Similar posts

Tim Rowe #fundie charismanews.com

Are we living in another generation like Noah's, when toxic thinking is destroying our entire culture?

"The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was continually only evil. The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him in His heart" (Gen. 6:5-6).

It is sobering to see what happened to the human heart because of a reckless thought life. It did not take long after sin had poured into the human race in the Garden of Eden for men's and women's thinking to go down the tubes. Almost immediately, Adam and Eve let fear dominate their thinking when they hid from the presence of God. God was no longer the focal image of their thoughts. Corrupt thinking only worsened as Cain murdered Abel when thoughts of jealousy and anger shaped his heart into a killer. Sin was crouching at the door of Cain's thought life, and he failed to master it. Each succeeding generation continued to allow sin to crowd God out of their thinking.
The Days of Noah: The Point of No Return

In Genesis 6, people's thought lives had so corrupted their hearts that they reached a point of no return. Every thought, imagination and intention of their human thinking was consistently and totally evil. The Bible does not say some of the imaginations and thoughts of the human race were continually evil, but all of their images, desires, intentions and inclinations in every single thought, were evil.

This was not just some weekend fling. It was their thinking from the time they got up in the morning until the time they went to bed at night. There was not a moment in the day when this evil thought process was not actively controlling their minds and shaping their hearts. They wanted absolutely nothing to do with God in their thinking and ultimately in their hearts.

The psalmist affirms this destructive habit of wrong thinking to the human heart:

"The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek God; God is not in all his thoughts" (Ps. 10:4).

This wicked and rebellious people in the time of Noah did not seek God in their thinking. God was not in one single thought. God is the most awesome thing we can ever think about, but these people were so deceived that they did not believe they needed God.

This is the tragic height of selfishness. This is the ultimate ego trip. This is the most dangerous thinking pattern on the planet. Without God in our thoughts, we have written the death sentence to the magnificent purpose God has prepared for our lives. To never know Him is the greatest catastrophe of the ages. He deserves the honor to be first in our thinking.

Our thoughts are a mighty weapon that can forge our hearts into a steel fortress for our God, or they can be a stealth bomber that penetrates our inner lives and destroys our hearts. Thoughts are a much more powerful weapon than any nuclear bomb. They are the critical component to our spiritual growth. We must have a disciplined thought life that is focused like a laser on God and His Word, or our hearts will become a mush of spiritual apathy and worldly lusts.

The devil is a master general at attacking the thought life of a Christian. His war strategy involves tactics of deception, pressure, and enticement to turn our thinking away from God and toward his kingdom. The devil knows that every action that flows out of the human heart originates from our thoughts. He knows that our moral character is an exact image of our thinking. Our thoughts determine whether our character drifts toward good or evil.

The devil knows that in order for a person to do evil, he must first think evil.

Within 10 generations after the fall in the garden, the devil was so successful that only one person on the entire Earth had godly thoughts. Sin had spread like wildfire and contaminated every single thought of what was probably between 235 million and 7 billion people. To imagine that only one person out of this massive population had his thought life together is mind-boggling. Nothing in their thoughts reflected the image of God and not one thought brought glory to God. They were wise, rich, sophisticated and cultured for their time, but the defining characteristic of their age was wickedness because of their thinking.

A civilization that is centered on an ungodly thought life is built on sinking sand. This civilization in the days of Noah received the fruit of their thoughts, which was wickedness and corruption that multiplied on the face of the Earth.

Only Noah was thinking rightly and found favor with God. No one else held the image of God and His words as the standard for their thoughts. No one else was guarding their thoughts. No one else cared that their thought life had nothing good in it, but was a breeding ground for evil. Only Noah had righteous thoughts that built his faith and fueled his obedience to God. Noah's thought life was pure and free from evil because he walked with God.

Genesis 6:6 reveals how the toxic thinking of the human race affected God's heart. These verses contain the first usage of the word heart in the Bible, and they describe a heart that is in deep sorrow.

"The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him in His heart" (Gen. 6:6).

The toxic thought life of His precious creation broke God's heart. God's heart was in horrible agony and pain as He groaned in sorrow over the condition of the heart of every member of the human race. He cried in agony that His people refused to honor Him with even one thought.

Are our thought lives any better today? Does our thinking bring great agony to the heart of God? How God must grieve today over the thought lives of so many Christians and the toxic thinking of this generation.

God is sounding out a clarion call to all who would listen that what we think is critically important to the heart of God. He knows He cannot have your heart if He does not first have your thoughts.

I don't want to break the heart of God because of my toxic thinking. I want to bring glory to God with my thinking. I want to honor Him with every thought. I do not want any virus to infect my thinking and take out the operating system of my heart. A reckless thought life led to the annihilation of an entire civilization. Is it happening again?

various #fundie ummah.com

This is a long discussion after the OP. Follow the link to see fundie vs not-so-fundie.

Claim: It is not haram to have homosexual thoughts

This claim is an apologetic one; and it seeks to come to a compromise with homosexuals and their lewdness along with the West and how they promote it and seek to have it accepted and part of the culture.

However, there is no compromise on a subject that the Quran and the Sunnah have already made clear. Thus, the claim that it is not haram to have homosexual thoughts and that one is not considered a sinner until he acts upon it is false. This is the same as saying it is not haram to be gay until you act on it.

It is clear that homosexuality is nothing but a perversion and a disease. There are numerous verses in the Quran about it and how it is referred to as "Al-Fahishah" (Lewdness, an abomination, a vile deed).

“And know that Allah knows what is in your minds, so fear Him”

[al-Baqarah 2:235]

“but He will call you to account for that which your hearts have earned”

[al-Baqarah 2:225].

It is also clear that homosexuality begins as nothing but waswas from the Shaytan. We know that Shaytan and his troops are behind every evil on earth; they entice mankind to commit evil and they beautify shamelessness to them, and that is especially in regards to acts of lewdness in society; so why do we separate Shaytan and his effect on people turning gay? Why do we ignore it and indirectly agree with the kuffar's claim that homosexuality is a natural cause by saying thinking about it is not haram but only acting upon it is?

With the fact established that homosexuality starts as nothing but waswas from the Shaytan (convincing a person that he likes men or women), it is wajib on a person to repel waswas from his mind and evil thoughts as much as he can. If a person watches pornography, lives in a society where they see homosexuality as normal, doesn't lower his gaze from looking at the 'awrah of men and women; then he gets waswas from the devil saying that he likes men; and instead of repelling these evil thoughts, he dwells on them and accepts them; and eventually, he convinces himself that he doesn't like women but he likes men, then the source of the problem is very clear. The means to homosexuality and zina must be cut off, and that includes dwelling upon thoughts regarding them.

As for waswas a person cannot help or just passing thoughts that he does not dwell upon, yes, a person will not be held accountable and there is evidence for that. However, if this happens to someone, he is not considered gay. So a person cannot use this as evidence to say it is not haram to be gay until you act on it. He is only considered gay when he dwells on those thoughts and he accepts that he is not attracted to women, which leads him to act upon it.

Some responses
We are judged by our actions and not our thoughts (as long as we don't dwell on them). If someone is gay but doesn't act on it, then how can you say it's haram? You can't, because their feelings are not a sin and they didn't act on it. . . . .


So it's not an apologetic attitude to have and Muslims really need to do better when faced with these issues, because condemning gay people when they haven't even done anything is stupid and will hurt you and them in the long run.


.................................
I say it is haram because he got waswas from the Shaytan and he didn't repel them. Instead, he dwelt on those thoughts and accepted that he does not like women. For him to accept he does not like women, it is the same as accepting that Allah made him that way. This is the same as saying Allah made him inclined to al-Fahishah. If it is not natural, then it is from the Shaytan. So he must repel the waswas.

..................
I want to say this is a separate post because it obliterates your claim completely:

You claim that being gay is okay until you act on it. That is the same as saying being an atheist inwardly is okay. Both atheism and homosexuality go against the natural disposition, both of them are from the Shaytan, and both of them are irrational and an abomination.

How many people including Muslims get waswas about the Essence of Allah? Shaytan whispers to someone that Allah does not exist -- prove that He exists. If he does not repel these thoughts and he dwells on them, and he lives in a society that accepts it and he is lax with his prayers and connection to Allah, he will eventually become an atheist (as we see many Muslims do today). The same goes for homosexuality.

The only difference is the society you live in has made you desensitized to homosexuality.

.............................
From what I have read and asked questions of a scholar, it is not a sin to have a thought and to accept it is wrong and to resist and repel that thought and any subsequent thoughts.

Nevertheless, we must be aware that not all homosexuals are lewd and promoting their condition. Some are struggling to live with a very difficult situation as best they can in submission and obedience to Allah (swt) so we need to be mindful of this group in the way we speak about this topic.

...................................
But sister, we cannot call such people homosexuals, these people are simply people who struggle with waswasa and lowering their gaze. Being a homosexual and identifying as such means one has accepted homosexuality. And what's funny is science is trying really hard to prove homosexuality is genetic (giving it a reason for even existing) but so far, nothing great has come up.
.......................


Here's my thought process, homosexuality and heterosexuality is mainly about sex and attraction. If a straight guy is having urges towards every female around, then he should control himself and say "Allah comes first." If a gay guy is having urges towards some guys around, then he should control himself and say "Allah comes first."

If brothers and sisters have issues when it comes to zina, then someone who has attraction to the same gender will feel the same way so it's best to remind them to control their nafs and remember Allah

That is all.

If you feel like this is not the right approach and instead it's better to condemn the person and tell them that everything about them is a sin, then feel free to do it. But my approach is better, because we're all in this together and we all want to go to Jannah.
..................

sis this quote along with the link that describes how someone may be more genetically inclined to being gay means that I do not mean all kids and people who are/were molested will turn out gay, it simply explains why gay people who think they were born like this turned out this way. "I remember when I was 8 I had a crush on a boy" yet the man who says this was molested at age 5, so of course this will mean he will like boys by age 8 if he were gay, but because he doesn't link the incidence with his orientation, he thinks he is "born" like this. AstaghfiruAllah.

Sister you are failing to realize no one is born gay. Did Allah ta'ala create people born with genetic diseases (God forbid this on all of us and future kids) and condemn them? Did Allah ta'ala create people who have mental and physical disabilities and condemn them? Sub'ana Allah. So why would Allah ta'ala create gay people only to condemn their existence? Okay, let's hypothetically say there is decent proof of a link between genetics and the inclination towards the same sex, but can't they control who they marry? Can't they control such urges? I'll tell you this right now, there is not a single gay man who cannot be intimate with a woman, everything can biologically proceed but it his "preference" that he does not be with a woman.
A person who God forbid, has schizophrenia (genetic mental illness) cannot, for the life of them, control their disease.

And of course, I am nice to everyone. They are just sinners after all. Will they be close friends? Of course not, just like any other person who chooses to openly sin. I do not want to be associated with such people and possibly be influenced. Will I be mean to them and be proud? Of course not. I say Allah yihdeeyon and keep moving.


Much more of this at the link

Most Holy Family Monastery #fundie #homophobia mostholyfamilymonastery.com

[From "Does God Create Homosexuals?"]

The answer to this question is no.

The Vatican II sect denies the truth: that God doesn’t create anyone as a homosexual

Antipope John Paul II, New Catechism, #2357: “Homosexuality… Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.”

A commonly held false idea in our day is that God creates some people homosexual (or that homosexuality is a result of some sort of “psychological” problem). In fact, it is apparent from our contacts with people that most of those who consider themselves “traditional Catholics” believe that there is nothing wrong with the homosexual orientation, but only in homosexual acts. The truth is that God doesn’t create anyone with a homosexual orientation and that all those who are truly homosexuals (even those who are not engaging in homosexual acts) are homosexuals because of a demonic takeover and mortal sin. Those who scoff at this statement are simply faithless liberals who don’t want the truth and have no concept of the supernatural world.

[...]

Romans 1 clearly teaches that because these persons “worshipped and served the creature rather than the creator” and “changed the truth of God into a lie” God gave them up to homosexuality, which is described as a SHAMEFUL AFFECTION. Further, Romans 1 clearly teaches that homosexuality is “against nature,” which means that this orientation is foreign to man’s nature, that is, it is NOT INSTILLED BY GOD.

Men and women are given over to homosexuality for inundating themselves with sins of impurity – and thereby worshipping the flesh rather than God – and for this they get possessed by the demon of lust, which takes them over and corrupts their entire orientation. (And they can be cured of this.) People also become homosexuals by engaging in idolatry or by harboring a perverse fascination with human beings over God – thereby worshipping the creature rather than the Creator. The fact that all homosexuals are spiritually possessed by a demonic spirit is corroborated by the fact that most homosexual males can be identified by their effeminate external mannerisms. What explains this? It’s obviously the demon’s presence in the person manifesting itself externally – the external, unnatural mannerisms revealing the internal corruption of the soul.

[...]

But today all we hear from “Catholics” and almost all “traditional Catholics” is that homosexual acts are wrong, but that the homosexual orientation is okay – i.e., it is not their fault that they are homosexual. This is a falsehood which advances the cause of the Devil and the homosexual agenda. It also doesn’t help the homosexuals themselves. The idea that there is nothing wrong with the homosexual orientation (which contradicts Romans 1) is responsible for the fact that: 1) Novus Ordo seminaries are spilling over with homosexuals; 2) Homosexuals have gained such an ascendancy in society that their lifestyles and “homosexual persons” are accepted on mainstream television; 3) Gay “marriage” has become legal in certain places. If the truth that all homosexuals are spiritually possessed – and that homosexuality is a result of grave sin – had not been compromised by those who profess to be “Catholics,” none of this would have happened. It should also be noted that people who become homosexuals at a very young age are simply spiritually possessed by a demonic spirit early on in life.

