembling of yourselves together; Honor your father and mother–while a descriptive passage simply reports that which happened–In the beginning God created; Judas went out and hung himself; John the Baptist came eating locusts and honey. Prescriptive passages give us commands to follow, even if given by example. They are often restated and affirmed as such in other parts of the Bible, such as is the case with the passages sited in the previous problem with relation to the definition of gender and marriage (Genesis 2; et al.). Descriptive Bible passages, such as have been correctly referenced by the author of the chart, merely state the observable facts, the narrative of historic events. Often times these references come with neither condemnation nor affirmation of the choices of those involved in the story. Such is the case with the examples sited in the chart.

One other interesting observation. Those examples sighted in an attempt to claim that the Bible advocates multiple definitions of marriage have at their foundation the biblical truth of men created for intimate relationships with women. No same-sex example of marriage can be cited from the Bible. To be sure though, all of those examples the chart author cited are indeed corruptions of the biblical prescription of one man for one woman for life.

Well…what I have attempted here is a relatively brief response to the various issues presented by this chart. Much more could be said. If you would like to see further discussion on one of these matters, please send me your question via the Ask the Pastor form on the blog here. I am also not averse to discussing specific questions pertaining to this post in the comment thread. I will certainly moderate it to be certain that it remains on topic, but would welcome helpful interaction on this topic.

As always, when we engage people who might bring these accusations against us or the Bible, we must always answer in a cordial, redemptive, and convictional manner. Thank you for your time in reading this post. Be looking for the next installment of “Ask the Pastor” soon.

By Grace Alone,

Pastor Scott

Mark Jones #fundie theologyreview.co.uk

So yesterday I was on Facebook and numerous articles came across my news feed, all relating to someone I’ve had a lot of respect for over the years, that is Eugene Peterson. For those who don’t know who Peterson is, he is best known for his work in putting together one of the world’s most popular paraphrase Bibles, The Message. The Message came in at number 10 of the most popular Bible translations of 2016 according to Nielson. Because of the success of The Message, Peterson has long been in the public eye. But this past week he has come under a little scrutiny because of an article that was released by Religion News Service entitled Eugene Peterson on Changing His Mind About Same-Sex Issues and Marriage.

However, as with most stories that come out on the internet, there’s a little more to this story than meets the eye, so let’s investigate and try to get to the bottom of this issue that has the Christian online world in a bit of a storm. Let’s dig in shall we.

The RNS Article

The article is quite interesting, the contributor Jonathan Merritt introduces the piece by saying he wants to investigate Peterson’s views on homosexuality and gay marriage, as it is a very hot topic in the world today. This is certainly the case when you look at the way the world is today.

The question Merritt asks Peterson is interesting here, as is Peterson’s response. The question asked is what is the morality of same-sex relationships, and has your view changed on this over the years? Below is Peterson’s response to the question.

...

“In my own congregation — when I left, we had about 500 people — I don’t think we ever really made a big deal out of it. When I left, the minister of music left. She’d been there ever since I had been there. There we were, looking for a new minister of music. One of the young people that had grown up under my pastorship, he was a high school teacher and a musician. When he found out about the opening, he showed up in church one day and stood up and said, “I’d like to apply for the job of music director here, and I’m gay.” We didn’t have any gay people in the whole congregation. Well, some of them weren’t openly gay. But I was so pleased with the congregation. Nobody made any questions about it. And he was a really good musician.”

Peterson closes his answer by saying:

“I wouldn’t have said this 20 years ago, but now I know a lot of people who are gay and lesbian and they seem to have as good a spiritual life as I do. I think that kind of debate about lesbians and gays might be over. People who disapprove of it, they’ll probably just go to another church. So we’re in a transition and I think it’s a transition for the best, for the good. I don’t think it’s something that you can parade, but it’s not a right or wrong thing as far as I’m concerned.”

One thing to be immediately aware of here is that Peterson answer does not actually bring Scripture into play, but solely focuses on his experience with people who are of a homosexual persuasion who identify themselves as believers in Christ. Peterson also states that this would not have been his answer 20 years ago, the question is why? This is an assumption, but here’s my guess, gay marriage was not being pushed down the throats of society in 1997, whereas it is now.

Merritt then follows this initial question up with the question of would you ever perform a same-sex wedding ceremony, Peterson’s answer is YES.

This response has led to many Christian outlets writing response pieces on this. Including The Gospel Coalition, Church Leaders, and Christianity Today.

However, that is not the end of the story here, as Peterson has since retracted his comment on performing a same-sex marriage.

Peterson’s Retraction in the Washington Post

In an article released yesterday (13 July) entitled Popular Author Eugene Peterson: Actually, I Would Not Perform a Gay Marriage, Peterson retracted his comments on being willing to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony, saying.

“When put on the spot by this particular interviewer, I said yes in the moment. But on further reflection and prayer, I would like to retract that.”

Peterson says a lot more on the subject than this, so I would encourage you to read the full article as we won’t be covering every detail covered in the retraction story. However, Peterson did clarify what his view on homosexuality and gay marriage was in the following statement:

“To clarify, I affirm a biblical view of marriage: one man to one woman. I affirm a biblical view of everything.”

Peterson carries on with this:

“When I told this reporter that there are gay and lesbian people who “seem to have as good a spiritual life as I do,” I meant it. But then again, the goodness of a spiritual life is functionally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. We are saved by faith through grace that operates independent of our resolve or our good behavior. It operates by the hand of a loving God who desires for us to live in grace and truth and who does not tire of turning us toward both grace and truth. There have been gay people in a variety of congregations, campuses, and communities where I have served. My responsibility to them was the work of a pastor—to visit them, to care for their souls, to pray for them, to preach the Scriptures for them.”

Peterson closes the statement by saying that he regrets the confusion caused by the interview, this coming on the back of the statement earlier in the article that he prefers questions ahead of time to allow him to prepare appropriately for the interview that is to come.

RNS responded to this in an article released yesterday entitled Eugene Peterson Backtracks on Same-Sex Marriage. The article basically goes down the line that Peterson’s retraction is yet another blow to those who identify themselves as gay Christian’s and that God doesn’t love them any less because yet another prominent voice in the Church has stated that they do not affirm same-sex marriage.

Peterson’s retraction also came on the heels of Lifeway Christian Stores saying that they were considering pulling Peterson’s work out of its stores due to Peterson’s apparent new view on same-sex marriage.

So with all this information, and more in the sources linked below, what are we to make of the comments of Peterson on the subject of homosexuality and is it even relevant?

Getting to Grips With All of This

The honest answer to this subject is that there is no straightforward answer that will please everybody. However, on the question of is this relevant, the answer is a resounding yes.

A number of weeks ago I came across a comment on a Facebook thread about homosexuality, where a commenter asked: “Why are Christian’s so obsessed with homosexuality and gay marriage”? I responded to that question by saying that we are no more “obsessed” with the subject than those who are for homosexuality and gay marriage are. In fact, if you look deep into the debate, most of the time Christian’s are responding to something on the subject, not actively seeking out ways to predicate our view.

The hard truth is that the Bible does not affirm homosexuality, people can argue that Jesus never directly talks about homosexuality and therefore does not have a view on the subject, and therefore we should be “more like Jesus”. However, this argument is an argument from silence and is extremely lacking. For starters it ignores what Jesus says about marriage, that is to be between one man and one woman (a la the book of Genesis), and it also fails to have done a strong investigation on Jesus’ last days’ prophecy, which seems to include a reference to gay marriage in it. So, in reality, Jesus may very well have addressed gay marriage, without using the words gay marriage.

This may upset people who are wanting God to affirm this lifestyle for any reason. However to get the Bible to do this would require the altering of doctrine, ignoring God’s instruction in His word, or manipulating that said instruction to make it what those who want this affirming to say. But I do need to be blunt here and say that homosexuality is just like any other sin noted in scripture, the only real difference between homosexuality and any other sin is the mainstream attention it gets and the twitching ears who listen to big-name “Christian’s” who support same-sex marriage and homosexuality.

The fact of the matter is that as Christian’s it is not our responsibility to judge on this issue, and I mean judge in the Biblical sense of pronouncing a punishment on someone, that’s God’s job, not ours. We are to teach people the word and show what God says on the subject in a manner that is full of grace and truth. It’s like the cliche says, we are called to love the sinner, not the sin. There is a vast difference between saying that God says what someone is up to is a sin, and saying they heinous and full of sin. Because without the grace of God we are all heinous and full of sin.

Whatever your views of Peterson’s comments are, people need to know the love of God and the truth of His word. This means that we shouldn’t cave to societal pressure that tells us that tolerance is affirmation and acceptance, rather than what it actually means. As Christian’s we need to let the love of God be what stands out, and that is a love that is so loving it tells people the truth.

What do you think about Peterson’s recent comments? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.

Mark Jones is the Lead Writer at Theology Review. Mark is currently studying theology at Spurgeon's College, working towards completing the Church Training Initiative before moving on to their degree course. Mark has been a Christian since 2001, and now spends a lot of his time studying and researching various topics affecting Biblical and Church History. This has led him to start Theology Review, a place for thought and discussion on historical and current theology.

go #fundie answers.yahoo.com

Why are atheists so boring, hypocritical, and evil?
We already know they're Pagans because they worship science and nature (as proven by the fact that some of them capitalize these words) and that they have no morals because they don't believe in God. It's funny to see the large amounts of atheists who repent on their deathbeds: Darwin, Carlin, Huxley, Clarke, Sagan---- (just to name a few), they all repented.They found out the truth. You never hear of Christians repenting. Ever wonder why "born again atheism" isn't a term while "born again Christianity" is? It's because Christians know the truth, and atheists don't. Atheists take Bible verses completely out of context and use that as failed arguments against Christianity. This shows that they aren't as logical as they try to appear. Also, most atheists are evil dictators. Polpot, Stalin, Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il, Mao Tse Tung, they were all atheists. I don't even think they're human, they can't be. No human can be as hypocritical and boring as an atheist.

* 4 minutes ago
* - 3 days left to answer.

Additional Details

3 minutes ago
They are also very boring. To see proof of this yourself, browse the R&S section for a day. Innocent questions concerning religion are answered by atheists with horrible humor and overdone sarcasm. Any answer that correctly answers the question but that even slightly asserts the fact that there is a God is immediately given 26 thumbs down, meanwhile the idiot atheist who answered the question with something along the lines of "Religion is nothing but fairy tales invented to brainwash and control the masses" gets over 9000 thumbs up.

Repent your sins, atheists. I prayed for you today.

clirus #fundie christianforums.com

Democrats - Soft on Security

The Patriot Act fiasco again points out the fact that democrats are still soft on security. Being soft of security is what lead to the 9/11 attack that killed 3000 Americans in American cities. The democrats like to say they are protecting civil liberties. That is equivalent to their statements that pornography is freedom of speech, abortion is a woman's choice, and homosexuality is a civil right. It is no wonder Clinton knew he could get away with the big lie that, I did not have sex with that woman.

The fear of criticism by the Atheistic liberal news media is what keep Clinton from taking on Iraq and Afghanistan. Why should Republicans take the blame for solving problems and the democrats set around looking like peace lovers. It is ironic that people who solve problems are criticized and people who do nothing are praised. Of course the doing nothing catches up with you, as it did with 9/11.

The Middle East problem is not going to be solved until Syria and Iran are dealt with. If it is done by Republicans, it should be done with a full declaration of war that carries with it a total censorship of the news media. It is unlikely Republican will deal with the Syria and Iran issue because of the pain inflicted by the Atheistic liberal news media, and certainly the democrats are not going to do anything because they are soft on security.

I guess it is time to start preparing for the next Middle East war.

The list of things the democrats never got done is long. They never had an energy policy. They never had an education policy. They never had a medical insurance policy. They never had an immigration policy. They never had a solution for social security. The foreign policy of the democrats was an policy of appeasement that led to 9/11, the North Korea mess, and the failure to resolve the Israeli - Palestine problem. The only policies democrats do have are socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion and homosexuality, none of which should be supported by Christians.

Democrats are soft on security, but strong on sin.

During democratic administrations problems develop and there is little criticism. During Republican administrations problems are solved but there is great criticism. It is a wonder the Atheistic liberal news media has not questioned the legality of President Bush breathing. The Atheists who question the legality of everything President Bush does are the one who most often violate God's law. I wonder what would occur if there was a fair and balanced news media instead of the Atheistic liberal news media.

It is pitiful that America does have the stomach for the urban gorilla wars such as Iraq, because that is the model for all future wars. If Iran gets a nuclear device, it might be different, but generally the nature of war will be house to house and roadside bombs. You will know the war has been won when the people are providing tips on the enemy. I totally blame the inability to fight a urban gorilla war on the democrats and the Atheistic liberal news media.

Got Questions Ministries #fundie gotquestions.org

Question: "Is there an argument for the existence of God?"

Answer: The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that caused invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held those beliefs due to a “wish-fulfillment” factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted.

Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak.

To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.”

In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:

1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality is/was self-created.
3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.

So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.

Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.

Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:

• Something exists.
• Nothing cannot create something.
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.

Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?

To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.

Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.

Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:

• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:

• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (exceedingly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).

These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).

One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.

Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice.

This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”

So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13).

Paul Hellyer #ufo #conspiracy reddit.com

Mr. Hellyer, I'm going to post these questions also as a top level comment, as a private message and and through all of the websites you listed you are on I WANT THESE QUESTIONS ANSWERED and I want to make sure you see them.

I REALLY want to believe you are telling the truth, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Additionally, your quote below makes me skeptical of the legitimacy of this entire AMA:

They also enhanced my ability to communicate telepathically.
Is this a "natural" telepathic communication without any technology? Or did you elect to receive implants devices to enable you to do so? (To be fair, the latter actually sounds plausible, even with today's technology.)

My remaining questions are as follows:

1: Why haven't these species publicly announced their existence? Is it a galactic rule to avoid broad contact with an alien species until they reach a certain point of technological advancement on their own in order to preserve their own culture? Are we being "quarantined" because we are too violent? Are the human governments withholding their existence on their own for their own motives? If so what would those motives be?

2: Why haven't they shared their technology? (Faster than light travel, efficient energy production, etc.) If according to your wiki you say they don't believe we are good stewards of our planet (which is entirely agreeable) then why don't they help us?

3: According to your Wiki page, you claim some of these species are living on Mars, Venus, and one of Saturn's moons, so why haven't we found evidence of their habitats?

4: Have you met them in person or seen pictures of them? Are they all humanoid (ie bipedal, head on shoulder, two eyes, two arms, two legs, etc.) Or are some pf them wildly different in biology like oh say the Rachni from Mass Effect? If they are all humanoid, then what traits of a humanoid biology make it so special that it's the only body type that can allow for a technologically advanced species?

5: Can we eat the same food as any of them? If so, are they able to eat as huge of a range of foods as us humans? (A highly underrated ability of ours, IMO.) I am a huge foodie, so if this is all true and if we can eat their food, I would be in heaven.

6: I'm led to assume that if you are openly talking about this on Reddit, then that would mean that their existence is unclassified, because otherwise you'd be thrown in prison for the next ten years. Why is this unclassified, yet the governments won't talk about this?

Hi! I have done my best to answer your questions as best as I can.

For your first question, it is a “natural” communication without technology.

1. Some have. Valiants Thor, the Benevolent Venusian with an IQ of 1200 lived in the pentagon for three or four years, offered us Earthlings a richer, healthier life in exchange for giving up our nuclear weapons. His offer was not accepted. (More on Thor, including his picture, in my latest book Hope Restored.)
2. They shared their technology and both the US and Russia have adopted it for military purposes. Some has spilled over including microchips used in our smartphones. Unfortunately we could have had more in agriculture and medicine, for example, if we had abandoned our warlike ways.
3. The US has a lease on Mars and according to Courtney Brown, heard of the “Foresight” Institute, the martians have at least two colonies on Earth.
4. I have seen many pictures. They are not all humanoid, and some are quite different in appearance. To the best of my knowledge I have only been in their direct presence once. I am not a biologist, so you will have to look elsewhere for the range of difference which is considerable.
5. Again, there are mark difference between species in respect of what they eat and their digestive systems, which I have been told are quite different from our own.
6. Governments, especially the US government, have been working with several species for decades and knows an incredible amount about them. They have spent billions denying the existence of UFOs, ETs and their incredible characteristics. Only in recent days (last week) , have former US defence officials have admitted the reality of UFOs. I personally wonder about their motives. Unlike some whistle-blowers, I have broken no oaths. All my information has been gained from interviews and documents that have come my way but our discussion today has barely scratch the surface of these subjects. You need to read credible books - my books and others.

clirus #fundie christianforums.com

I totally believe Walter Cronkite will burn in hell for his actions during the Viet Nam war.

An example of the evil effects of Walter Cronkite's liberal democratic news media policy is the attempt to kill Zawahri. Democrats called for the killing of Bin Laden, but when there is an unsuccessful attempt to kill the second in command the liberal news media is very critical because there were women and children killed. Didn't the liberal news media and democrats know there are always women and children killed in any military action? Why should the Republicans ever attempt anything when they will be criticized if it does not go perfectly?

Democrats are unfit for duty as leaders of government.

bless&believe #fundie rr-bb.com

My son, who is 15, has a school friend (same age, I believe) which he talks to and invites over frequently, and I am just fine with this. But recently I found out (from a parent) that this friend is gay.

The last thing I want is my son to be corrupted into homosexuality. Now my son has never given me reason to believe that he is gay, but it saddens me that I had to go to another parent for this information, instead of my son telling me. Plus, lately it seems that he has been distancing himself from me, so you can never be too careful.

So the last time the friend came over (a few days ago), I kindly asked him to leave my home. The friend complied, but needless to say my son was very frustrated with me. I told him that it was just something he'll understand when he gets older, and that he'll appreciate me doing this eventually. But despite this he was still angry (stubborn teenagers), but he'll come around eventually I hope. It's been a few days now and he still seems a little upset.

Do you think I did the right thing? We go to Church regularly, so I thought by now he'd know that homosexuality is a sin. What should I do if my son stays upset?

(Thank you for taking the time to read this! Normally if I have questions I go to websites such as Yahoo Answers, but I often notice that Christians are constantly persecuted there. It feels much better posting on a website like this among other Christians that I can trust, so any responses will be appreciated!)

[Read: I'll post on a biased website so I can get the answer I'd like.]

-Julie
Reply With Quote

Chercheng Xiong #fundie revelation12.ca

On January 19, 2009 that night I have a dream, in that dream I saw the earth was covered with darkness and in the mid of the darkness, I saw a large beam of light shining like a very high power lamp all over a vast area. I began to wonder about that large light. I heard a voice from above telling me 3 times to focus on the lighted area.

I turned and look carefully toward that lighted area, in the mid of the light I saw a huge golden statue, that golden statue was the shining lamp to all those vast area, and along with this huge golden statue there were many smaller statues placed beside with this big one as a straight line, from the largest to the smallest statue. However, those smaller statues have no light at all but since the huge golden one were shining so bright that everyone of the smaller statues were also shining brightly.

I started to wonder and really wanted to know what’s the meaning of these statues because this is the first time I ever seen in my life. As I still wonder and keep questioning the Lord Jesus about the statues, I heard a voice from above saying, ” look very close to the biggest shining one, you’ll know its meaning “.

Suddenly, the Lord magnified the statue I carefully look at it one more time at the golden statue which shining like a high power lamp and it is an image of a man but he is dead, his eyes were closed and there is no life found in him at all but somehow, I wonder why he is shining so bright. I began asking the Lord, ” Oh Lord, how can a dead image can give out light, please tell me what is this golden statue represent? ” The voice from above said, ” you’ll know in just a moment.”

Suddenly, I saw countless numbers of people standing around the golden statues. Some of them were there to worshipping the statue, some of them just standing there and wonder because the golden statue were so bright, some of them were so happy to be there because the statue were just receiving his new power and authority, some of them were there because the statue gives them light in the mid of the darkness.

I started even more wonder and wanted to know what is the meaning of the statue, the voice of the Lord said, ” The shining statue that you are seeing is Barack Obama. ”Suddenly, a loud voice of a heavenly trumpet sound, a loud voice from heaven saying, ” any one that watch, worship, praise and rejoice with the golden statue and other smaller statues will never be caught up with the Lord in the sky but they all will be burned in hell.”

Valerie Sinason and Dr Fleur Fisher #conspiracy theguardian.com

At 9.02am Richard Felstead answered the phone; by 9.03am he was breathless with crying. It was the coroner's assistant in Battersea with the news that his sister, Carole, had died two weeks earlier. "I'm sorry it's taken so long to notify you," she said. "Carole's next of kin told us there was no family. But a letter was found – from you."

Two minutes later, the phone rang again. A different caller, with a strange voice, said, "I know you're not one of the ones that harmed Carole."

"Who are you?" said Richard.

"I'm Carole's next of kin."

"What's your name?"

"That's not important."

"How did Carole die?"

"She had a very difficult childhood."

"What? No she didn't."

"The cremation's tomorrow. People have taken time off work. It's very important it goes ahead."

Richard reacted furiously. The phone went dead.

The brothers gathered at their parents' Stockport home: Richard, David, Anthony and Kevin, whose principal memory of the morning of 14 July 2005 is his mother, "Finished. On the floor. Drained. Shattered. Gone." They began talking. Who was the mysterious caller who claimed to be Carole's "next of kin"? Why did she talk of a "difficult childhood" when Carole was happy and popular? She had a successful nursing career down in London. How could she die at just 41? Why had it taken two weeks to be informed? How could there be a funeral tomorrow?

Joseph, their father, stood up. "I'll put a stop to it."

"You can't stop a funeral, Dad!" said Kevin.

Joseph phoned the coroner's assistant. She brusquely informed him that, now the family had been discovered, the funeral would be halted. She mentioned a "life assessment", written by Carole. "It's very upsetting," she said. It was six pages, typed. It said: "My parents were abusive in every way imaginable - sexually, physically and emotionally. At three years of age, my mother smothered my sister. She sat me on top of her body and set the house on fire."

Joseph was astonished. "Had she been ill?" he said. "Had she been sectioned?"

The coroner's assistant replied: "Yes."

Over the coming weeks there came more questions. They were told the nameless "next of kin" had emptied Carole's flat and driven off in her car. Officials kept mentioning a "psychiatrist friend" who accompanied Carole to medical appointments. Joseph was speaking to a police inspector when something occurred to him. "This psychiatrist and this next of kin," he said. "Are they the same person?"

"That's right," said the inspector. "Dr Fleur Fisher."

The Felsteads' search for answers to the many mysteries surrounding Carole's decline is now in its sixth year. Endless letters and FOI requests, alongside hours of legal research and long nights on the internet, have resulted in the collection of hundreds of documents and the generation of yet more questions: angry ones about individuals they believe to have been malign presences in her life; strange ones about startling and little-known corners of human psychology; sad ones about the life and death of the kind and sparky woman they still miss every day.

When I tell them I'd like to write about Carole, they pass me the telephone number, discovered in Carole's phone records, of the woman whose role in the tale is, they're convinced, both sinister and central: that of the "next of kin", Dr Fleur Fisher.

"I'm not sure I want to talk about this," Fisher tells me. "You'll have to let me think about it. That family – they're bloody terrifying."

"You're frightened of them?"

"They're frightening people. And the things they've been saying," she says, adding confusingly: "I'm not a therapist!" She rings off, warning me darkly: "Tread carefully."

The house in which Carole grew up has mauve and dark-red rooms that are shadow-struck and decorated with golden candlestick holders, old family portraits and statues of dogs, birds and deer. Today Joseph sits glowering in the lounge, his patriarch's hands gripping his armchair. Kevin – a softer presence – informs me that Richard's at work, and Anthony's too distraught to speak. Their mother, Joan, passed away last year. David's here, though, friendly yet possessed of an anxious, wiry tension. Over the coming hours, he'll answer questions with flumes of facts and furious analysis, fossicking in boxes for the relevant document to illustrate his point.

For these men, Carole's life is as much a mystery as her death. She had been a friendly, bolshy and academically successful teenager, who loved watching M*A*S*H and wearing the tartan shorts beloved of her favourite band, the Bay City Rollers. She was popular at school and had a noted instinct for caring, going out of her way to play with Michael, the neighbour with Down's syndrome, and paying regular visits to a lonely old man down the road known as Mr Partridge. At 15 she got a weekend job in a home for the disabled. At 21 she qualified as a nurse at Stockport College and rented a nearby flat, making frequent visits back home to borrow milk and money, and sunbathe in the garden. And then, in the mid-1980s, there began a silent drift away from the family.

(...)

In 1986 they discovered Carole had moved to Macclesfield. She'd still send Christmas cards and ring occasionally, assuring them her career was going well. But by 1992 she had moved to London and changed her name from Carol Felstead to Carole Myers. They had to accept that Carole, for some reason, had chosen to stay away.

After her death they discovered Carole had become mentally ill. Her medical records revealed self-harm, alcohol abuse and stretches in psychiatric wards. She'd frequently been suicidal.

They felt shattered about the claims she'd made in her life assessment – and confused. She said she'd been abused by Joseph and his wife, who were the high priest and priestess of a satanic cult, and that during her teens she'd had six children – some fathered by Joseph – that she'd been forced to kill. She also said she had an implant in her eye that would explode if she spoke of the satanists, and that a friend she'd confided in was murdered in front of her.

Carole's charges were easily proven to be false. The sister, whose murder she'd apparently witnessed, actually died of heart problems two years before Carole was born. The house fire, too, predated Carole's birth. And yet, to the Felsteads' disbelief, it seemed the mental-health professionals rarely challenged these impossible horrors. Worse, they'd concluded that Carole's psychological problems came as a result of this fictitious abuse.

But the family is pointing the finger straight back at the clinicians. They believe the blame for Carole's psychological downfall lies with credulous, satanist-obsessed therapists who went along with her claims that she'd been sexually menaced. After all, they point out, it's happened before – most famously in Orkney in 1991, when nine children were forcibly removed from their homes following interviews by social workers led by an individual who was subsequently accused of being "fixated on finding satanic abuse".

I ask the Felsteads when the first mention of mental-health problems appear in Carole's medical records. In August 1985, it turns out, she received therapy for insomnia and nightmares related to "family abuse". Soon afterwards a 1986 letter mentions further "psycho-sexual counselling" by someone whose name sends a cold stun of recognition through me. It's her: the next of kin; the woman who baffled me by abruptly – perhaps defensively – announcing: "I'm not a therapist!" It's Dr Fisher.

Arriving back in London I'm in no doubt that Carole's abuse claims were untrue. But is it really possible, as the Felsteads insist, for a person to have memories "implanted" by a therapist? Professor Elizabeth Loftus, of the University of California, certainly believes so. In one famous study she sought to examine the process by which a therapist can generate a memory of an event simply by suggesting it. Loftus told 24 adults to write detailed descriptions of four childhood events supplied earlier on by a family member. Unbeknown to them, one of those events never actually happened.

(...)

The concept of repressed memories itself is, according to psychologist Chris French of the University of London, highly questionable. "There's a divide on this in psychology," he says. "But these 'recovery' methods are also used in the context of alien abduction accounts. If you're going to accept recovered memories of abuse, you should also accept the alien claims."

While chatting with French, I mention a psychotherapist who saw Carole called Valerie Sinason. Unexpectedly he lets out a guttural, melancholy groan.

"Oh Gooooodddd," he says.

If the Felsteads are right, Carole is likely to have had some form of recovered-memory therapy in the mid-80s – roughly the time her behaviour began to sour. But the only person I know who might be able to answer this question of whether she did is Dr Fisher. Since our last chat, she's vanished. She's changed her mobile number and has ignored several emails.

Instead I arrange an interview with Valerie Sinason who, according to the records, saw Carole for psychotherapy biweekly for eight months in 1992. I want to know if she'll fit the description Professor Loftus gave of the therapists she's come across in legal cases who have involved false memory – that of a highly credulous believer in satanic abuse who has a tendency to believe ritual damage in patients.

Sinason insists she doesn't use recovered-memory techniques. "I'm an analytic therapist," she says. "The idea of that is someone showing, through their behaviour, that all sorts of things might have happened to them." Signs that a patient has suffered satanically include flinching at green or purple objects, the colours of the high priest and priestess's robes. "And if someone shudders when they enter a room, you know it's not ordinary incest."