Homosexuality is condemned throughout the Bible. Sodomy is one of the sins that cries to heaven for vengeance. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this very sin.

[...]

By telling homosexuals the truth that their perverse orientation is not natural, we do them a great charity and show a true love for their souls. We give them the knowledge and the means to cure themselves. And they don’t need an exorcism to cure themselves. If a homosexual ceases to commit all mortal sins and changes his or her life; if he or she holds the fullness of the Catholic Faith without compromise, which includes a profession of faith; if he or she makes a sincere sacramental confession of all mortal sins to a validly ordained priest; if he or she has a strong prayer life and a true devotion to the Mother of God and the holy Rosary, then he or she will be delivered from homosexuality without any doubt. Our Lord tells us that: “And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32) By knowing the truth and by employing the means to deliver themselves, homosexuals can and will be delivered from their perverse orientation.

Jesse Powell #fundie secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com

I am very glad I am a heterosexual; that I was born male and am romantically and sexually attracted to women. This is natural. This is healthy. This is the way it should be. It would have been very harmful to me if I had detoured into homosexuality at any point in my life and would have been particularly bad if I had embraced homosexuality as my identity rather than a shameful dysfunctional disorder to struggle to escape from in order to become normal and healthy and heterosexual again.

During my time growing up; born in the early 1970s and going to high school in the late 1980s; I was definitely harmed by the feminist attack against my masculinity and my purpose as a man but at least I was protected and shielded from homosexuality during Middle School (7th and 8th grade) and High School (9th grade to 12th grade). Homosexuality as normal and legitimate was never taught to me in the classroom and it was almost unheard of among my fellow students (one person during Middle School confided in me that she worried she might be lesbian while no one in High School was gay). Definitely homosexuality was stigmatized and thought of as weird and sick, no one among my fellow students ever communicated that homosexuality was normal or acceptable and the teachers never brought up the subject at all except during 9th grade when I was told that AIDS, a new terrifying sexually transmitted disease, mostly afflicted homosexual men in big cities like San Francisco.

Due to the feminist attack against me as a man, in particular against my masculinity and my purpose as a man, it is true that I had some problems related to gender identity in my early 20s. In particular I saw myself as a kind of feminine sensitive man interested in mostly female occupations as a way of expressing my “sensitive side” as a man. I was part of a kind of New Age subculture in the early 90s and in this environment as a young adult I did run across actual homosexuals and the feeling that maybe homosexuality was OK and acceptable was kind of “in the air” but still only rarely explicitly stated or advocated for.

My gender bending “sensitive male” identity didn’t do me any good with the ladies and I started to get disgusted with my aimless wandering and so I shifted course looking for purpose and identity and ambition in a way that would connect me with women. In particular I wanted to connect emotionally with the woman I loved the most in High School; to become someone that she would be proud of and to make myself into a man that would be of value to her. This then led to my conversion to patriarchy and dedicating myself to traditional masculinity and my duty to provide for and protect women; this conversion to patriarchy happening in my mid-twenties.

I am very very glad that I always stayed on the heterosexual side of things even during my period of vulnerability in my early 20s. There never was a time when I thought of homosexuality as being “normal” or when I thought that homosexuality should be “accepted” by the wider society. I always felt that it was a good thing that homosexuality was on the fringes and not seen as “normal” even in the New Age hippie like environment I wandered into after High School in my early 20s. I felt like I should be nice and polite and “accepting” of the homosexuals in my environment but I never thought that homosexuality should be elevated to “normal” status and truthfully no social pressure was placed on me to think of homosexuals as being “equal” to heterosexuals.

Looking back on things society didn’t protect me from feminism obviously but society did effectively protect me from homosexuality or homosexual influence or homosexual normalization at least until I graduated from High School and I am grateful for that. I was “safe” from homosexual advocacy and propaganda or any social approval or acceptance of homosexuality or the idea that homosexuality was “available to me” as an option.

What bothers me the most at the gut or visceral level about the Supreme Court decision just handed down mandating so called “gay marriage” nationwide is that it now means that “homosexual equality” is a kind of official government policy and that it is now implicitly “unacceptable” to view homosexuality as being inferior to or “less than” heterosexuality. The law has a kind of implied moral authority or moral legitimacy so that if the Supreme Court says that homosexuality is OK and normal and acceptable then that kind of makes it officially so. What this means is that at the broad cultural level there is no more protection from homosexuality anymore. That I would be left to fend for myself to keep a healthy and functional heterosexual identity intact; my heterosexuality itself would be no longer assumed or taken for granted.

In general I have been quite optimistic regarding what the future of America will be regarding cultural issues. This Supreme Court decision has been expected for awhile, but it is interesting now that it is actually here, that it is official now that “homosexual marriage” is “constitutionally protected” and the “law of the land” in all 50 states. My inclination is to continue to be optimistic regarding the overall picture of American culture going forward. This is because the broad swath of social indicators is pointing towards a return to patriarchy and a return to traditional values. Social indicators are the most powerful force of all I think; more powerful than the Supreme Court. I doubt very seriously that “gay marriage” will turn the social indicators in a negative direction. The rebellion against family breakdown is already rolling in terms of people’s actual behaviors.

I do however think there is a bifurcation going on; that the bad part of American culture is getting worse while the good part of American culture is getting better. The real danger is that the ruling in favor of “marriage equality” will lead to a kind of anti-Christian anti-social conservative tyranny. Already there is some tyranny going on; bakers and florists and such being forced to serve homosexual couples for the “weddings” the homosexual couples plan. Business owners refusing to participate in these kinds of “gay marriage” celebrations have received heavy fines effectively forcing them to either serve gay customers or go out of business. There are Christian educational institutions and such worried that they may lose their tax exempt status or face lawsuits based on their “discrimination” against gays.

To claim that homosexuals are morally equivalent to heterosexuals is a very very radical thing and many religious organizations are worried that an equivalency between racial discrimination and anti-homosexual discrimination is going to be placed into the law so that current anti-discrimination rules and policies protecting blacks from discrimination will be applied to how homosexuals should be treated; this potentially criminalizing important religious practices and policies currently in place at many Christian institutions.

Nationwide Supreme Court mandated “gay marriage” is certainly a bad thing for a number of different reasons but it shouldn’t derail the cultural revival and the Christian revival already underway. Certainly Supreme Court imposed “gay marriage” will help recruitment efforts for the more conservative forms of Christianity. The real question in my mind is how the forces of feminist / homosexual advancement will react to the growing backlash against the societal destruction that feminism and homosexualism has created. How will the feminists and homosexualists respond when they start losing support and losing political power? That is the truly interesting question in my mind.

Xeru #fundie battledawn.com

Basically, if you cede homosexuals the right to marry, it turns into a slippery slope.


It's not what giving homosexuals the right to marry that's the problem. It's what giving homosexuals the right to marry represents. It represents that our society has become one that supports and tolerates something that is against biology, against the fundamental parts of being a human, tolerates something that natural selection has weeded out a long time ago and for good reason, tolerates something that is, on all levels, wrong.

I am not religious. But I will not tolerate something that runs contrary to the basic functions to the human race. If we endorse homosexuality, we open the freedom to bestiality, to polygamy, to incest. THAT is UNTHINKABLE. The legalization of same-sex marriage will be used as precedence to legalize marriage in that respect, and so, it follows logically, if you advocate for same-sex marriage, you advocate for polygamy, for beastiality, for incest legalization. Do you really?

Society is not prepared to accept homosexuality. How do I know this? you ask. Well, quite simply, the fact that same-sex marriage is not legal is perfect evidence.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. That is the way the law writes it, and quite frankly, the law does not need to be agreed with. Humanity has survived quite adequately for millennia without homosexuality, so your "stagnant society" argument holds no water.

Once again, I am okay with putting all of the homosexuals away from society and letting them do whatever. But by allowing them to marry, I allow them into my society, into a society that does not wish for them to be there. Violence from religious group follows. Allowing homosexuals into society will only ensue instability. But even on a smaller scale, same-sex marriage enables homosexual couples to receive the same benefits that heterosexual couples receive. They should not receive equal treatment, at least in the same system.

Aister, you miss an ultimate question. Why do homosexuals fight for the right to marry? Because they want to force themselves unto society.

tl;dr, my main arguments
Slippery Slope
Society is not prepared to accept homosexuals, and the legalization of marriage will allow homosexuals to force themselves onto society.
Heck, it's just wrong.

Being with someone you love is not against the law. Wanting to marry a person of the same gender is. I'll admit freely--while I can see where religion comes from, where racial attitudes comes from, I do not understand homosexuality. At all. And the fact that it causes many people in society qualms because the sight of a man cuddling with another man is quite frankly disgusting means that it is thus indecent.

natsumihanaki20 #fundie deviantart.com

A reply to TheEyeOfTheLight

I blocked you because you are crazy. In this world there are two type of persons: those whose values are defined by society and do not like to think (you) , and those whose value are defined by reality and like to think (me). You are amongst those whose values is defined by society and do not like to think. I warned you lovingly that what you do is wrong, but you keep on denying reality and God to satisfy your delusions. I can see which kind of person you are, and you are the type with whom talking about reality and showing proof is a waste of time. You are a hypocrite, and delusional. You are the kind who has blindfolded themselves from the truth. You claim to respect my beliefs. Yet, you came here with the purport to change them. You claim to believe in God, and yet in the comment you said that probably God is not true. You claim to be interested in learning, but when confronted with evidence you ignore it and plunge your head into the sand. I don't hate you, but I don't see the point in repeating the truth when you have unwilling ears. It seems you have not read the Bible. If you had read it, you wouldn't say such biblical myths.

I'm not being a hypocrite. All I'm saying is what is written in the Bible and what facts support. Facts show that asexuality is as healthy as heterosexuality, that's why priest practice it. Jesus himself said that being eunuch ( not interested in sex) is okay, whilst God condemned homosexuality in the New Testament and in the Old Testament and homosexuals were listed as those who will burn in Hell. God commanded his followers to hate sin, and to love the sinner. One can love a homosexual man whilst detesting his homosexuality. One can love a murderer whilst detesting the murder he committed. One can love a man without loving his sin. And, by 'love' God means that we should do our best to help the fella turn away from sin and to help him whenever his in trouble (for example, if a sinner is starving, we should give him food).

Sin is something that one can stop doing. We are all born wicked, and with a tendency to sin. But, through God we can all overcome sin. Homosexuality is not inborn; there's no evidence to support that. Homosexuality can be changed, and there are many studies which prove it. For instance, a study performed by Robert Spitzer ( a pro-homosexual psychiatrist, who was amongst the groups of psychologist whose efforts contributed to homosexuality stopping to be considered a disorder) showed that highly motivated homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. Thus, homosexuality is a condition which can be changed as long as the gay individual is has enough desire to change. In the same way a highly motivated drug-addict can stop being so, a highly motivated homosexual can change his sexual orientation. Thus, it is not a pointless battle to fight against addicting sin, but a battle that the one who perseveres will eventually win. God did not condemn people who suffer from homosexuality to the lake of fire, for he gave them the ability to change. It's up to homosexuals to decide whether they want to keep on committing atrocities with their bodies or change. It's up to them to decide whether they want to go to Hell or Heaven. Having said this, there's no such thing as homosexuals, but rather people who suffer from homosexuality. Since homosexuality is an illness with a cure, there's no such thing as homosexual, since homosexuals are neither born gay nor condemned to remain that way.

What's the point of the study? Not too long ago, many Christians believed whites were superiors to blacks, and thought the Bible supported their beliefs, when it is written that in God everyone is equal and that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve. The fact that a majority of Christians are being brainwashed by public schools since tender ages to accept homosexuality does not mean that homosexuality is accepted in the Bible. This shouldn't surprise you but, many studies have shown that an alarming number of Christians has never read the Bible, and believe myths about it. Many Christians even believe certain sins to be okay whilst they are condemned in the Bible, and other laughable falsehoods. Homosexuality is literally condemned in the Bible, by God, Jesus, and Paul. But since most Christians do not read the Bible, it's not surprising that they practice heresy.

What I told is the opposite of what you accuse me of. I said that our duty is to forever help sinners overcome their sins, and their worldly troubles. Look, we are all sinners, and we all forever be so. But only to those who forever try to overcome their mistakes, God will reward them with Heaven. Our duty is to eternally try to overcome our sins. Our duty is persevere as we walk the thorny path to Heaven, and at the same time lovingly help those who we find lost in the way to our destination. But, those who give themselves up to evil and practice it will burn in Hell (unless they repent). God loves all of his creation. But, He is just, and his love will not pervert His justice. There's Heaven and there's Hell, and wicked people will not go to Heaven (unless they repent since repentance will cleanse a man of all his evil and make him good) Those who sin are not forever cast away from God (whilst they live), as God is always willing to forgive them and help them overcome sin. I dare say, God weeps and feels sad when any individual chooses to sin and lives a sinful live without ever repenting of his mistakes. Men who suffer from homosexuality will burn in Hell unless they repent and try to overcome their illness. Men who steal will burn in Hell, unless they repent and try their best not to steal again.