Another warning, she says, is the patient saying: "I don't know." "What they really mean is: 'I can't bear to say.'" A patient who "overpraises" their family is also suspicious. "The more insecure you are, the more you praise. 'Oh my family was wonderful! I can't remember any of it!'"

In the medical records, Sinason noted that Carole was her first chronic sadistic-abuse patient. Today, when I ask about her first patient, Sinason describes the arrival of two medical professionals – a nurse and a psychologist – one of whom was limping.

"I just had that nasty feeling," she says. "It's her, and she's been hurt by them."

Soon, we get to the actual satanism. Sinason talks of a popular ritual in which a child is stitched inside the belly of a dying animal before being 'reborn to satan'. During other celebrations, "people eat faeces, menstrual blood, semen, urine. There's cannibalism." Some groups have doctors performing abortions. "They give the foetus to the mother and she's made to kill the baby."

"And the cannibalism – that's foetuses?" I clarify.

"Foetuses and bits of bodies. The foetuses are raw. And handed round like communion. On one major festival, the babies are barbecued. I can still remember one survivor saying how easy it is to pull apart the ribs on a baby. But adults are tougher to eat."

She describes large gatherings in woodlands and castles, with huge cloths being laid out. "That's normally when there's a sacrifice," she notes, "and because the rapes are happening all over the place. There's a small amount of cannon fodder in terms of runaways, drug addicts, prostitutes and tramps that are used. There's sex with animals. Horses, dogs, goats. Being hanged upside down. In the woods, on a tree."

(...)

Dr Fisher lives in Plymouth, and is a former head of ethics at the British Medical Association. She speaks with the all the authority that such a position suggests. Sometimes confident, sometimes wary, sometimes maudlin and resigned, she actually has good reason to fear the Felsteads. After discovering she'd taken Carole's possessions, they reported her to the GMC and the police. Neither found sufficient evidence to act against her.

Fisher admits she had no legal claim to be Carole's "next of kin", but denies the Felsteads' accusations that she stole her property. She emptied the flat, she says, because the property managers were demanding it. As she cleared up, she found the letter from Richard. "Honourably, I gave it to the police," she says. "Otherwise the family would never have known. Never, never, never!" The clearout happened on 7 July 2005, a date, of course, that became known as 7/7. The terrorist explosions crippled the public transport network, which is why she needed to take Carole's car to get home. It was soon returned to London.

I ask why she phoned Richard on the day the Felsteads were informed of the death. She did so, she says, because the coroner mentioned how crushed he'd sounded. "Concern for somebody else's distress sometimes overcomes you," she says. "I was foolish. Unwise."

Ironically, it was her discovery of Richard's letter that led to the funeral's cancellation. Was she upset when she heard it had been halted? "You can't even imagine," she says. "I just screamed and screamed."

Finally, we get to the question of whether Carole's memories of satanic abuse were recovered. Initially Fisher refuses to speak about Carole. "I have a duty of confidentiality, even after a patient has died. I was never her psychiatrist or psychotherapist or anything like that." She raises her voice. "I'm not a psychotherapist, for God's sake!"

"According to her medical notes, she saw you for counselling," I say.

"No."

"I have the letter here, dated 27 November 1986, that says: 'She required to see Dr Fisher for psychosexual counselling.'" There's a silence. "Psychosexual is the wrong term," she says.

"What's the correct term?"

"Uh, I really don't know. People come and tell you things that have happened to them."

"Things like abuse?"

Was she ever worried that Carole had lapsed into fantasy? "Never," she says.

By 1997, I tell her, Carole was claiming a government minister had raped her with a claw hammer in Conservative Central Office. "That's not something I knew about," she says. "It may have been fantasy. I couldn't say. In general she was a common-sense woman."

"Are you aware of any evidence that any of Carole's claims actually happened?"

"I never looked for any evidence."

"Then what made you believe her?"

"She's not the only patient I've had who told the same kinds of stories."

"About ritual abuse?"

"It turned out to be that, yes. The people didn't remember at first. They weren't aware. They were memories they'd had a long time and they just came out."

Finally, I seek advice from Dr Trevor Turner, a consultant psychiatrist at St Bartholomew's Hospital in London. A former vice president of the Royal College of Psychiatry, Turner is an expert in schizophrenia. I wanted to speak with Turner because I've heard that delusions and paranoias like the ones Carole suffered are a common facet of the condition.

Turner confirms this, adding: "Another thing that's a part of the schizophrenic illness syndrome is the idea that your body has been interfered with," he tells me. Carole's slow withdrawal from the family, it turns out, is also typical. "If you're thinking things are being done to you, you blame those around you," he says. "Families of people who have got schizophrenia are commonly accused of things by the patient."

Assuming that Carole was suffering from schizophrenia, I wonder what effect it might have had on her, having therapists validate her darkest delusions. What would it be like for a paranoid psychotic to have it confirmed that, yes, there really are satanists out there, trying to get you? "Absolutely terrifying," he says. "It's highly likely it would make it worse."

OpinionGenerator #fundie reddit.com

I know I'm going to be downvoted to hell for saying this, but I think most of the negative aspects of having sex as a young person (especially females) come from society's views on sex. If you found out later that you were "used," why would that matter unless you were tricked into thinking your virginity or your genitals are sacred?

Yes, a 25 year-old might be using a 15-year old for sex, but how is that any different than a 15-year old boy doing the same? What if the 25-year old explicitly states that he just wants her for sex and nothing else?

Furthermore, if we're going to talk about maturity, why is 18 the magic number? Why not 25 when the brain is fully matured?


I was in a relationship as a teenager with someone in university. It was so easy for him to use me and lie to me, because I was still very naive. I know that some of these relationships go well, but most that I know of were bad for the youngest partner because the power balance between partners wasn't like it should be. It is very easy for an adult to overpower and use a teenager, maybe even without knowing it.


Okay, but how were you hurt and how was that damage equivalent to being labelled a sex-offender for life and going to prison? If you had to choose between those two options (being lied and used vs prison and being labelled as a sex offender) which would you choose?

I agree that what he did to you was a dick-move, but unless he used physical intimidation, I think the punishments we're handing out are out of proportion. Do you think he deserves to be in prison?

Or like I asked another user... if I were a guy of the age of 25 with an IQ of 200 and I used and lied to a girl of the same age with an IQ of 90, does that warrant that kind of punishment since it's essentially the same dynamic? It'd be just as easy for me to lie to her and use her.

Again, I think this has more to do with the fact that women are taught to value their virginity and sex in irrational ways.


I was depressed for a year and needed a few more to get my confidence back..

The adult chooses for the relationship, much more than the child (s)he has a relationship with.

That I was hurt with that relationship had nothing to do with how society views sex, unless it's the other way around: not 'putting out' after a certain time of being together is 'not done', and certain gender roles made his behaviour seem ok.


You didn't answer any of my questions so I don't know how to respond to this.

This happens with adults. Should an adult who uses a depressed adult go to prison?

Okay, so assuming you weren't feeling slut shamed, how is that hurt any different than a guy your age doing the same thing? Should a guy your age who had the ability to trick you into sex go to prison?

If I use a friend for his/her video game system and they find out (which hurts them), should I go to prison?

BrendioEEE #sexist #crackpot incels.co

[Experiment] What Exactly Is Losing Your Virginity?

From data I have read, personally, I think a man loses his virginity when he participates in physical sexual relations with a human being, and a female loses her virginity when she loses her sexual innocence, period, in any capacity, because whenever that happens we can correlate negative effects, but how about some hypothetical questions i'd like the answer to.

Question 1: So, obviously you can lose your virginity to a female who doesn't love you or want to be with you, whether that be pity sex, prostitution, rape, etc, but sex toys don't count as losing your virginity because it lacks sentience, or is the fact that it's not a human female? If a fleshlight/sex toy existed in the future that was a genetically cloned part of a females body, fully functioning, whether it be a mouth, a vagina, an ass, etc, but it's not actually a sentient human being, just a cloned body part kept alive and functional for sex using advanced technology, is that losing your virginity?

You would be having sex with a human females mouth/anus/vagina/breasts/etc but there would be no sentience. If the answer is no that doesn't count then let's move onto Question 2.

Question 2: Would having sex with a dead body count as losing your virginity? This is not a cloned human, this is a dead body, a real human body, does it not count because the person is not alive, and if it doesn't count because they're not alive, wouldn't a cloned body part created for sexual purposes count because it actually is alive? Or does it need to be both alive and sentient for it count, and obviously there is no sentience in a dead body.

Question 3: Does having sex with someone who is asleep/passed out/in a coma count as losing your virginity? What if they aren't dreaming and lack sentience? Such as being brain dead? If the answer is yes having sex with someone in this scenario counts, what is the difference between having sex with flesh that is unconscious that is cloned specifically for sexual purposes and having sex with someone who perhaps is passed out and there is minimal brain activity/sentience.

Question 4: Does having sex with an animal count as losing your virginity? If the answer is no, why? Is it because it is not human, or because it is not intelligent, or both? Would having sex with an intelligent animal/an animal that might have an IQ similar to the most lower ends of the human IQ spectrum, such as a dolphin, gorilla, or elephant, etc count? What about a genetically engineered animal that looks exactly like an animal, and has the genetics of an animal, but has been genetically modified to not only have an intelligence similar to ours, but be able to talk and communicate with a voice and your language?

Question 5: Does having sex with a robot/artificial intelligence count as losing your virginity? If the answer is no is it because it's not a human? Is it because it might not be as intelligent as a human? What if it was simulated intelligence and not actually real intelligence (As in an algorithim advanced enough to trick you into believing what you are talking to is intelligent but in reality it isn't), What if it was as intelligent and had a synthentic body that was almost identical to that of a human? If the answer is no this doesn't count, why would you say that when in some cases/scenarios, you may be having sex with a synthetic AI female, and might not even realize it is a synthetic AI female? If you didn't know it was a synth/robot, and genuinely thought it was a human, does that mean you lost your virginity?

What if you thought you lost your virginity in the future and posted about ascending on a future Incel forum, only to find out years later what you ascended with was actually a synthetic AI female, would you be allowed to get back on the forum, @Staff can chime in on this.

Question 6: If the reason why a robot/artificial intelligence/synth doesn't count as losing your virginity is because it is artificial and not real, what about a genetically modified/genetically engineered human/humanoid created from the ground up? This has DNA and, in some cases it may be 100% human? What would be the difference? What about a catgirl/other genetically engineered humanoids? Would they count? Would they only count if they weren't genetically modified to be open to having sex/loving anyone? What is the criteria here?

Question 7: If other intelligence life exists, such as Aliens/Demons/An intelligence species of this realm we are not aware of exists, but they are not human, and you have sex with them, does that count as losing your virginity? If the answer is yes, what would be the difference between that and having sex with an intelligent animal, or an intelligent artificial intelligence/genetically engineered species? What if we find out they we were created through genetic engineering by another species, or other beings that exist were created by a separate species/god like being?

Question 8: If you had sex in Full Dive VR, as in Virtual Reality that is neurally linked with your brain at such a level, that any simulation you experience within it will be in many cases indistinguishable and in some cases even better than reality itself, would that count as losing your virginity? If the answer is no, is it because you would likely be having sex with artificial intelligence and not other humans? Is it because you're not having sex with your own body? What if you meet an actual female in virtual reality, who is connecting to it from somewhere else on earth, and she actually has sex with you in the virtual world and it feels exactly like it would in real life, if not even better? Would that count?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could probably come up with some other scenarios, but I think we might be regurgitating a bit and not discussing anything of worth, please I would love to discuss this further, this may be important philosophically, especially for Inceldom.

rapture-me #fundie rr-bb.com

Rox, the Bible is either what it says it is and is 100 percent correct, 100 percent of the time or it is 100 percent wrong. it is not a buffet that you come and pick and choose what you agree with and not. either Jesus Christ is what he claimed or he was a wack job and should be disdained. i Know the power of God in my life and i know that rest that comes from having my sins completely erased. this life that i have found is so consuming that i have lost my self in it and i love every minute of it. when you come to Jesus and really know him your life will change forever and you will not want to go back. if you do not know him, he is the answer to every question bar-none. you have to know Jesus to understand why we believe in blind faith. it is a peace that passes all understanding. as a believer we can go before the throne through Jesus our mediator straight to the Father himself and talk directly to him. what a mind blower to talk to God himself and then see him answer your prayers. forget the huminist and turn to Jesus before it is to late. maranatha!

Nationstatesology #conspiracy forum.nationstates.net

Kimvodkastan the thing you need to understand first is the connections between the words Left, Liberal, and Authoritarian, within the context of politics.

Liberal at one time stood for liberty,
Today Left and Liberal are commonly associated,
And within the last 50-100 years Authoritarians have taken to calling themselves Liberals.

Authoritarians took on the False banner of Liberal because the old methods of state control over the populace had become unpopular so the only way to bring these methods back involved pretending to be what is considered popular, as well as to smear the reputation of the most liberty aligned ideology of that time.

As a result left in some peoples mind gains the reputation of old Liberal, but due to modern influence of Authoritarians that hide behind this banner that reputation gets falsely placed onto ideologies that rely on some form of Authoritarianism to function, Communism and socialism being so closely associated with the Left and historically with Authoritarianism.

This whole site is a monument to the confusion of ideologies so expect there to be a lot of bias on this site and in the game that will be pro statism but will not admit to being pro statism.

theanswerman #fundie tennessean.com

(replying to Steve Simms, who suggested that money spent on building two Bible theme parks would be much better spent on inner-city Christian ministries and helping the poor)

Steve Simms... what if we just took all business profits and put half that money to inner-city missionaries? Then you could be Barack Obama! That's just as dumb an idea as yours. An individual has a right to build a business, make a profit and decide ON THEIR OWN how much, if any, of that profit will go to inner-city missionaries or anywhere else.

I wish I understood why liberals have such a problem with a business making money. When a business makes money, liberals get jobs. Everybody gets jobs, even if you're evil and make $100,000 a year or more! If liberals have such a problem with how much money a business makes, they should go start their own business, make scads of money, and give half of it to inner-city missionaries or, like George Soros, to every socialist political organization they can find. If they want to hand over their profits to the government or whomever, that's their choice. But it's a mandate, not a choice, to dictate to any business that it has to give up more of its profit to the government!

Like what Obama and Democrats want with the oil companies. Does anyone honestly think that's going to make Exxon lower the price of a gallon of gas? If you do you need to pull your head out of your butt. All it will do is cause thousands of layoffs to make up for the lost revenue.

If someone wants to build a Bible park, we ought to applaud them for wanting to spread the Word of God and trying to restore some morals to a nation that is increasing becoming void of them.

Chelleberry #fundie premierchristianity.com

Chellebaby: If God is love and not wrath then why would God's wrath need to be satisfied by Jesus?
Also I take you dismiss the several verses that mention things like the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom? I guess if you don't fear the Lord then you will show a lack of wisdom David.

DavidS: Once you have been saved by Christ you don't need to fear God.
You ask a good question. Perhaps Jesus sacrifice wasn't an act of penal substitution.
I read this article this morning - thought I would share it with you.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/teachingnonviolentatonement/2018/11/3-reasons-why-you-should-not-be-a-god-fearing-christian/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=FBCP-PATH&utm_content=Dec2018&fbclid=IwAR2Gx8cnGDuPHTOylK6pvoE7CPVURdJGoZvZK-o27S7mC-EbkH7mKpN9o6A

Chellebaby: So there does have to be fear before you get saved! That's an excellent point David and one that I agree with.

DavidS: No there doesn't need to be fear. Did you read the article I shared with you? It is possible the word 'fear' is a bad translation (along with all the other bad English translations).
God is love, he wants you to love him, not fear him.

Chellebaby: I know God is love and I do love him. I don't think it is an error in translation but I misunderstanding by people of what the term means. I understand it is a reverence of God. It is a good fear because at the end of the day, my life is God's to do what He desires.

DavidS: There are errors in translation, some of which have come about by mistake, some were deliberate, for example when the KJV was being translated the translators added bits that weren't in the original text, left bits out that were and altered some bits (including parts that King James thought challenged his position and authority). I think this is something we just have to accept.
Your life may be God's to do what he desires, but God doesn't desire to manipulate you or use you as his puppet. He does want us to use our God-give free will, to follow him, but he does allow us to make our own choices, he doesn't force himself on anyone.
I don't believe the word 'fear' here (if we accept that is the right word) means 'to be afraid of'.

Chellebaby: So then why did he have to die on the cross? You theory makes no sense and is as per usual way off the mark. If it is not to pay for our sins then why does the Bible mention over and over again about HIS blood being offered as payment or is that parts of the Bible you don't believe in?

DavidS: Jesus death wasn't the act of a vengeful God but a supreme demonstration of his eternal, great love for us.

Chellebaby: There are other ways he could have shown love, so why did he have to die David?

DavidS: He died to defeat death so that we may have eternal life.

Chellebaby:
Doesn't answer the question does it David? Why did his death defeat death so we can have eternal life? What was he defeating?

DavidS: He was defeating death.

Chellebaby: So you don't really have an answer then? Just going to repeat the same sentence over and over which does not answer the question.

DavidS: I've given you an answer, sorry if you can't see that.

Chellebaby: Haha no you haven't. I'm sorry if you can't see that you haven't.

DavidS: Look again.

Chellebaby: Don't need to. I know you haven't answered so if you have nothing further to add then I will shake the dust off my feet and will be done with you.

DavidS: Bless you Chelle.

Brandon Straka #fundie walkawaycampaign.com

The #WalkAway Campaign is a true grassroots movement, founded by former liberal, Brandon Straka, dedicated to providing a place to share #WalkAway testimonials and personal journeys to freedom. It is inspiring, exciting, heart-wrenching, and extraordinary to watch and read the stories of the individuals who no longer accept the current ideology of the Democratic Party, what it has become, and are now bravely sharing their stories with the world.

Some of us left long ago, while many have only recently begun to reject the narratives of the left. Some people have wanted to #WalkAway for some time now, but have feared the consequences they may be forced to endure from friends or family if they were to share their true feelings and #WalkAway.

The #WalkAway Campaign encourages and supports those on the Left to walk away from the divisive tenets endorsed and mandated by the Democratic Party of today. Classical liberalism on the left is a thing of the past. Today’s leftist pseudo-liberalism is more committed to expanding the scope of government, pushing us into collectivism, and groupthink. The Democratic Party has gone astray, and it is time to recognize that there is very little true liberalism practiced there anymore.
?
The “liberal” agenda of today has become authoritarian and fascist: forcing people into government-controlled health care; restricting school choice to assigned government-run schools; stifling speech that challenges liberal beliefs and candidates; buying political support from corrupt interest groups; welfare programs that breed dependence upon the state; legal preferences for particular groups rather than equality for all before the law; establishing price floors and ceilings enforceable by law; using government to redistribute wealth just to satisfy their egalitarian instincts, and shaming anyone who dares to deviate from their obligatory way of thinking.
?
The Democratic Party of today has adopted a destructive belief system, happily and without skepticism, separating people into groups based on identity and organizing them into camps of victims and oppressors. If you are a person of color, an LGBT person, a woman, or an American immigrant; the Democratic Party wants you to know that you are a victim and destined to stay that way.

They will insist that you are a victim doomed to exist within a system that is rigged against you; that you are a victim of systemic oppression; that you are a victim of your circumstances; and that no amount of hard work or motivational action will ever allow you to overcome your victimhood or the privilege of those around you.

This is perhaps the Democratic Party’s greatest and most insidious lie.

If you are a minority in America today the liberal media and left-wing politicians don’t want you to ever discover this lie. So they bombard us with stories designed to reinforce the narrative that you are in danger, that you can not succeed. They manipulate your fears and concerns by telling you that you are disadvantaged, disempowered, and disposable… to everyone except them.

Minorities in this country, are told by the Left, their entire lives that they are not welcome on the Right. They are told that they are hated because anyone who isn’t a Democrat is racist, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic, and sexist. It is now the time for us to help minorities recognize that they do not owe their subjugation and allegiance to the Democratic Party. Centrists, Libertarians, Independents, and Conservatives believe there is a seat at the table for everyone. It is time for us to show minorities that they are cared about, appreciated and welcomed by conservatives and Republicans alike.

We invite Americans who have never been Democrats to join the campaign to share their own written and video #WalkWith testimonials supporting those courageous enough to #WalkAway. We need Americans on the Right to stand up and use their voices to tell the world the truth about what it actually means to be a conservative in America. We must come together to declare, loudly and often, who we really are, our real values, and finally expose the lies the Left has tried to place on us for far too long.

The #WalkAway Campaign also serves another fundamental purpose. For far too long, the Left has controlled the narrative in this country within the news and media, while the “silent majority” on the Right have done what they always do – remain silent. The Left has been allowed to reinforce the narrative that everyone on the Right is a bigot, a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist, and so on. This dangerous lie cannot be perpetuated any longer.

The Left has become so extreme and relentless that it is now the time for us to fight back!

The #WalkAway Campaign is a movement of Patriots from all walks of life – men, women, black, brown, white, straight, LGBTQ, religious, and non-believers – who share something very important in common.

WE ARE ALL AMERICANS, and we will not surrender our country.

Abolish Human Abortion #fundie facebook.com

"I recently sat in on a hearing with a referee of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The subject of the hearing was the ACLU protesting an Abolitionist petition to treat abortion as murder. Now, being the Godless and humanistic group that they are, the ACLU fully relied upon case law and judicial precedence. They did not make any appeal to a moral standard or any sort of objective truth. But rather, as you would expect from the pagans at the ACLU, they relied only upon the whims of man. The twisted, subjective, ever changing, wisdom of man.

Now, keep that in mind while reading this article from Joe Carter of The Gospel Coalition. Being on a website called so boldly "The Gospel Coalition", and knowing that the writers and pastors who form the said coalition claim to be subservient to the Word of God, as opposed to the wisdom of man, one would think that this article would be saturated with proof texts and an exegetical examination of the question. One would think that the Gospel Coalition would not be looking to the same institutions and principles that the depraved ACLU so fully relied upon. The sad truth is that while reading this article I was continuesly reminded of the hollow, subjective, and cowardly arguments the ACLU made against Abolition.

Whenever any judicial/ethical question like this is raised, we as Christians must first ask this foundational question, "by whose standard?" I believe we all know how The Gospel Coalition has answered this question. Clearly not God's standard. They are plainly relying upon the same standard as the ACLU. The same standard as any humanistic institution. This is a mockery of justice, logic, and God."
Abolitionist John Andrew Reasnor

"Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, 'He catches the wise in their craftiness,'"
1 Corinthians 3:18-19

jmsnooks #conspiracy jmsnooks.deviantart.com

OK so it's been a while since I have been on DA, but it appears that some people are still following my page + some new watchers even though I haven't uploaded anything since 2012. Given that, I have decided that it is past time I let people know what is going on.

First of all, I just got married earlier this year. It was the result of a long distance relationship, using an online match making website (shaadi . com in case anyone is interested). I brought my wife all the way from India in order to dodge the bullet of feminism and the general corruption and lack of values which is pervasive among my generation in what is left of western civilization. So I had my wedding, honeymoon, and all that.

I also spent some time looking for work in my field, so that I could have a better paying job, but I failed at that. Thankyou Democrats, for improving the economy so much that it's easier than ever before to find work. Lot's of change but no hope.

On a brighter note, I have succesfully published my first book. I want to try to become an author. If I can't have my first career of choice then I would like to have my second career of choice, which would be writing. I have been working on the story and illustrations during the time I was absent from DA. But I didn't post any of the new artwork here because I'm publishing under a false name. I'm going to have a secret identity, like Batman, and for similar reasons. I am opening another DA account for that identity, which will contain the full color illustrations I created for my story and links to places where my books can be purchased. If you are interested in seeing that then please send me a private message. Given how paranoid I am I will probably only share with a select few, but do let me know if you are interested all the same.

NannaNae #fundie christianforums.com

Originally Posted by Armoured:
"Is it immoral for all the people claiming to have divinely given healing powers not to be on the first plane to Liberia and making all us skeptics eat our words by proving they're the real thing?"

NannaNae: "but why you wouldn't believe it anyway! I don't have healing powers.. I but I do know people who do and they will be there if god tells them too. but I suspect they are to stay here for when it gets here .
but really the question is why doesn't any one there believe enough to heal ? if we ask that question only the real answer to that question then you will know why that disease is there in the first place.

because why is the disease there ?
why is it effecting them ?
why aren't they immune to the disease in their environment if evolution is true?
I mean they have been eating monkey there a long time..
why aren't they immune .. if first they are monkeys or came from monkeys.. if they have had that monkey disease there for billions and billions of years ?
why aren't they immune from even eating it if they had been eating monkeys for hundreds of thousands of years.. ? so much for survival of the fittest !
the fittest don't survive but the Paranoid and Schizophrenic survive.
and that explains how man has de -evolved in 6000 years to what we are now."

John Hawkins #fundie townhall.com

There may be no official rule book for being a liberal, but that doesn't mean there aren't rules. There are actually quite a few rules liberals go by and the more politically active liberals become, the more rigidly they tend to stick to their own code of behavior. These rules, most of which are unspoken, are passed along culturally on the Left and viciously enforced. Ironically, many liberals could not explain these rules to you and don't even consciously know they're following them. So, by reading this article, not only will you gain a better understanding of liberals, you'll know them better than they know themselves in some ways.

1) You justify your beliefs about yourself by your status as a liberal, not your deeds. The most sexist liberal can think of himself as a feminist while the greediest liberal can think of himself as generous. This is because liberals define themselves as being compassionate, open minded, kind, pro-science and intelligent not based on their actions or achievements, but based on their ideology. This is one of the most psychologically appealing aspects of liberalism because it allows you to be an awful person while still thinking of yourself as better than everyone else.

2) You exempt yourself from your attacks on America: Ever notice that liberals don't include themselves in their attacks on America? When they say, "This is a racist country," or ",This is a mean country," they certainly aren't referring to themselves or people who hold their views. Even though liberals supported the KKK, slaughtering the Indians, and putting the Japanese in internment camps, when they criticize those things, it's meant as an attack on everyone else EXCEPT LIBERALS. The only thing a liberal believes he can truly do wrong is to be insufficiently liberal.

3) What liberals like should be mandatory and what they don't like should be banned: There's an almost instinctual form of fascism that runs through most liberals. It's not enough for liberals to love gay marriage; everyone must be forced to love gay marriage. It's not enough for liberals to be afraid of guns; guns have to be banned. It's not enough for liberals to want to use energy-saving light bulbs; incandescent light bulbs must be banned. It's not enough for liberals to make sure most speakers on campuses are left-wing; conservative speakers must be shouted down or blocked from speaking.

4) The past is always inferior to the present: Liberals tend to view traditions, policies, and morals of past generations as arbitrary designs put in place by less enlightened people. Because of this, liberals don't pay much attention to why traditions developed or wonder about possible ramifications of their social engineering. It’s like an architect ripping out the foundation of a house without questioning the consequences and if the living room falls in on itself as a result, he concludes that means he needs to make even more changes.

5) Liberalism is a jealous god and no other God may come before it: A liberal "Christian" or "Jew" is almost an oxymoron because liberalism trumps faith for liberals. Taking your religious beliefs seriously means drawing hard lines about right and wrong and that's simply not allowed. Liberals demand that even God bow down on the altar of liberalism.

Les D. Crause #fundie books.google.com

Using the Authority of God

You had better know the authority you have in God the Father before you try and rise up to that level of warfare. You think that deliverance is just dealing with little demons of lust and lies and silly little things that you are casting out.

No, you don't know what you are playing with. You are playing with something far higher. Be very careful before you go sticking your nose into things you are not ready for.

By the same token you don't have to be afraid once you know who you are. And I am going to be teaching you how to know who you are. I am going to be showing you how to know your authority.

Many years ago before I was even in apostolic office I was still training as a prophet. At one time Lucifer appeared to me in my time of intercession and tried to persuade me to give up everything I wanted to do.
He offered me whatever I wanted if I just dropped all my silly ideas for ministry. I wasn't a baby Christian, but I certainly was not at the level of authority and knowledge that I have now. I just knew one Scripture though. It was, At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, things in earth and things under the earth.

I said to him,
"Satan, at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow. Satan that is your knee included. Your knee will bow to the name of Jesus. You will bow! I stand in Him and I stand in His name and you will bow to me now."