The ten commandments do not state anything in relation to homosexuality, but there are other sins not mentioned in the Ten Commandments which God will punish people from. That is why, Christian should read the whole Bible, rather than cherry-pick a few parts of it. Homosexuality is condemned anywhere where it appears in the Bible as vile degrading feelings which are an abomination unto God, and God always punished homosexuals, who did not repent, for it. Homosexuality is condemned alongside zoophilia and adultery in Leviticus. It is condemned in a particular section dedicated to sexual immorality:

Leviticus: “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. If a man lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them. If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you. If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

In the new Testament homosexuality is condemned. Besides the many verses condemning sexual immorality (as defined in the Bible), there are a number of verses exclusively condemning homosexuality. For brevity’s sake, I will include only one. Also as there’s a controversy over its accurate translations, I will include the original text as well.

Corinthian 1: “Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor extortioners, will inherit the Kingdom of God. Such were some of you, but you were washed. But you were sanctified. But you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and in the Spirit of our God”

....

(arsenokoites): homosexual, men who sleep with men
Composition:
Arsen (variant of árrhen): male
Koíte (variant of koité): marriage bed, sexual intercourse, bed, mat.

Extra: arsenokoites was first used by Paul as a reference to Leviticus. So, claims that it does not mean gays do it being used later to describe other acts are invalid (though it was still used to describe homosexuality). The word clearly means homosexual, and is a reference to Leviticus.

?a?a??? (malakos): soft, effeminate, doing things that women do, acting like a woman, feeling or doing stuff appropriate for women.
Extra: malakos comes from a myth about a king named malakos who acted like a female by dressing like a woman, and did other things considered to be womanly. But, by Paul’s time it had come to mean other things. It came to describe any sort of action considered appropriate for women, or anything associated with the female sex. It meant cross dressing, women were considered morally weak thus it also meant morally weak, emotional, homosexual, and other stuff. Taking into account that Paul and his disciples were emotional and cried in a number of times (weeping was considered feminine, and thus; men who cried were considered malakos), and taking into account Paul’s statement that spiritually men and women are equal, in this case it refers to homosexuals (men who harbored homosexual feelings were considered effeminate since those were feelings women were supposed to possess) and transgenders. It could also mean being morally weak, but considering Paul’s statements that women and men were spiritually equal, it seems unlikely he meant morally weak. Taking into account Paul’s statements condemning homosexuality (both in emotions and actions just like adultery) and transgenderism, it must mean both of them. However, considering homosexuality is condemned in the same text (see arsenokoites), it could mean solely transgenderism. I myself believe that in this case, malakos means homosexuals and transgenders due to historical reasons. Contrary to a common myth, it does not mean catamite. The belief that it means catamite stems from a passage in which malakos (malakos can also means softness of clothes, and the like) is used to describe the softness of catamite’s clothes. But, this conclusion ignores the fact that it is also used to describe the clothes of the nobility and other figures who were not catamite.

Anyway, back to the given task of preaching the truth to delusional ears, judging is not a crime. Judging is not condemned in the Bible, hypocrisy is. Judging is essential for life, as it’s something necessary for every action we take. Unless we exercise judgement in every facet of our life, from going to the grocery store and when confronted with sin. Unless we judge, we will be weak before Satan, as we will be unable to distinguish righteousness from unrighteousness. In the Bible, one must take heed to the context of every passage. In this “judge not” passage, Jesus is preaching against hypocrisy. If he was condemning judgment (as determining whether one of our brothers is doing wrong or not), he would not have said that we can help our brother take the splinter out of his eye, if we have taken the log out of ours (in other words, implying that we can judge whether our brother has a splinter in his eye or not, whether he is doing wrong or not). In other words, we can help our brothers overcome sin and judge whether they are sinning or not (so as to help them turn away from the path to Hell), but only if we are not practicing the same sin (note how both men have wood in their eyes, the same sin). It is a sin and a crime to judge someone as evil and preach against their sin when we are committing the same sin (like a man preaching against adultery when he is committing adultery). But, when we are committing a different sin, it’s okay to determine that someone else is sinning and help them overcome sin whilst we ourselves try to overcome our shortcomings, but we have to acknowledge that we are both sinners. Judgement is fine when it is educated and founded on God’s words. Thus, it is perfectly okay for us to judge or deduce that homosexuality is wrong based on reason, studies that has proven its unhealthy nature, and condemnation by God. It is okay for us to judge homosexuals as wicked, as long as we remember that we both are. It is our duty to distinguish the evil people do to help them.

Ezekiel: “ 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require from your hand. But if you on your part warn a wicked man to turn from his way and he does not turn from his way, he will die in his iniquity, but you have delivered your life.”

We are all wicked, but only those who strive to overcome their sins will go to Heaven. Salvation is not solely through faith, as Jesus himself confirmed. One may believe in God as one pleases. But unless we try to follow his statutes, we’ll burn in Hell.
Mathew: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

If it’s a crime to execute or incarcerate humans who commit crimes against humanities, we should not punish murders. History has shown us that evil should be punished, as it affects all communities. Homosexuality is a depravity and a crime against humanity, thus it should be punished. However, they should only be punished for the crime of committing homosexuality if there’s any evidence against them, rather than due to a witness or mere accusation. I myself believe all sinners should be put in jail rather than executed, so that they have a chance to repent. I believe sinners should be put in jail and put to do labor. But, I understand if sometimes circumstances do not allow for such lenience.
Love as defined by God and reason is about helping your brother, not letting them walk to their death. There’s no love in allowing your brother to walk to his death by doing evil, without attempting to save them.

I hope God will help you understand what love is, and that He will free you from your delusions. Now, don’t misunderstand me and think I’ve called you crazy out of hate. I’m the kind who speaks the truth or their thoughts out loud, without meaning any form of aggression. I’ve concluded you are crazy due to your writings and denial of reality. However, a more accurate term to describe would probably be stupid. But, regardless, I’m going to pray and hope God’s frees you the demon in your heart, and that all goes well in your life. May you live a long happy life with God by you side!

Sharia_Now #sexist #transphobia incelistan.net

Don’t transition. You’ll be a lot more depressed and suicidal when you do.
It’s just women trying to convince us to “transition” because they love nothing more than seeing a guy get his penis and testicles cut off. It’s their primary fantasy. Don’t let those cunts win.

It’s clear they have a strong drive to produce children though. So they don’t want every man to cut his dick off. Just most of them. If you aren’t Chad then they literally want you to cut your dick off.

There’s no instinctive female desire to see any male have his penis and testicles attached precisely because one man can impregnate a thousand women. So women could evolve hatred and disgust towards these male parts because those parts would always exist in overabundance no matter how many were cut off. In fact you could castrate 95% of Chads and there’d still be more than enough Chads to impregnate every female.

sex-change only inverts penis. Penis is not removed. A vagina is simply a penis pointed inward. Most women are in love with themselves primarily, a man secondarily. A mans penis entering a womans vagina provides validation, a penis in harmony, a double penis, a penis touching a penis.

As far as transitioning goes, women are 2x as bigoted against trans as men, 3% of men are willing to have sex with trans, but only 1½% of women are willing to have sex with trans. That may sound like low odds, but that’s still better odds than incels have, which is something like 0.1% or less. Also, 30% of lesbians (supposedly) will fuck you, but only if you are a passing beautiful transsexual (odds are not likely to happen if you are incel and autistic as well.)

Women are only against dating a transman because they want a meal ticket.
A transman does not have the biological brain of a real male so will not accept being a worthless slave working for some woman’s welfare for the rest of his life. The average biological male is programmed to view himself as less valuable than a female, that’s why most men are white knights.
When it comes to sex, whatever little desire women have is entirely towards other women.

Most of the penis is chopped off during these “transitions”, as well as the testicles.

Mark of Zorro #fundie jref.com

To answer the question of whether pedophilia is a sickness or a crime, it is neither. It is popular and common to use the word to mean both or either, but that is complete and total misuse of the concept and the word, and that misuse has a major effect in ensuring the very separate topics are not handled correctly or fairly in the slightest. And I have no hope that the knot of stupidity will ever be untied in my lifetime, because the topics are valued by so many people as topics where they can feel free to rant and not dedicate one ounce of critical thought. The whole thing is dominated by witch hunters and I have been attacked numerous times for daring to address related topics with fairness, justice and logic.

I will explain why it is neither a sickness or a crime. First, it is not a sickness because the only reason it causes mental distress is because of societal intolerance. The only kind of pedophilia I would call a sickness would be where its compulsive and the person just can't help themselves but to molest or rape children practically on sight. But that sort of pedophile is exceedingly rare, pretty much like serial rapists.

Your average run-of-the-mill pedophile, someone who simply prefers pre-pubescents as sex partners, would be perfectly happy if society left them free to date and have sex with who they wanted (as in Polynesian society before the Europeans came, or even American and British societies where the age of consent was ten for hundreds of years). So while some might call their desires sick, it does not mean they are sick. They are no more sick than homosexuals, and it took society and psychology a long time to conclude that homosexuals were not sick, and that delay was simply the product of societal taboo, same as with pedophilia today.

But it has to be said that a pedophile is best defined as someone who PREFERS prepubescents. Just finding yourself attracted to prepubescents does not make one a pedophile, because if that were true, 25 percent to 33 percent of all males would be pedophiles, and the word would lose all meaning.

Next, pedophilia is not a crime because pedophilia is not an act. Only acts can be crimes. Pedophilia is sexual preference, not an act. That is why I use the term "age of consent violation" rather than lump words like pedophilia, statutory rape and rape into one confusing jumble of overlapping concepts. Its just crazy to say that, for example, Mary Kay LeTourneau raped Villi Fualau. She didn't. They had consensual sex and they loved one another. In fact, they are now legally married. Its also crazy to say that Mary Kay is a pedophile. That is for many reasons. First, when they began sexual relations, Villi was not a prepubescent. So there is zero reason to think Mary Kay prefers prepubescents since she is not accused of ever sleeping with one. Next, she never even repeated her "crime" with another person underage, so she is certainly not compulsive in that sense.

Clearly what happened with Mary Kay is that she was in love. But some segments of society don't want to accept that and all others are too weak to speak against it. So Mary Kay gets labeled a pedophile out of hand and zero rational thought behind it.

All that said, I freely admit that Mary Kay is a bit off. I think she is compulsive, but just not toward underage boys. I believe her love is genuine, but allowing herself to get knocked up by a 13 year old, particularly when she has other children to care for, indicates someone without much foresight or self-control. The woman needed mental help for that. Instead, society gave her jail, all because witch hunters have contol of this topic.

So anyway, pedophilia is a sexual preference. A sickness would be compulsive pedophilia marked by a lack of self-control over the urge. A crime would be an age of consent violation, as that would be an act, as much as I think the label of crime is over-blown. Rape is just rape, hardly matters the age of the victim. The term statutory rape is absolute garbage and should be erased from the vernacular. And age of consent violations should be called precisely that, because calling consensual sex between a 15 year old and her 18 year old boyfriend as rape, pedophilia, sexual assault, or statutory rape is grossly and seriously unfair, injust and misleading to the point of me wanting to punch people's lights out.


The concept behind statutory rape is the general consensus from scientists that the brain is not developed enough to know the consequences of your actions at that age.

For starters, no, the concept of statutory rape began in the middle ages and no related legistlation, even modern, is based on any scientific study. Frankly, you just made that up.

Next, how does brain development translate into understanding the consequence of your actions? You cannot induce a baby into a coma, wake him up when he is 25, and expect him to understand the consequences of sticking his finger into a light socket even though his brain has fully developed.

My son is two years old. He understands the consequences of touching a hot stove.

In short, that whole brain development thing is complete red herring. The brain develops yes, but no one knows what effect that has on the decision making process. They only have guesses, and those guesses tend to conform toward agenda.

Further to that, if a child was refused a bicycle on the grounds of safety, how many people would say their parents are over-reacting? Kids ride around on bicycles all the time! Do you think they understand all the consequences, such as being hit by a car? Do you think they understand the dynamics of vehicular traffic well enough to truly be safe? Please! And a bicycle is more dangerous than sex.

How many 16 year olds are driving cars?! They could kill you. You could kill them. But if you loved them and had sex with them, there is some sort of massive danger??

That's subjective, of course, however I tend to believe that the law is more towards the younger end. Just out of personal experience, I have not met too many developed minds under 25.

The age of consent has only risen, and its now well beyond puberty, which is insane and unfair, as sex becomes an imperative after puberty.

I find it preposterous that anyone would consider an early teen to be mentally sound enough for sex with an adult.

So you are saying they are mentally sound enough for sex with eachother? Or are you saying they are raping, traumatizing and manipulating eachother? What do you mean by "mentally sound" anyway? What does it have to do with sex??


It's far too likely that such relationships are ones of manipulation.

Why? Why would you assume that any person's desire for a sexual relationship with a teen is based on manipulation? Do you think the human race is generally bent on manipulation? Do you know of any relationship based on manipulation?

For centuries teens were free to marry and age disparate couples were common. Many of our grandparents and great grandparents were in such a relationship. Now suddenly its wrong and all about manipulation?


I would question the ego of any adult that needs a relationship of manipulation.
So would I. But more than that I question your lack of faith in humanity. I do not believe that most people are out to manipulate the people they are attracted to, at least not maliciously. I do not believe that being minor attracted lends itself to a desire to manipulate maliciously.