The nice guy with the big smile on his face began to scowl and get extremely angry and agitated. But he couldn't touch me, because he was defeated on Calvary and he knew that I knew it. I stood on the Word and said, "You will bow even in my presence because I stand in the name of Jesus."

He bowed down low with a scowl on his face and disappeared. And he has never come to me again since then. He knows better.

You have authority, and I am going to be showing you how to know your authority and how to use it. You don't have to be afraid of these demonic powers but you need to understand how they work.

Linda Goudsmit #fundie conservativenewsandviews.com

Religion and religious freedom gone wild

The First Amendment guarantees Americans the freedom of religion in the “establishment” clause:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Words matter, so the first question that must be answered is a matter of definition.

What is religion?

The dictionary defines religion as:

1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
2. A particular system of faith and worship.
3. A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes superhuman importance.

Dictionaries have been used for centuries to help codify the meaning of words in an attempt to make language useful. Without accepted specific meanings for words it is impossible to communicate through language effectively. Language is the common denominator of speech. Even biblical stories express the importance of the meaning of words as they are understood or misunderstood in any language. The most famous example is the biblical story of The Tower of Babel that begins with everyone on Earth speaking the same language and able to understand each other. Whether the scattering of people around the world was a punishment for hubris or not, the consequence was that people began speaking different languages and could no longer understand each other.

But what happens when people speaking the same language no longer understand each other because they interpret the meaning of the same words differently? That is the situation we are facing in contemporary American society today.

The second question that must be answered is a matter of interpretation.

What does religion mean to you?

Thomas Jefferson wrote eloquently on the subject in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists who worried about their minority status in Connecticut. Jefferson was reassuring the Baptists that being a minority religion would not be a problem in a Protestant majority state as far as the federal government was concerned.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. (Wikipedia)

Jefferson’s letter clearly indicates that for Jefferson, religion was a matter of Man and God. Jefferson’s interpretation was the widely accepted and understood view of religion in the early 18th century. By the 20th century the U.S. Supreme Court “incorporated” the Establishment Clause and expanded its application from the federal government to the state governments as well.

Practical application

The practical application of the freedom of religion also requires a uniform understanding of the meaning and interpretation of the word religion. The Exercise Clause clarifies the supremacy of Constitutional laws and freedoms over religious laws and freedoms. This is particularly important in contemporary America because we are facing “religious” practices of Islam that threaten our Constitutional freedoms.

The Free Exercise Clause distinguishes between religions beliefs and religious practices. It is the equivalence of distinguishing between thinking and doing. In America an individual is free to think murderous thoughts but he is not free to murder. Islam is a religion governed by religious Sharia Law that endorses honor killings, female genital mutilation, murder of apostates, murder of homosexuals, wife beatings, child marriage and pedophilia. American jurisprudence does not have the will or authority to change people’s beliefs. This applies equally to citizens of the United States, guests in this country, illegal aliens, or citizens of other countries. But we most certainly have the right and legal obligation to disallow any and all practices in conflict with the U.S. Constitution and our cultural norms. Free Exercise Clause (Wikipedia)

“Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.”[28] In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Supreme Court found that while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices (e.g., human sacrifices, and the Hindu practice of suttee). The Court stated that to rule otherwise, “would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances.”[29]

Words mean things

In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Free Exercise Clause to the states. While the right to have religious beliefs is absolute, the freedom to act on such beliefs is not absolute. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/310/296/case.html

In Jefferson’s time as in Truman’s time the meaning of the word religion included items 1 and 2:

1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
2. A particular system of faith and worship.

Seventy years later in 2017 we must reconsider the meaning of the word religion and ask the question:

What is Islam?

Islam is not a religion like Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, or Judaism. Instead, Islam is a unified supremacist socio-political system with a military wing and a religious wing. Islam features religious sharia law. The goal of Islam since the 7th century is to make the world Islamic and impose sharia law worldwide.

Islam is tyrannical in its demand for conformity to its barbaric sharia laws. It is also intolerant. Islam is a political force seeking world dominion. So we cannot allow it religious protections like the Baptists in Connecticut during Jefferson’s times.

Islam is far more like the Nazis during Hitler’s time. Consider this question. What if Hitler declared Nazism to be a religion. It certainly qualifies as a religion according to Item 3. A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes superhuman importance.

Suppose Adolph Hitler declared his Nazism a religion. Then would the left-wing liberal apologists for Islam defend Nazism? Would they defend its determination to rule the world and rid the Earth of every Jew? Would the lefty-wing liberals declare murder of Jews protected by religious freedom? How is this different from allowing Muslims to perpetrate honor killings, female genital mutilation, murder of apostates, murder of homosexuals, wife beatings, child marriage, and pedophilia?

There is no difference.

Apologists for Islamic barbarity claim that Islamists have perverted their religion. If so, it is also true that they have perverted our concept of religious freedom. Islam is not a religion like any other. Moreover its savage practices do not deserve protection under our religious freedom laws and the free exercise clause.

Cambria Will Not Yield #racist cambriawillnotyield.wordpress.com

White people are between a rock and a hard place. The Shylockian liberals want their blood, and the colored barbarians are quite willing to shed white blood. White people’s only refuge, their racial hearth fire, is forbidden them, so they languish in a death-in-life limbo while they wait for the final death blow. Every white nation has a proud history of fighting men who were once part of the fabric of their nation. What has happened to the race that produced such men as Alfred, Tell, Wallace, Forrest, Bozzaris, Roland, and Winkelreid? I recently read of 10,000 Somalians who have overrun Scotland. How can this happen to the country of Wallace, Bruce, and Sir Walter Scott? How can any white European permit his nation to be defiled by the presence of colored barbarians? It has to do with our spiritual backbone, which is our race. If white people don’t believe they are a race apart from the colored races, a race of people who must protect and love their own, then they will not fight to preserve their race. How can a man fight for something he doesn’t believe exists?

As white people have disappeared as a race so has the quality of mercy disappeared. Cruelty and sexual depravity are all that is left in the formerly white nations, because there are no white people left who will fight negrophile liberalism. The grazers will “support our troops,” who are not our troops, and they will support their local clergy and the local schools, but they will not fight for race and faith. “Our troops” are the troops of negrophile liberalism, our schools are liberal, negrophile factories, and our clergymen are blasphemers who have made the living God an adjunct of negro-worshipping liberalism. Instead of voting for our executioners we should take the same vow that Tell took when Gessler threatened the lives of his sons, his wife, and his people.

My boys, poor innocents, my loyal wife,
Must be protected, tyrant, from thy rage!
When last I drew my bow – with trembling hand–
And thou, with fiendishly remorseless glee
Forced me to level at my own boys head,
When I, imploring pity, writhed before thee,
Then in the anguish of my soul,
I vow’d
A fearful oath, which met God’s ear alone,
That when my bow next wing’d an arrow’s flight
Its aim should be thy heart.
The vow I made,
Amid the hellish torments of that moment,
I hold a sacred debt, and I will pay it.

Just a story? Europeans come from the land of storybooks. The heroes of our race point us to The Hero.

When the liberals and the clergy command us to progress beyond provincial, bardic, racist Europe to a universal, scientific world consecrated to the Negro, we should respond as Tell did that day at the mountain pass near Kussnacht. Our innocents are threatened. We have tried pleading, but to no avail. There is no mercy in the liberals or in the colored barbarians. How could there be mercy in the souls of those who have rejected the God of mercy or in the souls of those who have never known the God of mercy? The words “fiendishly remorseless glee” resonate with us today. Doesn’t that describe the liberals? The fiendish glee with which they respond to the colored atrocities against whites make me feel as Tell felt. There can be only one response to such creatures from hell: “Amid the hellish torments of that moment, I hold a sacred debt, and I will pay it.”

[...]

The white man’s refusal to fight for his people – let us use the Somalian invasion of Scotland as the mirror image of what is occurring in every white nation – is the result of the white man’s flight from his soul. His white skin contains his soul, and as long as he retains his soul he is subject to all the terrors of the spiritual life that a blood-and-sex pagan is not subject to. “Do I simply go from a corruptible body to an incorruptible body, or do I enter a state of suspended animation somewhere between death and life? Or worse yet, do I melt into nothingness?” The fear of that undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns has sent the white man into an intellectual retreat from which he supports the colored heathens, because their religions give him the opiates of sex and blood. But even here, the white man feels cheated; he can only participate in the heathen religions second-hand; lurking somewhere in the darkness is his white soul, trying to envelope him in that old world of crosses and redemption.

A religion that is not embodied soon becomes a dead religion. This is why the liberals must continue to attack every last vestige of Christian Europe. That Europe must remain in the grave so the new Europe, the Europe of the anesthetized zombie whites, can live. A Christian European is, in the eyes of the secular liberal and the clergyman, a fiend who will impede mankind’s progress toward a colored utopia where all mankind can forget the Man of Sorrows. Whites won’t fight back against the colored invasion, because they don’t know the answer to Melville’s question, “Sentry, are you there?” The answer can be found in the collective face of the European people, before they separated themselves from their souls. There is no magic formula, no intellectual gambit that can make the white man fight for his people and his God. He must see existence feelingly before he will fight. Beyond the rational man, beyond the philosophical man, is the man of storybooks, the true European. He is the hero that by a miracle of grace has not succumbed to modern Babylon; he is a man with a soul. Let us follow such men to fairy tale Europe where we will discover that His Kingdom come and eternal Europe are one and the same.

James Simpson #fundie rightsidenews.com

Sixty-eight years ago today, Japan launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor that brought the United States into World War II. In that historic conflict we defeated Japan and its German Nazi ally four years later at a cost of over 400,000 American lives.

Since before World War II however, we have faced a much more subtle foe - one that in many ways has been more deadly. The foe is an amorphous mass, variably called: "Liberal," "Progressive," "Leftist," "the Left," "the Radical Left," the "New Left," "Communist," "Neo-communist," "Socialist," "Marxist," "Neo-Marxist," even "Marxofascist."

Lest "liberals" take offense at being associated with communists, Marxists and socialists, it can only be said that Lenin referred to them as "useful idiots," i.e. those who knowingly or unknowingly assist communists in achieving communist objectives. For this reason communists share the same contempt for liberals that the rest of us do. We both know they are fools.

So forget liberals. Call the foe the "radical left". It has been the instigator of most of our foreign policy failures, including Vietnam and Korea; failures measured in millions of lives. Practically every public policy failure of the past century, from the healthcare crisis to our addled legal system, from crime-ridden ghettos to failing public schools, can be laid at the feet of the Left.

Jason Unruhe #fundie maoistrebelnews.com

In the wake of brutal police murders of young Black men, a popular resistance began to form. This movement was known as “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) Officially according to the organization it began in July 2013 after the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin. In June of this year I said that the movement was nearing its end; and that it had only a few months left to it. This appears to be the case now. The movement is on its last legs, the steam it came on with has blown itself out.

Don’t mistake my words here for some kind of celebration. Most leftist groups in the U.S. are still in denial over the movement’s fate. What was once a loud and proud resistance has become little more than a part of the “cuck” jokes about Bernie Sanders. What was once a declaration of war against oppressors has become little more than the obnoxious behaviour of a few self-involved individuals.

So what happened? Essentially what I predicted would happen: liberals took over the movement. It was born out of a radical need to fight killings by police. A real physical defense against police oppression was being organized. Truly radical ideas like self-defense forces were being organized. Unfortunately the mass of the movement are liberals, not radicals. The majority of Black people in America aren’t leftist radicals, they’re liberals who vote Democrat. BLM is made up of liberals with a few radical elements around the fringes. These fringe radical elements are the exception, not the rule.

I said that liberals were going to overtake the movement and co-opt it. Once that took place the movement was sabotaged. Liberals are not interested in radical change, they’re interested in getting concessions. Radical elements were deliberately purged from the movement. This is what the Austin chapter of BLM did:

That’s a consideration that’s come into question since news broke that the city would host three discordant rallies at the same time this Saturday morning. Members of the 1312 Project did not respond to calls from the Chronicle, but Margaret Haule, who spoke on behalf of Black Lives Matter, quickly made it known that her organization is “not to be confused” with the 1312 Project. “We don’t do things that are considered illegal,” she explained. “We’re not trying to get a bad rap. We’re more transparent and open. It’s important that people see there are people playing an active role in the community.”

Essentially the 1312 Project opposed (and rightfully so) the Police Lives Matter (PLM) movement. However, the BLM wanted to support the PLM. This collaboration is with Police Chief Art Acevedo:

Acevedo said he spoke with members of Black Lives Matter about national and local policy changes they want implemented to ensure equality, and added he agrees with the majority of them. He also said what the group would like to see in regards to police relations is only a small part of the entire movement.

“All they want is to have police officers that are respectful, that treat people as part of the community and don’ treat them like they’re an occupying army and we get that,” Acevedo said.

This act is an outright collaboration with the enemy. The 1312 Project was purged from BLM because it had a radical agenda that challenged the police. There were not without comment on the matter:

On Monday morning, Sept. 14, an anonymous member of the anti-police-brutality activist group the 1312 Project – shorthand for “All Cops Are Bastards” – posted a message on Facebook announcing a change of plans. This Saturday, Sept. 19, the group will send its membership to rally at the Capitol rather than APD headquarters. “It appears as though some organizers’ desire to control this movement has resulted in, at best, police collaboration and, at worst, the active selling out of other organizers,” read the note. “We see this as a breach in camaraderie that puts those of us who were planning on meeting at APD headquarters in far more danger.” The seven-paragraph message concluded with an edict: “Fuck the cops, fuck politicians, and stay savvy,” it read.

The fact is in the first world the more successful you are, the more you’ll be co-opted. At this point BLM is an empty shadow of what it was intended to be. The mainstream media and political establishment aren’t even opposed to it. News networks are now using terms like ‘white privilege’ and going over the recent history of police violence. Politicians are voluntarily meeting with the group, including presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. If the establishment doesn’t see it as a threat, you’re not challenging the system.

Why did this happen? Long story short: there is no social base for revolution in the first world. Radicals begin resistance groups to challenge the power of an unjust system. The problem is that the masses of the American people don’t want to do revolution. Often they face very oppressive conditions, such as the police killings of young Black people. However, they have no desire to overthrow the system which causes that oppression. They only wish to have that oppression stop. There is no social base for these radical groups to lead. There are only liberal Democrat Party supporting reformers. The liberals co-opt these radical movements because there isn’t any significant number of radicals to follow them.

The truth radical groups are not accepting, is that Black people in America don’t want a civil war to bring about a whole new society. All they really want is the same wealth and privileges that White people have. Radical groups however, continue to pull quotes from the 1960s Black Panthers and act as though we still exist in those times. Just because radicals want to take radical action, does not mean that the mass of Blacks in America want to take radical action themselves.

There definitely needs to be a coordinated radical action against the racist U.S. police state. Unfortunately there isn’t the social base, nor the organization for such a thing to happen.

Alia_Harkonnen #sexist reddit.com

If a girl fucked you or dated you, nothing would be better. You'd be an inferior normie. Being a normie is a horrible way to exist, being an inferior normie would just mean you'd have to learn to completely ignore reality so that you can have a healthy relationship or else.
You'd go crazy with anxiety and she'd leave you.

You'd get attached to her and it would kill you although you'd know she's just a cunt. But she was a special cunt who fucked you so you'd turn into a cunt worshiping heart broken normie failure.

You would lose the strength that comes with living in the disgusting miserable real world and not coping with it, cause you'd have to cope.
Or maybe you'd pull it together and have to keep on learning to cope to progress further up the normie ladder. Not be jealous, not be insecure, be open minded, ignore who she is and her past, just eat shit and be grateful a cunt is allowing you access, tolerate the retarded obnoxious creature symbolically attached to it.

Convince yourself she loves you.
Live a life of a cuck. Maybe get married to her or someone else cause now you're a normie so with experience come used up 5s. Maybe a 7 with a make up on but that's ok cause she wants you. She doesn't exactly show it but that's just your insecurity talking.

Then you hit the jackpot. You're married and for 30 minute cunt access every two weeks you have to deal with the cunt tumor for hours and hours each day.
You have to date her, keep things spontaneous, give her quality time, listen to her, respect her passions and interest, compromise, have ambition in life, cause every single thing you do now concerns the cunt attachment.

If now you spend most of your time on this sub what the fuck do you think you'll be doing when you no longer even can do that and drink all day? You think your life will be better when youre not a neet or when you have to eat and drink compatibly with her? Sit with her at the table for dinner. Every single day. Consider her shit every day.

You think a job and a family is an improvement? You'll have to make "friends" too perhaps. Visit them and chat. Pick a hobby. Have passion.
No, life is horrible, miserable and lonely. But if you weren't incel life would still be horrible, miserable, and lonely, you just wouldn't be able to not waste effort on it. That's it, thats all there is to it.

You're rotting while time is passing one way or another. If you ever saw it for what it is then you'd know that anything you do with it is a cope.
I'd still maybe prefer the ability to fuck but only cause IIke the idea of contributing to female traumatic experiences. I'm sick of sentimentality.

Lord Christopher Monckton #fundie wnd.com

Nearly everyone who is unemployed votes “Democrat.” Nearly every immigrant, at least in the first generation, votes “Democrat.” Nearly every non-white American votes “Democrat.” The GOP know that so intellectually and financially bankrupt an administration should never have been re-elected – indeed, given the scale of electoral fraud practiced by the “Democrats,” he may not actually have been re-elected (always supposing that he had the constitutional right to hold the office of president in the first place).

Houston, we have a problem. America as we knew her and admired her is going down, sinking financially and politically under the tide of takers. For takers are also voters, and that is the problem. The taxpayees can vote themselves more and more and more of the taxpayers’ money.

Yet so little attention has been given to the death of democracy via the growing cost and reach of federal welfare programs that the word “taxpayees” has not existed until this moment. Google it and the search engine will assume you have made a spelling mistake. It will give you thousands of references to “taxpayers.”

The GOP can no longer ignore the state of disunion that exists because taxpayees now so greatly outnumber taxpayers. It will need a short-term strategy and a long-term strategy.

The short-term strategy is to confront the American people with the scale and intractability of the problem, and to recommend solutions with the aim of reducing the number and influence of taxpayees.

The takers need to be confronted, boldly but politely, more in sorrow than in anger, with the fact that the unbridled expansion of federal welfare cannot continue because the money has run out. Therefore, unless urgent steps are taken to cut the handouts substantially Uncle Sam will find himself in the bankruptcy court, and when that happens those taxpayees who would otherwise get something will very suddenly end up getting nothing.

First, the federal authorities need to know who is getting welfare benefits – everything from food stamps to Medicaid and Medicare. In the future, if you want a handout from Uncle Sam, you will need to prove to him who you are. If you are an illegal immigrant, sorry, but no more handouts. If you are a lawful immigrant, sorry, but no handouts in your first five years in the United States. Period. If you don’t like that, don’t come.

Very important: If you are claiming any handout, you are not entitled to vote. Taxpayers will have the right to vote, but taxpayees will not. That way, no one can vote himself a handout.

Pedometer #fundie archive.is


´
I am an "active" pedophile

Before the morality police jump on me, I'll point out that this is the "confessions" subreddit, and that I'm posting because I normally have to keep this secret and I felt like it'd be liberating to just say openly what I'm into and what I do, and if you want to be retarded and judgmental, you can just go fuck off. I know that my preferences and actions aren't consistent with "traditional morality," but of course that's all relative to culture, and it's just been my bad luck to live in a time and place where my sexual preferences are considered taboo.
So I'm an "active" pedophile, which means that I regularly have sex with children. My preference is for children between the ages of 7 and 12.
Professionally, I am a child psychologist; I have two PhDs, and I work part-time as an adjunct at a major research university. Obviously, it's part of my job to understand how kids think, and my work has put me in contact with hundreds of children over the years. I have only had sex with a small percentage of them--those whom I can be reasonably confident won't tell anyone, and whom I believe may enjoy the experience. Of course, child sexuality is a complex issue, but while I find it fascinating from a scientific point of view, my desire to fuck them is basically independent from my scientific/professional interest in them, and in general I don't care whether my actions will "harm" the child when I choose to get sexual with him or her.
I have two daughters, aged 9 and 16. I never touched the 16 year old. Their mother, my wife, died from breast cancer three years ago. The older one goes to a boarding school in Michigan, where she studies flute. I have been having regular sex with the younger one since she was six.
I don't necessarily prefer boys or girls. Both are attractive to me. I have always been attracted to children, since I myself was a child. I guess as I grew older, I never stopped finding people of that particular age range sexually desirable. I suppose I generally prefer "consensual" sex, although I also find "forced" scenarios also arousing.
I don't keep a tally, but I'd estimate that I've had some form of sexual contact with 50-60 children; full penis-in-vagina penetration with approximately 20 girls, anal sex with three girls, and anal sex with about a dozen boys. I would classify five of those encounters as "rape," but the vast majority were in the gray area of "consent," as is generally the case with children.
I suppose something that some readers may find interesting is that I have met several other pedophiles, who have similar preferences to mine. I suppose that many of you would be surprised about several things that I have learned in my interactions with other pedophiles. First, about how many secret pedophiles there are, how exceedingly common this sexual preference is; second, how common sex with children is; third, how often the child enjoys it; and fourth, how easy it is to "get away with it" in a society that basically treats pedophiles like "witches." If anyone wants to ask me details--note, I will not stupidly reveal any identifying information, so don't bother trying to "trick" me into giving up my address--then feel free to PM me, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Got Questions #fundie gotquestions.org

Question: "Why did God allow polygamy / bigamy in the Bible?"

Answer: The question of polygamy is an interesting one in that most people today view polygamy as immoral while the Bible nowhere explicitly condemns it. The first instance of polygamy/bigamy in the Bible was that of Lamech in Genesis 4:19: “Lamech married two women.” Several prominent men in the Old Testament were polygamists. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, and others all had multiple wives. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (essentially wives of a lower status), according to 1 Kings 11:3. What are we to do with these instances of polygamy in the Old Testament? There are three questions that need to be answered: 1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? 2) How does God view polygamy today? 3) Why did it change?

1) Why did God allow polygamy in the Old Testament? The Bible does not specifically say why God allowed polygamy. As we speculate about God’s silence, there are a few key factors to consider. First, while there are slightly more male babies than female babies, due to women having longer lifespans, there have always been more women in the world than men. Current statistics show that approximately 50.5 percent of the world population are women. Assuming the same percentages in ancient times, and multiplied by millions of people, there would be tens of thousands more women than men. Second, warfare in ancient times was especially brutal, with an incredibly high rate of fatality. This would have resulted in an even greater percentage of women to men. Third, due to patriarchal societies, it was nearly impossible for an unmarried woman to provide for herself. Women were often uneducated and untrained. Women relied on their fathers, brothers, and husbands for provision and protection. Unmarried women were often subjected to prostitution and slavery. The significant difference between the number of women and men would have left many, many women in an undesirable situation.

So, it seems that God may have allowed polygamy to protect and provide for the women who could not find a husband otherwise. A man would take multiple wives and serve as the provider and protector of all of them. While definitely not ideal, living in a polygamist household was far better than the alternatives: prostitution, slavery, or starvation. In addition to the protection/provision factor, polygamy enabled a much faster expansion of humanity, fulfilling God’s command to “be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth” (Genesis 9:7). Men are capable of impregnating multiple women in the same time period, causing humanity to grow much faster than if each man was only producing one child each year.

2) How does God view polygamy today? Even while allowing polygamy, the Bible presents monogamy as the plan which conforms most closely to God’s ideal for marriage. The Bible says that God’s original intention was for one man to be married to only one woman: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife [not wives], and they will become one flesh [not fleshes]” (Genesis 2:24). While Genesis 2:24 is describing what marriage is, rather than how many people are involved, the consistent use of the singular should be noted. In Deuteronomy 17:14-20, God says that the kings were not supposed to multiply wives (or horses or gold). While this cannot be interpreted as a command that the kings must be monogamous, it can be understood as declaring that having multiple wives causes problems. This can be clearly seen in the life of Solomon (1 Kings 11:3-4).

In the New Testament, 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 give “the husband of one wife” in a list of qualifications for spiritual leadership. There is some debate as to what specifically this qualification means. The phrase could literally be translated “a one-woman man.” Whether or not this phrase is referring exclusively to polygamy, in no sense can a polygamist be considered a “one-woman man.” While these qualifications are specifically for positions of spiritual leadership, they should apply equally to all Christians. Should not all Christians be “above reproach...temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money” (1 Timothy 3:2-4)? If we are called to be holy (1 Peter 1:16), and if these standards are holy for elders and deacons, then they are holy for all.

Ephesians 5:22-33 speaks of the relationship between husbands and wives. When referring to a husband (singular), it always also refers to a wife (singular). “For the husband is the head of the wife [singular] … He who loves his wife [singular] loves himself. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife [singular], and the two will become one flesh....Each one of you also must love his wife [singular] as he loves himself, and the wife [singular] must respect her husband [singular].” While a somewhat parallel passage, Colossians 3:18-19, refers to husbands and wives in the plural, it is clear that Paul is addressing all the husbands and wives among the Colossian believers, not stating that a husband might have multiple wives. In contrast, Ephesians 5:22-33 is specifically describing the marital relationship. If polygamy were allowable, the entire illustration of Christ’s relationship with His body (the church) and the husband-wife relationship falls apart.

3) Why did it change? It is not so much God’s disallowing something He previously allowed as it is God’s restoring marriage to His original plan. Even going back to Adam and Eve, polygamy was not God’s original intent. God seems to have allowed polygamy to solve a problem, but it is not the ideal. In most modern societies, there is absolutely no need for polygamy. In most cultures today, women are able to provide for and protect themselves—removing the only “positive” aspect of polygamy. Further, most modern nations outlaw polygamy. According to Romans 13:1-7, we are to obey the laws the government establishes. The only instance in which disobeying the law is permitted by Scripture is if the law contradicts God’s commands (Acts 5:29). Since God only allows for polygamy, and does not command it, a law prohibiting polygamy should be upheld.

Are there some instances in which the allowance for polygamy would still apply today? Perhaps, but it is unfathomable that there would be no other possible solution. Due to the “one flesh” aspect of marriage, the need for oneness and harmony in marriage, and the lack of any real need for polygamy, it is our firm belief that polygamy does not honor God and is not His design for marriage.

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Ask yourself, why is Obama going after Trump?
Answer is simple.
Obama was an illegitimate and illegal President. If Obama and the Democratics don't attack Trump and continue to do so, Trump will investigate and expose Obama.

Because Obama was illegitimate as President, all of his Supreme Court Justices go bye bye. Everything his signed is void. And it off to prison for Pelosi, Obama, Valerie, Holder, etc.

Trump must have the investigation the Democrats are pushing for to go back 8 years. If the Russian's did try to interfer in US elections, how far back did it go? Surely, Trump's election wasn't the first. Trump has to force the Democrats to request that the investigation go back over the Obama Presidency.

The Dems will shit.

James Lafferty #conspiracy whiteswillwinparty.org

The Israelis did not want someone such as myself with millions of dollars to spend on making trouble for them. So they decided to kill me. As we now know, assassinations must be signed off by not only the Mossad chief but also the prime minister. In my case they were Meir Dagan and Ariel Sharon.

My wife had warned me that the Israelis we would see at the pool and around the Flamingo apartment complex in Las Vegas were interested in me. This was several years before the Mossad murder of the Hamas executive al-Mabhouh in Dubai by a large group of Israeli killers, so I couldn’t imagine that it would take six or seven of them to kill me. I said, “How do you know they’re Israelis?” She said, “They’re speaking Hebrew. I’ve been to Israel. I’ve been around Jews all my adult life. They’re Israelis and they’re always looking at you. We’d better watch it.”

First, my truck was vandalized. In the excitement I didn’t notice anything on the steering wheel but the next day I became quite ill and my kidneys started to shut down and a serious and a painful burn was developing which I also couldn’t understand. Robbi was an ER and ICU doctor at one point in her medical career and immediately went into action. I eventually recovered except for the burn about six weeks later.