In fact, if anything, I would say the tendency would be more toward a desire to protect and care for. But its usually the bad apples that get all the press isn't it? The news is rarely about people in love. So people who read the news tend to think people are evil at heart.

Matt Slick #fundie carm.org

Recent Quotes from the same fundie
Quote# 117934

I often receive complaints from atheists about the God of Christianity. They accuse Him of being a monster and a moral tyrant. They just don't like Him. Apparently there isn't enough room in the world for two moral judges: God and themselves. So, they want to dismiss God and judge Him. Okay, so what gives them to right to judge God? Where is their standard from which they base their moral assertions about what is right and wrong? The problem is that they can't produce any objective standard. They only have their subjective opinions and that is a problem--a big problem.

Now, just because they have a dilemma on their hands about rationally and morally justifying any sort of standard of righteousness by which they can make moral judgments, it doesn't mean they are going to give up their moral self-righteousness (isn't that what it is?) when someone shows them the irrationality door and firmly escorts their rears through it. After all, when you get to play God and make yourself the moral standard of right and wrong, that is hard to give up. I'm sure there's some internal satisfaction that permeates the atheist's soul when declaring what is good and bad and then passing judgment on others. The problem is that no atheist I've encountered has been able to provide a rational justification for his moral judgments.

Let's just take a look at their dilemma. You see, if an atheist wants to complain about the God of the Bible, that is his privilege. I will defend his right to have an opinion--even such a stupendously wrong one. But what logical argument can an atheist provide that would justify his saying that anything God does really is wrong? Think about it. The atheist could only have three possible options for the source of a moral standard:

He can develop a moral standard out of his own opinions.
He can adopt the moral standards of society.
He can use a combination of his own opinions and the morals of society.
Other than those three, I don't see any other options. So, let's take a look at them.

Deriving morality from one's own opinions
If an atheist wants to develop his moral standard based on his own opinions, then what justifies his opinions as being the right ones? His opinions are subjective--not objective. They are based on his opinions, so why should we take his moral opinions seriously? And what right does he have to say that anyone else's moral position is right or wrong? Isn't their opinion on morals as valid as his? Furthermore, if he tried to say that anyone else's morals were wrong, then isn't he being arrogant by judging another's subjective opinions based on his subjective opinions? These questions expose the problem of deriving morality from one's self.

Deriving morality from society
If we go with the second option where the atheist derives his morality from society, then what makes one society right and another wrong? Haven't societies been wrong before? Think of Nazi Germany or America in the 1800's regarding slavery. Furthermore, who's to say that in the future a new moral majority might condemn atheism as an ethical danger to society? Would they be right? How would you know? The point is that deriving morality from society doesn't mean it is correct. History has shown that to be the case. Many atheists respond to this criticism by saying that society is evolving and getting better morally. Okay, but that is just begging the question. In other words, they are saying society is getting better morally because we are evolving. Really? In other words, societies are getting better morally because societies say so?

Deriving morality from opinions and society
Finally, if the atheist uses his own opinions in combination with those of society, then he is subjectively deciding what he thinks is right and wrong in the society around him. He is judging society's morals and deciding which ones are right and wrong, which ultimately brings us back to the first problem where he's deriving morality from his own opinions. He's logically befuddled.

So, the atheist doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on when it comes to making moral assertions and actually defending them as being the right ones.

Since he doesn't have any moral standing by which to make objective moral claims, then all he can say is that he doesn't like the God of Christianity. He can't say that the God of Christianity as found in the Bible is objectively morally wrong because he doesn't have an objective moral standard by which to make such a judgment. He only has a subjective opinion. If he then tries to impose his opinions on others, he then becomes guilty of arrogance and judgmentalism.

Atheists are stuck, but they don't care. All they have to do is ignore the logic, ignore their moral dilemma, and continue along in their subjective, opinionated, emotional path of moral relativism while they condemn the actions of anyone who doesn't agree with them. I guess rational ignorance is bliss.

Brian Matthews #fundie disqus.com

Brian Matthews:

You just made my day, telling me that I'm featured on one of your Christian bashing web sites. That truly makes me happy. I hope you'll post this over there, too.
"You make it sound like a prison sentence where any sign of openmindedness is punished."
And how do I do that? Is it because I don't tell you how wonderful you are, what with your Drag Queen Story Hours, and your Baskin Robbins approach to human sexuality?
Because I HATE the filth and perversion, the sick and twisted garbage, that you and your ilk are pushing on society, these days?
You like the fake Christians who go along with you for a little pat on the head. The one's who have sold their souls for just a little feigned acceptance from the cool kids.
I don't care one wit what you think of me. Christ told His followers that they would be hated, like He was. He told us to rejoice and be glad when people said bad things about us for His sake, for our reward in Heaven will be great because of it.
Yes, I am angry, but NOT full of self pity. I PITY YOU!
Nevertheless, I start out on low. I try to give your friends every opportunity to back up what they say, and they NEVER EVER do. They just start telling me what a meany I am. They can't even answer the simplest questions. That was the case with Gwen Mistelbacher, despite your misrepresentation of that exchange. I was the one who repeatedly tried to get her to answer my questions regarding her statements, and she continually refused, and kept attacking me.
I suppose Heaven will be like prison to you if you hate goodness, decency, and purity. On the other hand, if Heaven is anything like what you people are trying to make American society like, then I don't even want to go. You've turned this place into Hell.
Do you think it's a good thing that my young grand daughters have to share the restroom with grown men? If you do, you are truly twisted, and I have every reason to be angry about that. That's a prison sentence!
Don't talk to me about how I make Christianity look to you. You make your worldview look like wicked madness to me, which it is.
And YES, you are lost. Why would you think you're the exception? Do you think you're better than everyone else in the world?
You don't even need Christians, or the Bible to see it, just look around. If you can't see that there is something seriously wrong with the whole human race, you're out of touch with reality. The very fact that we are arguing is itself an indicator that something is wrong.
Look at all the violence, the chaos, the rage, the sexual abuse, the hate, filth, greed, addictions, wars, etc.
The whole human race is broken, and in need of redemption. You're not special. That's what Christ came for.
The whole human race has been condemned long before Christ was even born. You aren't going to be condemned because you were just a good little boy just going along, minding your own business, until God, wanting to make you jump through some arbitrary hoop demanded, for no apparent reason, for you to believe in Christ or perish. That's not at all how it works. That's just another Satanic lie.
That would be like a drowning man getting mad at me for setting arbitrary conditions, just because I threw him a life preserver, and told him to grab it. He wasn't drowning because he didn't want the life preserver, he was ALREADY drowning! The life preserver was for his salvation.
Christ is that life preserver. Humanity was already drowning before he came along. You're not going to get condemned for rejecting Him, you are already condemned. You are just going to pass up salvation by rejecting Him. BUT, since you're that one perfect human being in the world, I guess you've got nothing to worry about.

Mario Vercotti:
FSTDT isn't a Christian bashing site. It takes the absolute worst elements of extreme religion, racism and sexism and puts it on display. What you are about is not Christianity. What you are about is fundamentalism.
Brian, I don't HAVE drag queen story hours. I don't approve of exposing children of that age to drag queens until they reach an age of understanding ssexuality, period. You're taking the worst elements of the things that both you and projecting them on all atheists, or at least all people you hate. As for a "Baskin Robbins approach to human sexuality", no I don't. I don't say anything any more or less radical than what tested, accepted science tells us. There are homosexuals in this world. Let them be homosexuals and stop trying to "fix" them according to your religion. Just because you adopt a faith doesn't mean you get to inflict it on those who choose not to follow it.
I don't have any "filth" or "sick and twisted garbage". If you think someone's sick and twisted garbage because they're born homosexual, YOU are the sick one - science will tell you so too - and you need to deal with your own demons.
"You like the fake Christians who go along with you for a little pat on the head."
And who are THOSE, Brian? What's a fake Christian, and HOW DARE YOU call them so just because you can't agree with them? And how do you ever come to understand them if you BLOCK them as you do everyone you seem to encounter here? How do you even function in the real world with a rotten attitude like that?
Yes, you are full of self-pity. Poor you, who can't understand why the rest of the world doesn't want to heap scorn and hatred on people not exactly like you are.
"I try to give your friends every opportunity to back up what they say, and they NEVER EVER do."
I've seen what you do. You frame a question in such a way that you want a VERY specific answer, which people either don't have the patience to figure out what you want, or is impossible to answer, and they don't do it, and you block them. What the hell is the matter with you? Gwen didn't refuse, her last request as to what your question was was entirely respectful. You mocked her for not knowing and blocked her, which takes real cowardice.
NO I don't think it's good that your granddaughters have to share a restroom with grown men. You never asked me. You assumed the worst, Brian. That's what you do. The thing is, normal homosexuals wouldn't disagree with you either but you find them so revolting in concept you don't even give them the time of day.
The whole human race isn't "broken". You just see things in it you don't like, and are demanding they be fixed YOUR way, with intolerance and hatred and anger. I look at the things in this world that I don't like and ask questions, forge relationships, and work positively to solve them. I don't say "well you don't belong to the same faith I do so get lost sinner". Does that sound like anyone YOU know, Brian?
And for the love of God stop calling people and situations "Satanic" just because they aren't exactly what you want them to be. There are a million other reasons to explore before you need to start invoking a Satan most people don't even believe in.
If you can't live peacefully with people who believe differently than you do, you deserve all the name calling you have incurred.
Now you're going to block me, and I will be vindicated.

Holy Righteous Penis Award

Rev. Jeff Hood and unnamed woman #fundie revjeffhood.com

image

“How dare you insinuate Jesus had a vagina!” The woman was livid. In my talk, I stumbled on the most disturbing idea she’d ever been presented with. With church doctrine and dogma over the centuries in mind, the thought of Jesus having a vagina didn’t seem too out there for me. Since the earliest days of the church, haven’t Christians believed that Jesus was fully human and fully divine in every sense of the words?

“So you believe that Jesus was transgender?” “What would be so bad about that?” I mused aloud. Knowing that I didn’t have time for extended conversation about gender performance, I pressed on with a conversation focused on genitalia. While I can’t know for sure, I feel like some combination between a vagina and penis was probably what the most perfect representative of all sexes and genders to ever exist was working with. Regardless, the woman continued, “I know for a fact that Jesus was a man with a penis!” In deep anticipation of a strong argument, I waited for her next sentence. “We all know that God has a penis and Jesus is God.” “What happens when God gets an erection?” I asked. I couldn’t help but make an absurd remark. The idea of anyone being certain that God has a penis and a penis alone was too much for me. Feeling the need to wrap up the conversation, I paused and asked her a question, “How did the penis feel when you reached up Jesus’ skirt and grabbed it?” I don’t know anyone who ever saw or touched the sexual organs of Jesus. Flabbergasted, the woman walked out.

“God created humanity in God’s own image, in the divine image God created them, male and female God created them.” With regard to our connection to God, I believe there is no more powerful of a verse of scripture than Genesis 1:27. The scriptures declare that God created the first persons to be male and female. In Eden, I believe the first persons had both sexual organs and functioned at unique spaces on the gender spectrum. The scriptures declare that the entireties of our beings are created in the very image of God. How could God not have both sexual organs? The first persons were intimately connected to God. Throughout the early church, there was a constant theological desire to connect Jesus with the first persons. If Jesus was like the first persons, then it makes since that Jesus would have a vagina and a penis.

Regardless of whether you believe these theological arguments or not, Jesus declares that the incarnation is not a singular event. In Matthew 25:40, Jesus says, “What you have done to the least of these…you have done to me.” In placing Jesus’ very being with the least of these, Jesus becomes the least of these. Throughout Matthew 25, Jesus says that the person of Jesus will inhabit the hungry, the thirsty, those who are strangers, the naked, the sick and those who are in prison. I think we can be certain that persons with vaginas are regularly a part of each of these categories. With that affirmed and sealed for eternity, we can also be sure that Jesus has a vagina.

I believe that the vagina of Jesus is a miraculous occurrence. We should work to smash the patriarchal understandings of Jesus for broader conceptions that create greater access to the person of Jesus. If this essay offends you…I encourage you to get saved from your addiction to erectile theology.

Amen.

Joe Dallas #fundie exodusglobalalliance.org

Responding to Pro-Gay Theology

Major denominations ordaining homosexuals, priests and clergy presiding over same-sex weddings, sanctuaries invaded by boisterous gay activists, debates over homosexuality ripping congregations apart-who would have guessed we would ever reach such a point in church history?

A vigorous debate between Christians and homosexuals shouldn't be surprising in and of itself. If author and commentator Dr. Dennis Praeger is right when he says the Judeo-Christian ethic is responsible for the Western World's disapproval of homosexuality,[1] then conflicts between the Church and the gay rights movement are not only understandable, they are inevitable. (While acceptance of homosexuality in ancient cultures is well documented,[2] the past 2000 years of Western thought have, by and large, rejected it,[3] and the influence of both Old and New Testaments can be credited for that.)[4]

What is surprising, though, is the current trend in which these ethics are not only being challenged, but rewritten as well, most notably in the form of the pro-gay theology.

The pro-gay theology is much like the broader gay rights philosophy, in that it seeks legitimization (not just tolerance) of homosexuality. Gay spokesmen have made no secret of this as being their goal in secular culture; activist Jeff Levi put it plainly to the National Press Club during the 1987 Gay Rights March on Washington: "We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right-as heterosexual Americans already have-to see government and society affirm our lives. Until our relationships are recognized in the law-in tax laws and government programs to affirm our relationships, then we will not have achieved equality in American society.[5]"

But pro-gay theology takes it a step further by redefining homosexuality as being God-ordained and morally permissible:

"I have learned to accept and even celebrate my sexual orientation as another of God's good gifts." -gay author Mel White[6]

When God is reputed to sanction what He has already clearly forbidden, then a religious travesty is being played out, and boldly. Confronting it is necessary because it (the pro-gay theology) asks us to confirm professing Christians in their sin, when we are Biblically commanded to do just the opposite. As Christ's ambassadors on earth, we unfaithfully represent Him if a professing believer's ongoing sin has no effect on our relationship with that believer...which is, in essence, what Paul told the Thessalonians:

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother. (2 Thes 3:6, 14- 15)

Likewise, when Paul heard of a Corinthian church member's incestuous relationship with his stepmother, he ordered the man be excommunicated (1 Cor 5:1-5), then explained the principle of confrontation and, if necessary, expulsion from the community of believers:

Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast. (1 Cor 5:6-7)

A healthy body purges itself of impurities; the Body of Christ cannot afford to do less. Error, like leaven, has a toxic effect.

The pro-gay theology is a strong delusion-a seductive accommodation tailor-made to suit the Christian who struggles against homosexual temptations and is considering a compromise. Some who call themselves gay Christians may be truly deceived into accepting it; others might be in simple rebellion. What compels them to believe a lie we cannot say. What we can say is that they are wrong...dead wrong.

But even as we say so, the caution of a proper spirit is in order. When we answer the pro-gay theology, we do so as sinners approaching other sinners, nothing more. Rev. Andrew Aquino of the Columbus Baptist Association expressed it perfectly during a recent interview:

My message to the homosexual is: We love you. Come and struggle with us against sin. Don't give in to it.

The Pro-Gay Theology in Brief

Exactly what do the "gay Christians" believe, and how did they come to believe it? The first question is more easily answered than the second. Explaining what a group believes is not hard. Explaining how they have come to believe it is another matter.

We cannot read minds or motives. That, I am sure, is one reason Jesus warned against judging (Mt 7:1). We can be certain the teachings themselves are false; why people have accepted them is something we cannot prove one way or another. Yet the Bible offers clues, and testimonies from members of the gay Christian movement are also enlightening, in helping to understand what the gay Christian movement believes, and what personal and spiritual factors may have influenced their beliefs.

The pro-gay theology is the cornerstone of the "gay Christian" movement (which is comprised of whole denominations, like the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, as well as gay caucuses within mainline denominations) just as the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds are the foundation of most Protestant's beliefs.[8] The movement is diverse; some of its spokespersons-Episcopal Priest Robert Williams and Bishop John Shelby Spong, for instance -promote flamboyant and blatantly heretical ideas. But most groups within the gay Christian movement ostensibly subscribe to traditional theology. (The Statement of Faith of the Metropolitan Community Churches, for example, is based on the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.)[9]

Although the pro-gay theology claims a conservative theological base, it includes additions and revisions to basic, traditional ethics. First, homosexuality is seen as being God ordained. As such, it's viewed as being on par with heterosexuality. Gay author Mel White points out, quite accurately, that "if you don't see that premise (that God created homosexuality) then gay marriage looks ridiculous, if not insane."[10]

But to be seen as created by God, the traditional understanding of homosexuality needs to be discredited. This is done four basic ways within the "gay Christian" movement. First, prejudice against homosexuals is blamed for the understanding most Christians have of the Biblical references to it. The founder of the Metropolitan Community Churches, Rev. Troy Perry, asserts this is his writings:

To condemn homosexuals, many denominations have intentionally misread and misinterpreted their Bibles to please their own personal preferences.[11]

So, according to Perry and others, not only are most Christians wrong about homosexuality, but many or most are intentionally wrong- deliberately reading their prejudice against gays into the Bible.

White goes even further, stating that major leaders in the Christian community-Jerry Falwell, James Kennedy and Pat Robertson-take public stands against the gay rights movement for the sake of raising funds and increasing their visibility.[12]

Casting doubt on the motives of conservative leaders, and numerous denominations, makes it easier to discount their Bible-based objections to homosexuality. No wonder this tactic is so common in the "gay Christian" movement. Others within the movement contend the scriptures we understand to condemn homosexuality have actually been mistranslated. According to this view, the Bible should be taken literally in its original language; the problem with most Christians, they say, is that they don't know Biblical Greek and Hebrew well enough to realize our modern translations on homosexuality are all wrong.

Another claim pro-gay theorists make is that the Bible verses (Lev 18:22 and 20:13; Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim 1:9-10) which seem to prohibit homosexuality have actually been yanked out of context from their original meaning, or that they only applied to the culture existing at the time they were written. (Professor Robin Scroogs of Union Theological Seminary, for example, claims, "Biblical judgments about homosexuality are not relevant to today's debate."[13])

These arguments do not sit well with most serious Christians. The scriptures mentioned earlier are so clear and specific they defy interpretation of any sort. "Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman" requires no more interpretation than "Thou shalt not kill." It is intellectually dishonest to say conservatives "interpret" such verses out of prejudice against homosexuals. Those same "prejudiced" conservatives (Falwell, Kennedy, Robertson et al) also take scriptures against heterosexual sins quite literally. If they only prohibit homosexuality out of their own prejudice, why on earth do they, as heterosexuals, also condemn heterosexual sins? The argument makes no sense.

Neither does the "mistranslation" argument. We can allow some discrepancy in minor areas of translation, but, on something as important as sexual ethics, are we really to believe the Bible translators we rely on got it wrong five different times, in two different testaments? And only on the scriptures regarding homosexuality? (Pro-gay apologists seem to have no problem with the other scriptures condemning sins like adultery and child abuse.)

Equally poor is the "out-of-context" argument. The fact is, in Leviticus, Romans, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, homosexuality is mentioned in the context of sexual and immoral behavior! The context is quite clear-a variety of behaviors are prohibited; homosexuality-along with adultery, fornication and idolatry-is one of them.

The "cultural" argument fares no better. In some cases, a scripture may seem culturally bound (injunctions against long hair on men, or women speaking to their husbands during church.) But again-five times? Five different scriptures, from both testaments, addressed to highly different cultures (from the Hebrew to the Roman) are obviously not culturally bound. The cultures they address are just too different.

All of which leaves conservatives highly skeptical of the "gay Christian" movement's claim to respect Biblical authority. It takes mental gymnastics to accept these inadequate arguments; those not having a stake in accepting them are unlikely to do so. But those having a personal interest the pro-gay theology are another matter. Twist the Scriptures hard enough and you can make them appear to say anything you please. Author Paul Morris raises this very issue when he warns:

But if I were a Christian homosexual, I think this one question would disturb me most: Am I trying to interpret Scripture in the light of my proclivity; or should I interpret my proclivity in the light of Scripture?[14]

An unfortunate pattern of doing the former can be seen in the "gay Christian" movement's testimonials. Rev. Troy Perry writes about having already decided homosexuality was acceptable, then searching the Bible to equip himself to answer conservatives.[15] Mel White alludes, in his book, to some earlier studies of the destruction of Sodom[16] but his turning point seems to have come not from a careful, prayerful study of scripture, but from a psychologist who encouraged him to accept his homosexuality and find a lover![17] And gospel musician Marsha Stevens (composer of the beloved song "For Those Tears I Died" and now openly lesbian) gives a lengthy account of her acceptance of homosexuality without once explaining how she reached the point of believing homosexuality was scripturally acceptable. (The closest she comes is in telling how she prayed one night for confirmation that lesbianism was okay; the next morning someone gave her a pin saying "Born Again Lesbian.")[18] Considering the background and theological training of the above-mentioned believers in pro-gay theology, their acceptance of it is astounding.

Or maybe it is not. Paul predicts an abandonment of truth for the sake of personal fulfillment:

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. (2 Tim 4:3-4)

Self over truth, man over God-can a Christian be so deceived? Evidently- Paul referred to the Galatian church as having been "bewitched" (Gal 3:1), and Jesus warned that a prominent sign of the days before His coming would be an increase in deception (Mt 24:14). To confront the pro-gay theology, then, is to confront a deceptive element of our time- the tendency to subjugate objective truth to subjective experience.

That is one reason confrontation is not enough to change a heart. Being knowledgeable enough to dismantle all the "gay Christian" movement's claims will not be enough to persuade a homosexual to repent. The heart, having been hardened through deception or rebellion or both, has to be softened. And that is the work of God alone. Ours is to simply speak the truth, trusting Him to quicken it to our hearers.

To that end, this three-part series will address the pro-gay theology by dividing its arguments-or tenants-into three categories: social justice arguments, general religious arguments, and scriptural arguments. A brief description of these arguments will be provided, followed by a response/rebuttal to each.

Erich Pratt #fundie rightwingwatch.org

In a radio interview on Monday, Gun Owners of America official Erich Pratt tied the mass shooting at a black church in Charleston to the transgender rights movement, saying both are products of a school system that teaches that “there is no absolute right or wrong.”

“Sadly, I think for a lot of the education that takes place in our country, the kids are being taught, ‘You decide, you decide your own morality.’” he said. “We’re being told that you decide everything from your gender to your own morality.”

This, he said, was the root of the thinking of the Charleston shooter and of Hitler: “Well, if you are in that position where you are autonomous and you decide what’s right and wrong, in this guy’s mind, as sick as it is, he might have thought he was actually doing society a favor. Certainly Hitler did, with his mass murders, he really thought he was doing society a favor. And that’s the problem, if there is no absolute right or wrong. And as we know, that’s not being taught.”

Just one day after the attack in Charleston, Pratt, publicly condemned the church’s slain pastor, Rev. Clementa Pinckney, for his “anti-gun” activism as a state senator. Erich’s father, GOA Executive Director Larry Pratt also blamed Pinckney for leaving his congregation “defenseless” against an attacker.

David J. Stewart #fundie #homophobia #transphobia jesusisprecious.org

Judgment day is coming for the unsaved wicked!!! Those ungodly sinners who support the sinister LGBTQ agenda today, will face God tomorrow in eternity! As born-again believers we must not go along with the evils of the LGBTQ agenda. I love people, God knows my heart. I do not hate anyone, certainly not homosexuals who are afflicted by sin and Satan. My heart goes out to them, because I know they must face God's wrath someday, and it won't go well for them. Ecclesiastes 8:12, “Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before him.”

“Transgenderism” is a misnomer, it doesn't exist, it is a fraud! It simply doesn't exist, transgendered is perversion, a corruption, perversion!!! Search the internet and you will find hundreds of heart-breaking sick stories of 3, 4, and 5 year old children making gender transitions! It is of the Devil. If you are a parent of boys, you MAKE SURE that they become MEN! And if you are a parent of girls, you MAKE SURE that they become WOMEN! To Hell with the Devil's kooky idea of gender transition. There ain't no such animal!!!

The Word of God simplifies life down to simply fearing God and obeying His commandments. Ecclesiastes 12:13-14, “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” I fear God! I admit that I am a woeful sinner just like anybody else. Albeit, I hate my sins, faults and mistakes that I have made in life, but thank God I AM FORGIVEN!!! My sins have been gloriously washed away, not only covered by the blood of the Lamb of God, but washed away as if they never happened!!!

Most Holy Family Monastery #fundie #homophobia mostholyfamilymonastery.com

[From "'Gay' Supporter of Bishop Richard Williamson Writes In"]

[THIS MAN POSTED A COMMENT ON OUR ARTICLE, Does God Create Homosexuals? BELOW IS OUR RESPONSE]

@Joseph Isaiah

You are lying, that is not and never has been the teaching of Mother Church. I remember being different from other boys as far back as age 3…

I am a Catholic and I accept whole and undefiled the doctrines of the Church. I identify with the Resistance of Bishop Williamson. So you cannot claim I am a Modernist, I am simply saying you are not accepting the true Catholic teaching on same sex attraction. It is not because of my sins, but original sin and our fallen nature and race that I have the attractions I have. I remember as a child, saying so many times to God, that He needed to fix my broken sexuality, because I couldn’t. No matter how much fasting, how many Rosaries, how many Confessions and Communions, no matter how much penance, nothing changed. I always was attracted to girls as well, but I always liked other boys as well. Christ gave this to me as a cross to take up daily.

The Holy Catholic Church was founded by Christ not as a prison of persecution, but a hospital for the broken men and women. Christ is our loving God and Saviour because we are not perfect, yet He loves us beyond the comprehension of man. It may condemn an action or heresy, but will never turn someone away who seeks Christ. His religion is the largest worldwide source of relief for the poor, the hungry, the sick, and repentant. It opens up the doors of unending compassion, for sinners of all kind, for single mothers, widows, orphans, married and divorced. For gay, for straight and for bi for the lonely and for sinners of all kind; her mission is the same. It is that of Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, Eternal King of the Ages, as she is His Mystical Bride made up of the Mystical Body. Her mission is to save souls. The Church teaches that although it is not of the Natural order that one is homosexual it is not a sin in itself, for one cannot sin if he has not done anything wrong. We are called to a life of celibacy and to be holy, just as all Christians are called to be holy. That is okay, because in reality what people long for is not sex, but love – to love and to be loved, it whatever form. Sexual love is just one form of love, but agape, love love on God can give is so much greater.