The day before the army was scheduled to arrive for a meeting my business partner and I got in my truck to go over to check out the vehicle and make sure it was ready. I grabbed the wheel, which was covered in grease! Sticky, gooey grease. I said to my partner, “What the hell is this?” He was too excited about the coming meeting to pay attention so I just wiped my hands and the wheel with a shop rag and off we went. I began to get ill again the next day during the army meeting but managed to get through it successfully. By afternoon, however, my kidneys started shutting down again and the raw burn intensified. When you pull it out to pee the irreversible damage is done.

This time, remembering the steering wheel, I said to Robbi, “You know something? I think I’ve been poisoned.” She said that she was thinking the same thing. It’s not something you want to face. And it took another six weeks to recover – except for the burn, which just got worse. The Jews burned about two inches off it due to the shrinking of the scar tissue over the next few months. And it hurt to get hard.

At this point, I was wiping door handles, steering wheel and gear shift with alcohol before getting in. I started parking the truck next to the guard shack and told the guards that someone might try to get into it. Despite this, they did it one more time. We got in it one morning shortly after receiving an emailed death threat from the JDL and the wheel was covered in grease again, despite being parked next to the guard shack. I cleaned it with the alcohol. The Las Vegas cops refused to investigate.

There was no alternative but to leave Las Vegas, which we did since there was no point to be there anymore. The Israelis wrecked the vehicle project with the army by informing them that I was a notorious anti-Semite. So take notice and beware a similar attack if you become known to them. Ideally, you shouldn’t become known.

Nine years later, in August 2012, we were attacked by a drone at our home in Victor, Idaho. It was making a whirring sound outside our opened office window in the dark at around nine pm. We both started for the window but Robbi was closer and she got there first. She was between me and whatever was out there. The noise went away and that seemed to be that.

I left for my work in California at 4:30 the next morning and let Robbi sleep. I didn’t know anything was wrong until she called as I was going through Reno hours later. Something was terribly wrong with her lungs and she was having difficulty in breathing. She’d been on the floor since she woke up and could hardly move as the pain was so intense. When she finally got medical attention, she was told there was nothing they could do since they couldn’t determine what was wrong. She put herself on steroids to lessen the inflammation and pain but they did nothing for the symptoms. She found a lung specialist in Wyoming who promised he would get to the bottom of it. On her second visit he was a changed man and told her there was nothing he could do – sorry. We’re pretty sure he got a national security letter instructing him to back off. Our local hospital in Jackson said the same thing. Months later, the disease was reduced greatly by a chiropractor’s hot laser.

Later in 2012 I had knee replacement surgery at the local hospital. Just prior to the procedure I was questioned by the chief of anesthesia, who was suited up for the operation…

I awakened in my room after surgery and immediately threw up. The room was dark but what was in the bucket didn’t seem right – it looked black. I called the nurse to bring another bucket. She took mine and appeared startled by the contents. Within minutes I threw up again and again the stuff in the bucket was very dark. She came again and this time was even more taken aback when she looked in the bucket. “Why is that so dark?” I asked. She said, “It’s blood.”

The nurse knew who I was and had heard a speech I’d made over in Idaho a few months earlier. She said the surgeon had done over six thousand procedures and this had never happened before. The odd thing was, it happened to me and the only other patient he had that morning – a woman. And the even odder thing was, at the very last minute before surgery, the anesthetist who’d questioned me was replaced by a female anesthetist whom they did not know. She was a total stranger! She was there for my surgery only and they never saw her again. But the unfortunate other patient apparently received the same anesthetic.

We had a meeting with my surgeon before my hip replacement a month later. He was very disturbed by what had happened on his watch and promised there would be no repeat of it. I told him that the Israelis had in the past attempted to kill me and he nodded, realizing it had to be something like that. And the next one was without incident. But within a month, I began to develop a neurological disorder which we suspect came from whatever was in the stranger’s anesthetic.

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Trump is an INSIDER and a PEDOPHILE like all the other NWO puppets

Look at how much of an "outsider" trump is, he uses pedophile pimp Jeffrey Epstein just like Kissinger, Clinton, Rockefeller, Blair and all the other insider NWO puppets

Trump is such an "outsider" that the establishment "hates" so much they let him use the same pedophile pimp to the elite and let him hang out at the same parties where they have sex with underage girls

When you all gonna realize elections are a rigged joke?????

Vote for Clinton you get the CFR
Vote for Trump you get the CFR

"In 2010, Epstein pled the Fifth when asked by a lawyer representing one of Epstein's victims about his relationship with Trump:

Q: Have you ever had a personal relationship with Donald Trump?
A. What do you mean by "personal relationship," sir?
Q. Have you socialized with him?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Yes?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?
A: Though I'd like to answer that question, at least today I'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendment rights, sir."


[link to news.vice.com (secure)]

"During its investigation, the FBI obtained a copy of Epstein's private 194-page phone book. Lawyers for one of Epstein's victims told VICE News it was stolen by a household employee sometime around 2004.

A copy we obtained includes investigators' margin notes pointing to key witnesses against Epstein as well as handwritten notes identifying dozens of then-underage girls, as well as their phone numbers.

Among people listed in the phone book were well-known political figures such as Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, Tony Blair, former Utah governor and Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, Senator Edward Kennedy, and Henry Kissinger. Also listed were major political contributors like David Koch and Pepe Fanjul.

All those names were listed alphabetically at the front of Epstein's telephone book, along with the names of Trump's former wife, Ivana, his daughter Ivanka, and his brother, Robert.

Epstein created a number of other odd categories, including one called "Jeffrey." There were dozens of names in the Jeffrey category, including Ehud Barak, Alan Dershowitz, then–Senator John Kerry, former senator and lobbyist George Mitchell, powerhouse DC lobbyist Thomas Quinn, and David Rockefeller.

Trump was also listed in this section. Under his name were 14 phone numbers, including emergency numbers, car numbers, and numbers to Trump's security guard and houseman."

TRUMP IS AN INSIDER

JUST LIKE CLINTON

And just like insider and former puppet president Bill Clinton, Trump uses the same pimp to the elite for all his underage girl fucking.

Not only would Trump fuck his own daughter, but he'll pay to fuck someone else's underage daughter too.

Nothing says "I am an outsider" like be a regular customer of Jeffrey Epstein!!!

Trump is an "inside-her" just like Billy Clinton, David Rockefeller, The Koch Bros, Tony Blair, henry Kissinger, John Kerry, Prince Bandar, Thomas Quinn

Fell #fundie forums.spacebattles.com

[ Why is rape considered evil?]

A variety of factors. Part of it is reasonable, modern female empowerment. Part of it is ancient, outmoded "Sacred Feminine" bullshit. Yet another part is even more outmoded, frankly offensive 'Sacred virginity' tradition.


I really, really hate this discussion, because my opinion on it makes it seem like I hate women or something, and I really don't. But I don't think rape is nearly as heinous a crime as people think it is. It's awful, certainly, but for some reason we've elevated it to one of the worst things a person can do, and I think that reputation that it has ends up making it's victims suffer more than if it were considered only slightly worse than normal assault.

[So you see it as society trying to make a crime especially heinous because society says it is a especially heinous crime?]

Basically, yes. I think it persists via cultural inertia going back a long, long time. The reasoning behind it has changed, but the cultural meme has remained largely the same. For whatever reason, we've essentially declared vaginas sacred and we see those who "Desecrate" them as a special kind of evil; it's the kind of emotional response we usually reserve for people who hurt children, or who torture people.

I honestly think it's a sexist idea. That women are these precious, fragile jewels that need harsh laws and big strong men to protect their sacred genitalia.


Yes, rape is absolutely wrong. But the degree of emotional response we have for it is completely out of proportion to the actual severity of the violation. And I think it hurts women.

[How many people suffer life long psychological trauma from getting punched or kicked a few times?]


I imagine if you were told your entire life that punching you in the face was the most awful act anyone could do to you, you'd find it pretty traumatic if you ended up getting punched in the face.

You're also missing the point; there are many different situations in which rape is entirely non-traumatic. A date rape victim could go their entire life not knowing they'd ever been raped, but if they found out about it, it's still treated with as much vitriol as if they'd been bludgeoned, held down, and violated in the street.


[Your inflicting pain and suffering on some one for a sex /power kick.
You can't come up with any justification for it.]

And all the various kinds of rape where the victim doesn't suffer, and may in fact be entirely unaware of what happened?

Granted it'd be hard to justify those either, but not all rape is sadistic, or violent. It's a generalization people have made for some reason.

The most common drugs used in these assaults cause either complete unconsciousness or anterograde amnesia. Plenty of date rapists use lubrication and condoms, and even if they don't, the suffering of the victim is clearly not their intended goal, or they'd have left them conscious.

It's just moronic to assume that every rape MUST be motivated by sadism and power fantasies.


[So date raping someone is a less severe crime because they don't remember it?

That's some quality bullshit right there.]

that depends entirely on your own view of how justice is supposed to work.

As a sometime utilitarian, I think Justice is supposed to punish people with a severity scaled linearly to how much suffering they cause. If nobody actually suffers as a result of your crime, it isn't a very severe crime in my eyes.


[Please tell someone who suffered date rape that they didn't really suffer. Then let me know how that went for you.]

Anecdotes aren't evidence, this argument is not, has never been, and will never be persuasive. I'd also argue that they wouldn't suffer near as much if we didn't treat their vaginas like the arc of the covenant.

The fact of the matter is, if nobody told them, they'd go on with their lives without a worry in the world. They would be completely unharmed by the experience right up until the moment you chose to hurt them by giving them the knowledge of what had happened.

[Forcing someone down and raping or sodomizing them against their will, possibly giving them a disease in the process that could change how they live for the rest of their life, violating a person's privacy and body for simple physical pleasure is just sick.]

So I must ask, again, what about nonviolent rape with lubrication and protection?


[Fell, what is your suggested position on the punishment of someone who has been convicted of drugging women for the purpose of having sex with them while they are unconscious?]


It should directly correspond to the suffering, inconvenience, and loss of security felt by the victim. As a general rule of thumb; more than groping someone, less than sexually assaulting them while they're fully awake and aware.

Raye Johnson #psycho theguardian.com

Experience: I paid to have my daughter kidnapped

That first day I grieved. I knew deep down I was right, but I didn’t know if my daughter would forgive me.
It was 3am. I went into my daughter’s room, woke her, told her I loved her and that she was going on a trip. She was drowsy from the sleeping pills I’d slipped in her drink a few hours earlier. Then the two strangers I’d hired to take her away went into her room. She tried to get her bag and makeup. “Where you’re going, you don’t need anything,” they told her. I stood outside the door, shaking. Had I just created a situation in which I would lose my 17-year-old for ever?

I’d quit a successful financial career and moved across the country to bring up my daughter and son in Florida, so we’d have time as a family after their father and I divorced. I loved them fiercely and we were close. They knew I had high hopes for them. But at 17, my daughter started hanging around with different people; her straight-A grades dropped and her attitude changed. We started to fight about her going to school. “Even if you drive me there, you can’t make me go inside,” she would say. Then she told me she had decided to quit school to become a high-end hairdresser and wanted me to pay for her to go to beauty school. I was distraught. There is nothing wrong with hairdressing, but I wanted her to get a proper education first, so she would have choices.

Around the same time, police twice caught her 14-year-old brother with drugs. I wasn’t having it a third time, so I sent him away to a strict boarding school in another state. On a weekend visit, it struck me how much he’d changed and how my daughter would benefit from the same intensive treatment.

But I had to act fast. Her beauty school fees were due the coming Saturday. And, legally, I had control over her only while she was still under 18. I found a boot camp for troubled children in Utah and hired a private service to escort her there, whether she wanted to go or not. That Friday night we went to dinner on the pretence that it was to celebrate her new school. It was actually to stop her seeing friends and ensure she’d be home for the escorts.

After their appearance in the middle of the night, the security service flew with her to the Utah desert. That first day I grieved. I knew deep down I was right, but I didn’t know if my daughter would forgive me: I had to be prepared to lose her in order to help her. Her friends called and I said she’d gone on a trip. “Where did she go? When will she be back?” they asked. I told them I didn’t know.

I had paid $16,000 (£11,380) for seven weeks of gruelling physical and mental challenges. The other kids were in desperate situations: young offenders, drug addicts, some were suicidal. I was aware my daughter didn’t share their circumstances. They lived like cavemen: they didn’t see a roof the whole time, took care of their sanitary waste, learned survival skills and did physical labour; some cut off their hair because they couldn’t bathe.

They had daily therapy and wrote letters to their parents. My daughter’s were full of apology: how she had made mistakes, wanted to be forgiven, how she loved me. Sure, she was angry at first when she didn’t know what was going on, but she soon understood why I’d sent her there and was embarrassed.
Experience: my plane was hijacked
Read more

At the end, parents were taken into the desert to be reunited with their kids. We could see them walking towards us from a mile away. I was scared. I didn’t know how my daughter would react. Then I spotted her; she was muscular and dirty. We hugged and cried. She was back to the daughter I knew, the one without the attitude.

She finished high school with straight As, went to college, then did a master’s. She works in the legal system now. Both my kids joke that I’m a psycho mom, but they forgave me and we remain close. It’s the most difficult thing I’ve ever done. Could they have got where they are today without such drastic action? Perhaps, but it wasn’t a chance I was willing to take. I believe the more we suffer in life, the more we grow. I have two strong, amazing kids, and I’d do it again.

• As told to Candice Pires. Raye Johnson is a pseudonym.

USALiberty #fundie freerepublic.com

I have posted about this before. We have to start standing up and making sure NO tax dollars are used to fund science designed to refute the beliefs of the Christian majority. It is a waste of time and money.

There is really ONLY one logical explanation for the origin of complex, functionally specified, digitized genetic information. GOD CREATED IT — in SIX DAYS when He created the universe. Any other explanation can be torn apart.

It really irks me to know that a lot of tax dollars are wasted in places like government universities on efforts to explain “the origins of life” and the nature of the universe. It’s all there in Genesis — NO CHARGE! Just read what God has to say. God does not lie. So, why waste resources to “prove” that God’s Holy Word is false? It’s offensive that anyone would even try — let alone do that with MY money.

It is not just evolution we need to take out of schools. We need to address the whole scientific culture that says that we must “seek answers” to questions that we already KNOW the answer to. The only possible motive for that is the promotion of a deeply atheistic agenda.