I don’t want to sound as if I’m not making Holy Mother Church’s teachings clear that sexual actions outside of a true marriage between man and woman are sinful, but rather I am also professing that with the Holy Church has always believed. That all people are children of the living God and He loves us all for whoever He made us to be. And that we all will be happiest and holiest when serving Him in the lifestyle He has by Divine Wisdom called us to. Because the Church is not for the Saint but the sinner. Those that are gay, are no different that those who are straight, we are all called to chastity and sexual purity. We all must unite ourselves the Christ and His cross, like Mary, Our Lady of Sorrows. St. Paul said in Scripture, I hath been crucified with Christ: now I liveth not, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loveth me, and gave Himself for me.” He is doing what all are called to do by Our Blessed Divine Lord, “Then Jesus saith unto his disciples: If any man wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.”

MHFM: Joseph, your letter is a prime example of why you remain afflicted with a perverted same-sex ‘attraction’. You are lying to yourself and rejecting the truth. Our position is very clear: same-sex attraction is not natural. It is the result of sin and a rejection of God, as Romans 1 teaches (see below). You make reference to some alleged ‘Catholic teaching’ which you believe contradicts our position. You believe this ‘teaching’ declares that there is nothing perverted about men being attracted to men, and women being attracted to women, but you cite nothing of course. That’s because no such teaching exists.

You also state: “I identify with the Resistance of Bishop Williamson. So you cannot claim I am a Modernist…” This is an example of how you are quite deceived. Identifying with the false resistance of Bishop Richard Williamson doesn’t prove you are not a modernist. On the contrary, it actually proves that your positions are heretical and schismatic, and that you are following a modernist. Richard Williamson is a modernist, a heretic, and a schismatic. He is not a true Catholic. You really need to watch this video: The Truth About The SSPX, The SSPX-MC, And Similar Groups (video). It proves that the ‘Resistance’ you are embracing is not Catholic.

You should also see this file on him: [B]Williamson, Bishop Richard of the SSPX: a schismatic and a wolf in sheep’s clothing[/B].

Among other things, Richard Williamson holds that one may attend the invalid, non-Catholic New Mass. He declared that the notorious idolater and apostate Antipope John Paul II was a “good man”. He declared that the notorious apostate Benedict XVI is “in good faith”. He denies the dogma Outside the Church There Is No Salvation, as all priests ordained by the SSPX do. He, in fact, holds that Jews, Muslims, etc. can be saved without the Catholic faith, contrary to the dogmatic teaching of the Council of Florence. He therefore does not profess the Catholic Church’s teaching on salvation. In addition to being heretical, his positions are TOTALLY SCHISMATIC and involve a rejection of papal infallibility. He does not have the true faith. His positions are a rejection of Catholic truth about the Papacy. The ‘Resistance’ is false and schismatic.

[...]

Even though you don’t say it explicitly, you imply that you were ‘gay’ from your earliest years, even from the age of three. We doubt you have such memories from that age. Homosexuals deceive themselves and frequently lie. But even if one were, for the sake of argument, to accept your claim to have been a conscious homosexual from the age of three, we would respond thus: if you claim to have been conscious of such things from the age of three, that suggests that you reached the age of reason at the age of three. Well, as soon as one arrives at the age of reason, he can reject the truth. He can resist or reject God and sin mortally. Deliverance to unnatural attractions can be the result of such a rejection of God, even from an early age. Some people are just not of the truth. Some people just refuse to have God in their knowledge (Romans 1:28), and they make that decision early on. St. Thomas explains that as soon as a person reaches the age of reason, he can direct himself to the proper end or he can refuse to do so. If he chooses to do the latter, he sins mortally. Since you claim to have possessed such an understanding of yourself and your activity from the age of three, then you could have refused to have God in your knowledge and rejected the proper end at that age. That could be why you have same-sex ‘attraction’, and had it from a very early age. But it’s more likely that you rejected God and the truth a number of years later than you describe, and that resulted in your perverted inclinations.

[...]

You were given over to homosexuality as a result of your resistance to the truth. You can be delivered from it when you actually become a real Catholic. Our material covers the true positions, and it explains how to become a true Catholic. But don’t expect to be delivered from your perverted inclinations while you are following a schismatic false resistance that denies papal infallibility, among other things. You will only be delivered if and when you embrace the true faith and get into the state of grace.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

Today's Apostate Churches are Filled with Modernists!

Photo to Right: A homosexual painting by artist, Becki Jayne

The artwork to the right is also found on JesusInLove.org (Ms. Kittredge website). The painting was designed to identify a rejected Christ with rejected homosexuals. The message is evil, unbiblical, and blasphemous to God Almighty! This is another master deception by Satan to dupe naive people into believing that homosexuals are equal to Jesus in their sufferings.

Jesus was persecuted because He preached the TRUTH... John 8:40, "But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham." Jesus was rejected by most people because He spoke the Truth!

Homosexuals on the other hand, are not accepted because homosexuality is unhealthy, unnatural, uncivilized, and ungodly!!! We're talking apples and oranges here folks. How dare Becki Jayne, Kittredge Cherry, and other homosexuals, pervert the meaning of the cross of Christ, by alleging that their rejection is no different than what Jesus endured. Homosexuality MUST be rejected because it goes hand-in-hand with apostasy, AIDS, the deterioration of society, and the judgment of God.

Marsha Stevens is a professed Christian, who operates the ministry BALM (Born Again Lesbian Music). Sadly, Bill Gaither has befriended her, singing in concert with her, and has remained silent about the sin of homosexuality. Apostasy has crept into so many churches that today that a Bible-believing Christian is criticized for speaking out against sin. Tragically, the average professed "Christian" today is more upset with people like me (who preach against sin), than they are with the rockers, lesbians, abortionists, strippers, and shysters who deceitfully CLAIM to be "Christian."

Our churches are filled with modernists who aren't what they appear to be, "...having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." That "power" is the Gospel (Romans 1:16). Modernists are everywhere today! They talk about the Bible, spiritual concepts, Biblical teachings, and the principles Jesus taught; BUT, they are unsaved, unregenerated, unrepentant, and on their way to Hell without Jesus Christ. They will certainly die in their sins if they continue on their present path of destruction.

I find the artwork above very offensive and blasphemous. Jesus was not a "faggot." The message being implied by the above picture is that any criticisms or rejection of homosexuality is equal to Christ-rejection. Talk about REVERSE-PSYCHOLOGY! Homosexuality is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to everything the Word of God teaches! The Bible is incontrovertible concerning the sinfulness of homosexuality. Any child knows that it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. God called homosexuals "sodomites" in the Old Testament (King James Bible), linking their wicked sin with the destruction which fell upon Sodom and Gomorrah.

Is it any wonder why the apostate New International Version NIV translators completely removed the word "sodomite" from the Bible? To no surprise, the same parent company which publishes the NIV also publishes The Joy of Gay Sex. A homosexual recently wrote me, alleging that Ezekiel 16:49-50 indicates that Sodom wasn't destroyed mainly for homosexuality. Argue as they may, the hideous sin which is spotlighted in Genesis 19:4-11 is homosexuality. By the way, these same Scriptures in Genesis reveal the violence, lawlessness, cold-heartedness, and vile affections which become more evident in a homosexualized society. The United States is headed for some dark times as homosexuality saturates our society and churches.

Those Who Seek to Legitimize and Justify Homosexuality are LIARS!

Photo to Left: A popular gay painting of Judas showing homosexual affection to Christ. This is sick!

Anyone who pretends that Jesus was a homosexual is a deceiver! Judas did not kiss Jesus with homosexual affection. Jesus and John were not gay lovers! Kittredge Cherry's new book, Jesus In Love, presents Jesus and John as gay lovers. Kittredge Cherry is unjust towards the Savior. She admits that she CAN'T prove Jesus was homosexual, but she writes a fictitious novel attacking Him nevertheless.

She has assassinated Jesus' character! Woe unto those who attack the Lord, and take His name in vain! To say that Christ was a homosexual is the same as calling Him a sinner, which is a denial of His deity. Jesus hated iniquity (Hebrews 1:9). The Word of God states that homosexuality is an ABOMINATION (i.e., hate coupled with disgust) to God. Homosexuality is utterly disgusting.

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.

Jon Davis #fundie youtube.com

(=Progressive vs Homophobic Christian=)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Triweekly Antifeminist #fundie triweeklyantifeminist.wordpress.com

The esteemed commentator Chinzork wrote:

For one of the first posts on this blog, I think you should debunk all of the common talking points against abolishing the AOC. The talking points get repetitive after a while, so an article debunking all of them sounds good.

Alright then, you got it. Herein is a compilation of the 15 most popular Blue Knight arguments, each argument followed by a thorough dissection thereof.

#1: Teenagers only become sexually mature after completing puberty around 16.

This is a wholly metaphysical proposition; a statement of belief. The Blue Knight starts out from the premise that a “completion of puberty” is a prerequisite for this nebulous state known as “sexual maturity,” then makes the circular argument that, because a 13-year-old has not yet completed puberty, he or she are thus sexually immature. “Sexual maturity” is an altogether arbitrary concept, and there isn’t any way to measure it or test it.

The Blue Knight makes it seem like he or she has objectively examined the issue and reached the conclusion that the age of “sexual maturity” just so happens to start when puberty is over; but there has not actually been any such objective examination of the issue – it simply has been assumed (axiomatically) that this is the case, and the whole “argument” proceeds from this unproven, arbitrary, and essentially metaphysical assumption.

The Blue Knight argument posits that 1) without “sexual maturity” sex is harmful and as such should be illegal; 2) a full completion of puberty is a prerequisite for “sexual maturity.” You may well give the following counter-argument, accepting — for the sake of discussion — the former premise, while rejecting the latter, and say thus: “children become sexually mature after completing adrenarche around the age of 9.”

Fundamentally, however, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that a “sexually immature” person is necessarily harmed (or victimized) by sexual relations merely due to being, according to whatever arbitrary definitions one uses, a “sexually immature” person. I suspect that, as a matter of fact, “sexually immature” people often enjoy sex and benefit from it even more than the so-called “sexually mature” folks. And again, the very distinction between “mature” and “immature” is altogether metaphysical in this regard, like the distinction between “pure” and “impure” or “holy” and “unholy.” It is hocus pocus; theology not-so-cleverly disguised as biology.

According to Blue Knight “morality,” an extremely fertile 15-year-old female should be prevented from sex (because “sexually immature”), while a 55-year-old female who has no ovaries left should be free do get fucked however she likes. It is very clear that such a “morality” is really an anti-morality; it is against what is biologically natural, it is against human nature specifically, it is degenerate, and it is detrimental to the interests of civilization and the TFR.

#2: The Age of Consent protects young people from doing things (sex) which they don’t really want to do.

I have seen no evidence that young people “do not really want” to have sex. On the contrary, I have seen, and keep seeing, that young people greatly desire to engage in sexual activities. That is why they engage in them. If 11-year-old Lucy is a horny little slut who enjoys giving blowjobs to all the boys in the neighborhood (many such cases), the Age of Consent does not protect her from something which she is reluctant about doing; it prevents her — by deterring men from approaching her — from doing something which she does in fact desire to do.

The Age of Consent is simply not needed. Think for a moment about young people. Do you not realize that they are just as eccentric, and can be just as wild, as older people? Why is it that when a 19-year-old chick randomly decides to have an orgy with 3 classmates after school, that is okay; but when a 12-year-old chick likewise randomly decides to do just that, oh noes, she is a “victim” of a horrible crime? We accept that each person is unique, independently of age; and we realize that there are children –not to mention young adults — who are very much into X while others are very much into Y. Why, then, should it be so “shocking” when it turns out that some children, and plenty of young teenagers, are very much into sex? Being interested in sex is arguably one of the most natural things there are, on par with being interested in food; certainly it is more natural than being interested in physics and chemistry and mathematics, right? If we accept the existence of child prodigies, children who are naturally driven to pursue all kinds of weird and special callings, why can’t we accept that there are indeed lots of children who pursue the very natural thing which is called “sex”?

Young teenagers have extremely high sex-drives, and the idea that they “do not really want sex” is contradicted every single moment. This is all the more remarkable given that we are living in a puritanical, prudish, sex-hostile, joy-killing, pedo-hysterical, infantilizing society; yet teenagers manage to overcome this intense anti-natural social programming, and do what nature commands them to do. “Child innocence” is a self-perpetuating myth, which society shoves down the throats of everyone all the time since age 0, and then uses this self-perpetuating myth which has been forcefully injected into society’s bloodstream to argue that “oh gee, young people just don’t really want to have sex.”

The entire entertainment establishment is concomitantly brainwashing children to remain in a state of arrested development aka infantilization, while conditioning the consumers of this “entertainment” to only find old women attractive. That’s one reason why I believe that we must create Male Sexualist aesthetics – we must reverse the brainwashing done to us by the entertainment complex. The television box is deliberately hiding from you the beauty and the passion of young teenage women, and is actively engineering your mind to only find older women attractive. And yet, despite there being a conspiracy by the entire society to stifle young sexuality, young sexuality lives on and thrives. Well, not really “thrives” — young sex is in decline, which conservative total dipshits blame on pornography rather than pointing the finger at themselves for propagating a climate that is extremely hostile to young sexuality — but it still goes on, to the consternation of all Puritans and Feminists everywhere.