USALiberty #fundie freerepublic.com

"There is really ONLY one logical explanation for the origin of complex, functionally specified, digitized genetic information. GOD CREATED IT — in SIX DAYS when He created the universe. Any other explanation can be torn apart.

It really irks me to know that a lot of tax dollars are wasted in places like government universities on efforts to explain “the origins of life” and the nature of the universe. It’s all there in Genesis — NO CHARGE!

It’s not just evolution we need to take out of schools. We need to address the whole scientific culture that says that we must “seek answers” to questions that we already KNOW the answer to — and spend tax dollars to do it!"

wetwareproblem #fundie wetwareproblem.tumblr.com

hey there! i have a question i'd like your input on, if you have the spoons to discuss these two topics. (trigger warning: harassment, violence, fasc*sm.) i know you have policy of no harassment, no verbal violence, etc, against people who have done horrific things or have dehumanizing and violent opinions, on tumblr. but i also see you endorse physical IRL violence against fash. this is a duality ive struggled with- how to justify "do not engage" and also "fight them off the street". (1/2)

(2/2) (cw: harassment, violence, fasc*sm, cont’d); im going with “engage offline if Very sure, and if its safe to do so andor if consequences seem worth bearing” and “do not engage online” as a compromise, since i can’t be certain online most time. or else, “do not engage online unless absolutely sure, witnessed with own eyes or ears, that this person is Active threat” but with that, theres risk of creating “acceptable targets”. inb4 slippery slope, but im legit worried. (ok2 publish if u want)

Okay. SM here. I’ve gotten special permission to answer this one, since it’s really more in my wheelhouse overall.

Well. To begin with, we’re in the kinda unique position of having dual policies on a lot of things. I endorse the “bring a bat” mentality… from a distance, but it’s Ashlyn who would actually show up with one. (We’re still negotiating boundaries on who wins in conflicts like these.)

But speaking more generally? The key questions to me as regards morals and ethics are “What impact will this have,” and “How do I win?” I want to see a world in which marginalized people are less marginalized, where we’re accepted as full and equal members of society as we are. How do I bring that about most effectively?

Hate-mobbing has a lot of black marks against it from this angle. It’s an escalation - responding to speech with violence. It makes people miserable and harms their mental health. It more often than not makes them double down on hateful politics. And it’s poisonous to rational thinking and winning strategies.

To expand on that last part: The fundamental problem with saying “But this time I’m right, so the hateful tactics that oppressors use on me are justified here” is that, by and large, the oppressors are saying the same thing. The Slymepit, Gamergate, Swarmfront? They all think of themselves as oppressed by a conspiracy of marginalized people. They think that justifies the shit they do. They’re sitting there going “Well, sure, it’s evil when those uppity SJW types do it, but this time I’m right!” And frankly, it feels really good to say that, to engage like that. it feels like vindication, like justice. Revenge usually does. So it encourages you to think a little less about it and lash out a little more.

But revenge isn’t justice. Revenge doesn’t actually accomplish our goal of making the world better for marginalized people. And it does make us gloss over an important question, one that requires the exact sort of difficult and careful and considered thought it discourages:

How do you know that you’re not falling into the same trap as those guys?

Finally, particularly here on tumblr, it fails the “winning” test. A lot of people spewing bigoted rhetoric - a lot of them - are kids just making their first forays into forming political opinions. They’re going to fuck up and do/say/think something wrong. Sometimes it’s going to be terrible. But if we respond with a hate mob, not only are we bullying a child, we’re making sure that kid’s first exposure to us is a rage-filled mob that wants them to die because they said the wrong thing. These kids could have been talked around or educated, but now they’ve seen that and they know we’re The Enemy. They’ll always be looking for the knife in every word we say.

When we’re talking about fighting fascism, though, we’re looking at a different situation. We’re looking at people who have already been hardened. There’s no talking someone around or educating them by the time they’re ready to engage in actual violence against you. They won’t listen to a single word you say - if you’re an Acceptable Target for violence, then they already see the knife in everything you say or do, whether or not it’s actually there.

(And yes, this should be taken as a general warning against Acceptable Targets, because you’re not immune to this way of thinking either.)

So with words off the table, we’re left with the question: how do we actually stop the violence? Police and authorities aren’t going to help - they’re complicit in it, when they’re not actively engaging. The only people we can rely on are our siblings in this fight. And the only tool that has been shown to get the job done is violence.

I know this seems like I’m just going back on the Acceptable Target principle above, but… well, to me, at least, there’s a clear line. You can’t turn to violence as an acceptable tool without endorsing its use to resist your violence. And yes, that works both ways - if you’re going to engage in antifa action, then getting hurt might be the cost of doing business, and you have to be willing to pay that cost when it comes. But frankly, sometimes that price is worth it.

So it seems that the only point of confusion remaining is “Why is fascism categorically violence?” And sure, a lot of it doesn’t look like things we associate with the word ‘violence.’ A lot of the time it’s holding rallies, distributing leaflets, etc.

But every one of those leaflets, every one of those rallies, is a veiled threat. The core of fascism is and always has been “surrender what we want or we will take it by force.” And people who have been targeted by it know this. They see that, and they know that they can be hurt or killed anywhere, at any time, by someone like that. They are less safe, and their mental health is directly impacted, long before the first blow lands.

Fascism is violence against marginalized people for simply existing, and the tool that stops it is violence against oppressors for harming innocents. And y’know what? All things considered, I’m okay with that.

Heavengoing #fundie boards.aetv.com

First of all Jesus came to give His life for us all. We are all sinners in the eyes of God until we repent of our sins. The Old Testament tells of things that are past and how the people of that time lived. Jesus came to do away with us having to sacifice animals for our sins. He was our sacifice. If you read the Old Testament, you will find that even tho those laws was for that time, that some of those laws were brought forth in the time of Jesus. Laws such as the Ten commandments and others. Read your Bible. Read the Old Testament and than read the new. Read what the old law stated and read what the New Testament says about sex, love, marriage, and so forth. I have been around gays and they were nice. What I am saying is that I value their soul more than what kind of life they live. All they have to do is repent and start living a straight life. People say that they are disgusted with me. I am disgusted with people that get out on the street and hold signs saying, "I am gay and have the same right to marry as straight couples do." That is advertising your sex preference. They do not have a right to Marry! God created ADAM AND EVE, not ADAM AND STEVE. Read Romans Chapter 1 and then run references on it. It states that it is an abomination in the eyes of God. You know what really bothers me more than anything is that Satan has people so blind to the truth that they won't listen. God said in the last days that people would be so blinded by Satan that the truth would not be in them.The Bible also states that Satan is the father of all lies. If you read Romans 1, you will find where it says that God will turn these people over to a reprobate mind. I don't hate anyone. I simply believe that this world would be a better place if everyone lived by the Word of God. Just think how simple our lives would be. No more sin, no more killing, no more pain, and no more debates like this one.Yes, I have a strong faith. It keeps me going every day because I know in whom I believe and what I believe. I don't believe in abortion either. First, it is murder and God says that murder is wrong. Can you really imagine in your heart what that little unborn child is feeling while it is being killed. To answer all the questions you asked, Why do you choose to not answer your own questions. All the answers are in the BIBLE. Thank you and may God Bless you.

kendreck #fundie christianforums.com

[Ouija board evil?]

So its 3:27 am and my friends just left to go by this products. Its a board where you hold a piece of lookign glass over a board of letters and ask a question. The glass is suppose to move toward the answer to your question. I know many people think this product is evil and channels the devil who impersonates your loved ones when you ask a question about the deceased (atleast that is what i was told in my christian academy when i was younger). So i protested to the use of it as well as a few other christians in the room but in the end they went. I told them not to bring it back to the apartment so there going to an abandoned apartment upstairs and i was wodnering if i should be concerned. I know this may be stupid but it just makes me nervous. I dont like the thought of them being tempted by the devil.

jeremyjimmy #sexist reddit.com

(Note: This is an amalgam of three different comments)

You'd think that people from IncelTears would be more angered by these. They're complaining about their privilege.

Also what happened to them being able to gauge personality? I'm not an incel but the blackpill idea is like 90% dead on. I don't know why people are so dishonest and want men to be so unprepared as teens entering the dating world by feeding them endless lies about female nature. Women are completely prepared for what men will want from them and what drives them. Meanwhile the second anyone with any experiences starts to nail down female sexuality the entire western media starts bucking like a horse with a rubber band around it's balls.

edit: Also I haven't seen anyone make this point before but extremist feminists have done everything that they claim to hate about incels. Yet why aren't they going after them? There have been feminist murderers, terrorists and sites actually full of women aborting their male babies, planning evil shit to do to their male children and on and on it goes. I mean out in public women were saying "kill all men" on Twitter. Nobody really cared. In fact from my experience feminists have done a lot worse than incels. Most incels are just harmless guys venting about the lies they were told as children.

.
.
.

I know from personal experience about all this shit, then I found incels and saw that they have it all down to a science. I guess I'm "chad lite" on the ratings scale so even with crippling social anxiety would get girls and even my friends girls kept trying to fuck me which started to make me look down on them. (You hear comedians and musicians talk about this, married women trying to fuck them and just saying "so?" when they say "but you're married".) Then I went through a stage where I got really sick, lost all my physique and looked terrible. I'm not exaggerating when I say that women started treating me COMPLETELY different. They'd actually give me looks of disgust. My friends noticed too.

Then I got better, worked out, got everything back to how it was and suddenly strange girls are being nice again. One who was horrible to me even suddenly started asking a friend if I was single. It turned me into a complete pessimist. But if someone would've told me when I was younger the truth about female sexuality it wouldn't have bothered me at all. Girls being attracted to me would say I was funny and they liked that I had various talents. Meanwhile when I looked like shit they stopped laughing at my jokes and didn't care about my talent or intelligence. Weird huh?

Male sexuality is well known, it's part of our culture to understand it. Meanwhile female sexuality is shrowded in mystery and called "complicated". We're animals. It's not complicated. I fucking can't stand how men can't explore and discuss this stuff without all being called terrorists or something insane like that. Meanwhile feminists say "kill all men" feminists make bomb threats, murder people, cut men's dicks off and if you group them in with feminists you get the old no true Scotsman fallacy. "They're not true feminists." Oh right, then that one guy who said something about incels online isn't really an incel. It's all so frustrating. Yet they sit there with these puzzled looks, wondering why men are suddenly all being so mean. If it was women rising up like this they'd try to understand, look for the root cause and fix it, the cause of negative female behavior is always external. (Abusive father/husband/single motherhood is tough!) With men it's always internal. (Toxic masculinity/he's just evil/a psychopath etc.) But if it's guys then it's just inherent as if men can't be influenced by the outside world.

It's all so fucking petty and will have to come to a head somewhere. Things will HAVE to start moving back the other way because they're becoming too unstable. I was honestly stunned when I found out about groups like Incel Tears. They've found some of the most lonely, depressed people on Earth and are attacking them for making some offensive jokes. People in terrible situations cope with dark humor, it's pretty much well known. It really is just an excuse to bully these guys. I think all of this is instinctual and that people try to rationalize it afterwards. This is the case with almost all beliefs and behavior. People react based on emotion and animal instinct and then try to act rationally after the fact. People HATE weak guys, they mock them, people want to help weak women and women in need.

Like I remember asking a feminist what she thought about a 14 year old guy whose teacher raped him, got pregnant and had the child. He then had to pay child support at age 18. If he DIDN'T PAY HIS RAPIST HE'D GO TO PRISON. I got called a rape apologist. There's zero sympathy for men. Meanwhile Muslim women who get raped and imprisoned on the technicality of adultery are seen as victims who need to be saved. I want to save both yet I'm the fucking rape apologist. I'd love to know if there's any kind of science exploring how people react to men and women in various situations because I'm convinced that all of this insane behavior is to do with reproduction and protecting offspring in the past. None of it makes any sense in today's culture but it just FEELS wrong to say that so people hang onto it. It's all a fucking mess.

.
.
.

True. And those in the center just learn to become content with their existence and make themselves as busy as possible. It's like with depression. Depressed people perceive reality FAR more accurately then regular people. I guess the black pill would be depressed people and the blue pill regular people.

I think you might be right about things going too far. What I should've said is that if they don't move back they'll probably collapse which will fix things anyway. Awareness can still be raised, we see groups like MGTOW growing and also a curious thing that people overlook is a lot of chad lites and "normies" joining incel forums just to be able to post. There's a good reason for that, because most people have noticed this stuff but either haven't been able to put it into words or they feel like they have nobody to talk to about it.

You're right about experiencing both sides. I'd never really thought about this stuff until I got those disgusted looks. I guess it's similar to that experiment where that woman disguised herself as a man for a year or something and suddenly found out that most of what we're told about guys is bullshit and that she was treated like shit on sight by most women. I think she actually had to go to therapy afterwards lol.

I've been thinking of making a Youtube channel for a while. I've been interested in this stuff for years among other subjects so I might give it a go. I think I can present it in a way where regular people won't instantly switch off.

Moe Lester #sexist incels.co

[SuicideFuel] "Dickpill" is the worst pill!

Just imagine: if you were an 8+/10, 6'2" or taller, muscular, had a driver's license, a nice car, your own house - anything to impress a woman - she would still leave you if she found out your dick was below 5 inches. I don't think even the Almighty Chad himself could keep a girl with a 4 inch penis! He wouldn't be able to satisfy her. Maybe she would stay with Chad if he had a lot of money, but you know she'd be fuckin' around with another guy who's got an 8 inch dick. Sure, Chad might look hot. He might have a square jaw and hunter eyes. But at the end of the day it all comes down to sex. That's all foids want. That's all they want Chad for. We think of Chads as the superior male, but it IS possible for a guy to be blessed with amazing looks but cursed with a small dick.

I even know this is true from seeing it first hand! My co-worker is easily a 9/10 Chad. We're pretty close and get along well. But he told me one time that he had a girlfriend for a year, and she was an 8/10, but they broke up because he found out she was cheating on him with another guy who's more well-endowed. And his story was the inspiration for this post.

No foid wants to be in a relationship with a dicklet!

Also if you have less than 5 inches and are sub5 looks (which I'm sure most of you are) it's waaaaaaaaay past over for you buddy boyos! If Chad with a small dick can't get a woman to stay with him, how can you guys possibly get one?

DICKPILL IS WORST PILL. CHANGE MY MIND.