Blue Knights claim that young teenagers are “peer-pressured into sex.” This assumes that your average teenager is asexual or close to being asexual, and thus would only engage in sexual activities if manipulated into it by his or her environment. The reality, meanwhile, is that those 12-year-old sluts who have orgies after school time (or during school time) are often as horny as a 16-year-old male. They are not being pressured into sex – they are being sexually restrained by a society that is terrified of young sexuality.

#3: Young people who have sex grow up to regret it.

First of all, when the whole of society is determined to portray young sex as a horrid thing, it is no wonder that people — especially women, who possess a herd mentality — arrive at the conclusion that they’ve been harmed by it. If young sexuality were presented in a positive light by the media-entertainment-state bureaucracy-academia complex, people would be more inclined to remember it fondly than regretfully.

The second thing is that it doesn’t even matter. People feel regret about doing all kinds of things – so what? Does that mean that for each and every case of such “regret,” society needs to go on a witch-hunt for “victimizers” in order to inflict punishments upon them? It’s time to grow the fuck up and accept the fact that people sometimes do things which later on they regret doing, and that this is an integral part of life, and that the state has no business protecting the civilians from “bad feelings.” That’s literally what this Blue Knight argument boils down to – “the state should punish men because women experience negative feelings due to their own behavior.” No, women should learn to deal with their bad fee-fees without demanding the state to find “abusers” to penalize. We are living in a totalitarian emotocracy (rule by emotions) and I’m sick of it.

Also: what is the difference between feeling regret about fucking at 13 and feeling regret about fucking at 17? Women generally feel bad about promiscuous sex (hence the phenomenon of “regret rape” false accusations), and they feel it at the age of 21 as much as at the age of 11; actually, older women may be even more regretful than young ones about sexual activity, because they’v been longer exposed to Puritan-Feminist brainwashing, and because their biological clock ticks much faster. So, according to the victimization-based morality of Blue Knights, men who sleep with 23-year-olds should also be punished. Again, the Blue Knights want men imprisoned solely due to some vague negative fee-fees felt by some women. This is emotocracy in action. No wonder that testosterone and sperm counts are in sharp decline – society is ruled by catladies, and is structured according to catlady morality.

The state simply should not protect people from the consequences of their own behavior – and here “protect” means “punish men,” and “consequences” means “vague negative fee-fees.” Our society is severely infantilized by the victimization-based morality, and infantilization is degenerate.

#4: Young sexual activity is correlated with many bad things.

That may or may not be so, but what are the implications? Generally, people who are natural risk-takers will do all kinds of things, some of which may be positive, others negative, and still others just neutral. The conservadaddy making the “correlated with bad things” argument implies that punishing men (and women) for young sex would somehow reduce those negative things supposedly correlated with young sex. That, of course, is bullshit. If a risk-taking 12-year-old decides to have an orgy with her classmates, she will remain just as much of a risk-taker whether or not her classmates or other people are punished. Depriving her of the opportunity to take “sexual risks” won’t diminish whatever other risk-taking behaviors she is prone to.

The thing about Blue Knight arguments is that they aren’t arguments at all. There is no logic in stating “young sex is correlated with X, and X is bad” and then using that to support the criminalization of young sex. This is the same logic used by pedagogues to justify pedagoguery, only in reverse: the pedagogues argue that education is correlated with intelligence (as measured by IQ tests), then use that claim to imply that education makes people smarter, and therefore everyone should undergo education. This is a wholly fallacious argument. At the risk of sounding like a spergtastic redditor goon – correlation does not imply causation. The Blue Knight argument is not an argument at all. It’s plainly illogical.

By the way, I’d say that there are plenty of negative things correlated with young sexlessness – such as growing up to be a school shooter, for instance. You’ll never hear Blue Knights discussing that.

#5: Some Statutory Rape legislation allows teenagers to have sex among themselves, and only prohibits older people from predating upon them.

This argument typifies what I call the “victimization-based morality” aka “victimology.” The people making it assume — against all the available evidence — that within any relationship between a young person and an old person, the former is necessarily victimized by the latter.

The individuals making this argument (usually you’ll hear it from women) will often tell you that it is “creepy” for older men to be interested in young women. They will pretend that young women are exclusively attracted to young men, when in reality they are attracted to men of all ages – to men as old as their father as well as to their classmates. My own life experience confirms this, as I personally, in-real-life, know of women who fucked significantly older men when they were aged 14-15. It was all passionate and voluntary and enthusiastic, believe me. And the many accounts you can find on the internet leave no doubt that it’s common for young women, pubescent and even prepubescent, to be sexually attracted to significantly older men.

It is important to stress the point that the women themselves pursue and desire those sexual relationships, because the Blue Knights have created the false impression that the entire argument for abolishing the AOC rests on our attraction to young women, an attraction which according to the Blue Knights is completely unreciprocated; whereas in reality, it is incredibly common for young women to initiate sexual relationships with men as old as their father. It takes two to tango – and the tango is quite lively indeed. Given the sexual dynamics elucidated by Heartiste, wherein women are sexually attracted to “Alphas,” it makes perfect sense that young women would be sexually attracted to older men even more-so than they are sexually attracted to their peers, since older men possess a higher social status than young ones, relatively speaking. Again, life experience confirms this.

Thus, there is no sense in punishing old men who fuck young women, unless, that is, one embraces the whole “taken advantage of” argument, an argument which relies on a denial of the biological and empirical reality on the ground, and simply defines (as an axiom) all relationships in which there is a “power imbalance” as “exploitative.” That is, there is no evidence that any “exploitation” is taking place in such relationships, and Blue Knights assume its existence because they refuse to believe that young women can be horny for older men.

Also, the Blue Knights will bring up argument #1 to “substantiate” argument #5, and argue that due to the “sexual immaturity” of the younger party, the older party must be forbidden from being in a sexual relationship with it altogether – because otherwise there may be “exploitation.” Again, the moment you realize that a 12-year-old female can be as horny as a 16-year-old male (who are, needless to say, extremely horny), the idea that the slut is prone to be “sexually exploited” by a sexual relationship with a man who is statistically likely to be high-status (and thus naturally sexually attractive to her) become absurd. And as we’ve seen, the whole “sexually immature” line is ridiculous – it has never been shown that maturity, for whatever it’s even worth, is reached at 16. In saner, de-infantilized times, 12-year-olds were considered to be mature, were treated as such, and evidently were mature. Hence my saying: “child (and teen) innocence is a self-perpetuating myth.”

#6: You only support abolishing the AOC because you’re a pervert.

A common ad hominem. Now, it is expected that possession of a naturally high sex-drive would be correlated with sexual realism (i.e. being woke about the reality of sex), because a high sex-drive individual would be much likelier than a low sex-drive individual to spend hours upon hours thinking about the subject of sex in its various and manifold aspects. But that only goes to prove that it is us, the “perverts,” who were right all along about sex – and not the catladies and the asexuals who haven’t ever thought about sex in realistic terms because they never had any incentive to do so. Our “bias” is a strength, not a weakness.

There really isn’t anything else to add here. When they accuse you of being a pervert, just agree & amplify humorously: “oh yeah, I jerk off 8 times each and every morning before getting out of bed – problem, puritan?”

#7: You only support abolishing the AOC because you are unattractive and trying to broaden your options.

Also known as “projection.” Well, actually, there also are men who make this argument and not just dried-out wrinkly femihags, so let’s address it as if a man said it. Again, this is an ad hominem that presupposes that your motivation to engage in sexual politics of the Male Sexualist variety is merely your desire to improve your personal situation in life. Now, even if it were true, that 1) wouldn’t matter, because what matters is the arguments made and not the ostensible motivation behind them; 2) there is nothing essentially wrong with trying to improve one’s situation in life – and “there are no rules in war and love.”

By the way, abolishing the AOC, by itself, is not going to get all of the incels laid over-night. There are other measures that must and will be taken to ensure sexual contentment for all of society. Abolishing the AOC is a crucial part of the program, but it’s not the single purpose of Male Sexualism, in my view. What I personally would like to see in society is maximal sexual satisfaction for everyone. There are many ways to try reaching that point.

Anyway, the point is that “you are motivated by a desire to increase your options” is not even true regarding most of the prominent Male Sexualists. Presumably. I won’t speak for anyone else, but I’m married, and very satisfied with my great wife.

14376_7
Big Beautiful Women are not for everyone, but I’m cool with it. In this scene from the Israeli film “Tikkun,” my wife — who is an actress — plays a prostitute. Sorry, Nathan Larson, I’m not sending you her nudes; this one should suffice.
As a matter of fact, as I wrote in one of the last posts on DAF, my own kind of activism would not be mentally possible for me if I were not sexually satisfied. I’m not driven by a personal sexual frustration; on the contrary, as I keep saying, what drives me is essentially a spiritual impulse, which has awoken to the extent it has as a result of getting laid.

#8: If you support the abolition of the AOC, it’s because you’re a libertine who believes in “everything goes.”

Some Male Sexualists are, unmistakably, libertines – and proud if it. However, others are faithful Muslims. The notion that opposition to the AOC must necessarily be tied to libertinism is nonsense. Look at traditional European societies 350-300 years ago – almost none had an AOC at all, yet they were hardly “libertines.”

This Blue Knight line is somewhat related to the “LGBTP” meme – they think that we are Progressives trying to advocate for pedophilia as part of a Progressive worldview. I think that it’s safe to say that no one in Male Sexualism belongs to the Progressive camp, which is the camp where Feminists and SJWs reside. That said, some versions of libertinism (sexual libertarianism?) aren’t so bad, anyway. As TheAntifeminist said in a comment at Holocaust21:

[M]y utopia as a male sexualist would be somewhere like 1970’s Sweden or Holland.

This is a legitimate view within the movement.

#9: If young people are allowed to have sex, their innocence will be ruined; sex is exclusively for adults.

Here we see the Enlightenment-spawned Romantic idealization of “childhood” as a period that, due to whatever values one attaches to it, must be preserved against encroachment and incursion from the “fallen world of adults.” This is the Romantic basis of modern-day infantilism.

It used to be understood that the purpose of “childhood” is growing up into adulthood. The so-callef ‘child’ should be made into an adult, should be given adult tasks, adult responsibilities, and — all the sooner — adult rights. Today, society does just the opposite, and infantilizes people with a historically unparalleled intensity. That’s the result of elevating “childhood” into an ideal form. No wonder that now, it’s not just teenagers who are called “children,” but people in their 20s. That’s the process of infantilization which society goes through.

As usual, conservative dipshits, addicted to their own Romantic conceptions, claim that “actually, children are not nearly infantile enough these days.” They don’t see the pervasive “kid culture” that has completely zombified kids into being basically a bunch of drooling retards; no, what the prudish-types care about is “MOAR INNOCENCE,” as usual.

Fact is, kids today are not shown anything about the real world; a whole culture of idiocy, blindness, silliness, and clownishness has been erected like walls all around them. It is the culture of the TV channels for kids, the culture of Toy-Shops, the culture of child-oriented video games. Muh “birds and bees.”

Look, I get the temptation to indulge in infantilism. In fact, I’m probably a hypocrite, because I haven’t yet begun doing anything to de-infantilize my own 19-month-old son. He, like most toddlers, also watches the stupid TV shows and has all of these damn toys all over the place. It’s not easy resisting the ways of the system. But the real problem is that society is not structured in a way that allows children to be de-infantilized. When people only get a job at 18 or at 21 or they are NEETs, and there is an age-ist Prussian School System that is mandatory and which brainwashes its prisoners to believe that “school is good,” and Feminist careerism is pushed on all potential mothers by the media-entertainment-state bureaucracy-academia complex, it’s no wonder that people are very immature nowadays. That only goes to show how radically modern society must be transformed, in my opinion.

To get back on point: “childhood” and “adulthood” are both fictional concepts. These may be useful fictions, but they are still fictions. The telos of childhood is adulthood. It’s a transitional state, and if we must choose an arbitrary age when childhood should be officially and finally over, that age should be 9. That is, if we discover that 10-year-olds behave in an infantile manner nowadays, it’s because their parents — and, crucially, society at large — have not properly de-infantilized them. It’s a wholly artificial state of affairs, rooted in Romantic delusions.

Young people should have sex, because young people should experience real life in order to become functional adults; and an integral part of real life is — and should be — the sex life. Far from constituting a “problem” for young people, sexual intercourse is one effective way for getting young people to see the broader picture of reality. Deprived of sex, ‘kids’ grow up with warped and unrealistic notions about reality, and suffer dysfunction as adults. They don’t get to learn what’s important and what’s unimportant in life when they should learn it – young. Getting laid gives you a mentally clear vision of priorities in life, gives you a clarity of mind which allows you to deeply reflect on what’s actually going on in the world. Sex is necessary for young people, whose one and only task is to — repeat after me — become adults. Sex is a fundamental part of a fulfilled adult life.

#10: Young sex leaves young people traumatized.

No, it doesn’t. The ‘trauma’ stems entirely from being repeatedly and incessantly told by Blue Knights (Puritans, Feminists, Conservadaddies, Catladies, etc.) that a horrible crime has been committed against you by a wicked individual, that you have been “taken advantage of,” “deprived of innocence,” “ruined forever,” “sexually exploited,” “abused,” and the rest of the victimological jargon. The sex itself and the relationship itself feel good, and are indeed good biologically and psychologically; they bring fulfillment to one’s life and a satisfaction for one’s fresh and burning biological needs. The whole “trauma,” such as it is, is inflicted by society on the younger party, due to society’s strict adherence to a victimization-based morality.

That’s why I call for a Moral Revolution. This is not a troll. As long as people adhere to a victimization-based morality that sees “power imbalances” as inherently and fundamentally victimizing, people won’t be able to think logically about young sexuality. The current prevailing system of social morality must be replaced with a new one. Once that is achieved, all of this “trauma” — which is inflicted by the Blue Knights on horny young people — will dissipate and evaporate altogether

Young people greatly enjoy sex, and will go to great lengths to achieve it, overcoming the very many mechanisms of sexual oppression established by Blue Knights.

#11: Young people don’t know what’s good for them, and therefore need to be protected from risky situations.

If young people don’t know what’s good for them, it’s because society itself has successfully destroyed their ability to know what’s good for them. I mean, by the age of 10, a person should have a basic idea about what life is all about. If that’s not so for most or all people, something is deeply rotten in society.

And the reason for this indeed being the modern state of affairs is exactly because the protectiveness of parents, combined with wholesale cultural infantilization, has rendered young people incapable of independent thought. Thus, instead of “MOAR PROTECTION,” young people need infinitely less of it – so that they will learn to deal with reality.

And at any rate, sex is not as risky as the Blue Knights claim it is. They scare people about STDs, but then the solutions to that problem are well-known, and are completely independent of age – if instructed properly, and possessing a responsible personality, a 10-year-old can behave just as carefully — if not much more carefully — than many 40-year-olds.

Then there is the issue of pregnancy. First of all, what I wrote in the above paragraph about responsiblity applies here as well – the pregnancy-avoidance methods are well known. Secondly however, there’s a great differences in here: pregnancy is not a disease. It’s not a bad thing, but a good thing. I support young pregnancy and young parenthood. That is the primary “risk” which Blue Knight scare-mongers warn about, and I don’t see it as a risk at all. Instead of being protected from reproduction, people need to be instructed about how to reproduce. I once wrote, trollishly as usual, that if there should be any schools at all, then the “homework” of young females should be getting impregnated. The essence beneath the statement is on-point: pregnancy is good, because reproduction is good; fertility is good, while sterility is bad.

So, in my view, young people should not be protected from the “risk” of pregnancy. They should be instructed about it, made to comprehend the how’s and why’s of it, and then allowed to use their mind-faculties to figure-out what should or should not be done. That’s the gist of any de-infantilization program.

#12: Young people don’t desire to have sex.

Young people do, as a matter of actual fact, very much desire to have sex; much more-so, even, than many old people.

#13: If the AOC is abolished, parents will no longer be able to control their children.

What is the purpose — the very raison d’etre — of parental control over children? To turn children into functional adults, so as to allow them to form families and continue the bloodline. This cannot be achieved by hindering the ability of children (or “children”) to engage in the one thing that marks the arrival of maturity – sexual activity. Sexual activity is the thing that most unequivocally transforms an un-developed person into a developed person. Since the purpose of parenthood is the creation of adults, parenthood should serve to (at the very least) give-way in face of the natural maturation of children, rather than artificially prolonging “childhood” in order to extend the period of parental control. Parental control is only good insofar as it allows parents to facilitate the de-infantilization of their children; when, as in our deplorable times, parental control is used to exacerbate the infantilization of children, it is in the interest of society to tell parents to fuck off.

Since parents these days abuse their parental power and authority by artificially prolonging the infantilization of their own children, the abolition of the anti-natural AOC is exactly a thing that is needed in order to put parental control in check. The power of parents vis-a-vis their children must be drastically reduced when the child reaches the age of 8. That’s usually the age when sex, reproduction, and marriage all become relevant. If you want to argue that 8 is still too young, perhaps (maybe) we can compromise on 10. Point is, between 8 and 10, parental power should be dramatically restricted.

As a 23-year-old father, I can tell you that parents and family in general continue to significantly shape your life long after you cease being under “parental control.” An abolition of the AOC won’t result in all teenagers running away from home never to be seen again. But it will, God willing, result in the establishment of many new young households. That is something that we should strive for – getting teenagers to form families. That is the meaning of creating adults.

#14: Without an AOC, there will be grey-zone situations of child prostitution.

Child prostitution should be legal.

#15: Abolishing the AOC will increase pre-marital sex, which is a bad thing.

First of all, I couldn’t care less about whether or not sex is “pre-marital.” I had fucked my wife and impregnated her before we were married; so what? What matters is the bottom line: the creation of a patriarchal and stable household.

The second thing is, people today marry extremely late, and many forgo marriage altogether. This is related to the war against young sexuality: not reproducing when young, people struggle to reproduce when old; and living in sexlessness until the late teens or early twenies (or until later than that), a total sexual dysfunction takes over society, and people find it difficult to form long-lasting relationships at all. Young love shines the brightest, the younger the love, the brighter it shines; couples who start young last longer than those who start old.

Puritanical Blue Knights have brought about the plummeting of the TFR in Western Society. In my view, pre-marital sex should be accepted, as long as everyone involved understands that the purpose of any “romance” is the formation of a household. Early teenage marriage should be encouraged, and if early teenage sexual intercourse facilitates that, so be it – it’s all the better. It is not sex that is harmful to young people; sex is good for them. It is sexlessness that is the central and overarching problem of our times.

In conclusion
Man, that was exhausting, I gotta say. But hopefully, this post will serve as a guide to answering Blue Knight talking points. All of you must remember this: before you can annihilate Blue Knightism, you must mentally internalize what it is that we Male Sexualists believe in. In moments of uncertainty and doubt, consult this post, and you may find the core idea needed for you in order to formulate your own Male Sexualist position about any given issue.

There is a new revolution on the horizon. I don’t know how long I personally have left in this world. Perhaps the intelligence operatives threatening me will decide against killing me, or maybe they’ll slay me this very night. Who knows. What I want you to do is to take the ideas provided on DAF and now on TAF, understand them, and spread them. This is not a cult of personality or a money-making scheme. This is a political movement that has its own ideas, ideas that may initially appear groundbreaking but which in reality may also be primordial, ideas which we hope will be implemented in reality – be it 30, 80, or 360 years from now. At some point in the future, somewhere on the face of our planet, there will be a Male Sexualist country.

If during the next half-decade we manage to bring into the fold both edgy 4channers and 8channers (“meme lords”), and serious, intelligent, competent, affluent, deep-thinking, and strategizing supporters, we will be able within several decades to achieve our political objective.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

When Bob Jones University was founded in 1927, they didn't have a problem with punishing homosexuals as vile criminals. The average dumbed-down, television-junkie, American today is woefully ignorant of their Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution and the information I just shared with you. In view of all the liberal propaganda supporting LGBT rights nowadays, who would have thought that prior to 1962 all 50 states criminalized homosexuals and punished them as such. Bob Jones III apparently is catering to this weak-kneed generation of compromisers, spineless weasels and sellouts. I think it is a crying shame!

Also, don't forget that it was in 1963 (just a year later) that God and His Word were permanently banned from America's classrooms. It is certainly more than a coincidence that homosexuality was against the law in every state up until the Bible and prayer were removed and banned from our children's daily lives at school. Since the Bible has been removed, homosexuality has flourished since 1963 in our society, to our own demise as a functional nation. Everything's falling apart today!

So I just wanted to point out that according to Bob Jones III's statements this week, our government shouldn't have punished homosexuals in all the states, as they did prior to 1962. And as you just read, founding father Thomas Jefferson wrote a law to have homosexuals castrated (their testicles chopped off!!!), but the higher court insisted on keeping the DEATH PENALTY. Were our nation's founding father's wrong? I'm so sick of hearing Bible colleges praise the wisdom of our founding fathers, but then hypocritically abandon and disassociate themselves from them concerning the crime of homosexuality. Our founding fathers had it right!!! Our country's founding fathers enacted the death penalty for homosexuals!!!

Dave Blount #fundie moonbattery.com

The reason the homosexual agenda needs to be imposed coercively rather than through rational argument as would befit a free society is that not only is it wrong, it is sick, disgusting, and evil.

Considering that homosexuals typically go through literally thousands of sexual partners in the course of their lives, accounting for the rapid spread of lethal diseases like AIDS, why is it suddenly of such urgent national importance that we pretend they can be married in any meaningful sense? Because with homosexual marriage comes homosexual adoption: the ultimate corruption of the sacred concept of the family.

In the end, corruption is what the agenda is all about. An incident proudly described by prominent homosexual militant Dan Savage is emblematic. He had joined the Gary Bauer presidential campaign in an attempt to destroy it from within, much like his kind is doing to the country as a whole. After he had come down with a virus, Savage went around the office licking doorknobs, in hopes of infecting others with his sickness. That is the homosexual movement in a nutshell.

Predictably, homosexual adoption has already led to perverts acquiring children to use as sex slaves...What would you expect? These are people who use their indulgence in aberrant sexual urges to define their public identities. They aren’t exactly Ward Cleaver types. But the children who are raped and defiled are acceptable prices to pay, from the point of view of the liberal social engineers who back the agenda.

nooropia #sexist reddit.com

1. Biological women will become second class citizens all over again. While TiMs can get their greedy hands on either self sustainability through robbing women's college grants and STEM education, or by marrying off to rich men who are attracted to male-to-pornofied-women, biological women will no longer have anymore ways or means to become financially/economically independent. We'd have to marry men again in order to survive, just like in the olden days. And since extreme right MRA fucks are fapping over creating their own virtual girlfriend and sex bots, they will hold it over our heads for the rest of our lives. "If you don't do exactly as I say, Brenda, I'm leaving you for my bot. At least she does what I say without contradicting me. AND she stays 18 years old forever.. can you say the same?" Which will lead to a regressive era of heightened domestic violence rates, date rapes, and general violence against women, and they'll hold the other sex options against us. They kinda used to do this with prostitutes back then. Now, you have to compete against TiMs, virtual porn, and sex robots.

2. Going further about TiMs taking over women colleges and grants/scholarships, this also means that other non-STEM jobs that used to be flooded with women (ie. Education, nursing, store managers, etc) will also be taken over. Porn and lingerie companies will push 'ugly natal' women out for the pornofied TiMs and robots. Which is not so bad, but that only means that now after all other moderately well paid career paths are taken, that means the only vector we'll have left is the service one. Remember the 1920's? While rich women had husbands to care for them, poorer women had to work as maids, nannies, personal cooks, and housekeeping jobs in order to survive. After all, transwomen only want the glamour of being women, and not the actual reality of being a woman: Having to clean up after others, changing diapers, actually taking care of children, etc.

3. Gay men and lesbian women will no longer have safe dating or sex spaces anymore. We'd have to go underground like we used to do. That or buckle under compulsory heterosexuality and marry the opposite sex.. and yes, trans counts as the opposite sex because otherwise you'll be a transphobic bigot. Hearts, not parts! What this may also mean is that, while gay marriage will still be allowed, a new law may be passed in order to protect the vulnerable, suicidal trans community: Same sex attraction will not be protected by law anymore, it will be changed to same gender attraction. So what this means is that a lesbian can marry a woman, but the other woman HAS to be transgendered since actual homosexuality is now seen as bigotry, a sickness, something to be put away to spare feelings. Marriages between two natal men or women will have their marriage licenses revoked. "It's better that way than to hurt the feelings of the trans community." they'll tell us.

4. Speaking of homosexuality, I echo the conversion camp thing, only it won't be done in churches. (It will still be done privately in churches, mind you.) It'll be done by the government to dismantle the cotton ceiling and for gay men to overcome their vagina repulsion/disinterest, and lesbians to overcome their penis repulsion/disinterest. Hearts, not parts! With advanced science, we'll be able to tell which embryos will grow up to become a homosexual adult. Can't have that with vulnerable trans people out there who wants to be loved for who they are and what's not in their pants. Abort all gay babies. Keep the straights, because even though many might not be interested in TiMs and TiFs, they're the ones with the real social power, so the TRAs will keep them around.

5. More and more children and adolescents will commit suicide due to their mutilated and hormonized bodies triggering their psyches. They can't adhere to strict gender roles? Time to kill ourselves.

6. Don't worry ladies; even though the more popular mainstream pornographic vectors will be swarmed with TiMs and robots, we'll still be sexually enslaved due to our depleted options. We'll become the "bottom of the barrel" options for men, who are used to the so called perfect bodies of robots and male-to-pornos. If you think sex trafficking stories are bad now, honey, you got a big storm comin'.

Harun Yahya #fundie newsrescue.com

Snobbery, homosexuality, anarchistic, paying no attention to national values, opposing Islam, ashamed of being a Muslim, pseudo-intellectual, pretentious and having an inferiority complex: These are the tenets some Muslims would like to ascribe to a new youth model. Some of them would like Muslim youth to have some of these attributes and some others all of them. They have a wrong-headed belief that being modern and acceptable in society requires such characteristics and therefore they are making an outstanding effort to turn the youth into this new “model”. Some of them are making such effort deliberately to damage the moral values of Islam and others are following them unconsciously just to catch up with the trend.

Among these new attributes, homosexuality seems to lead the field and thus it is promoted on all occasions as another human rights issue. Above all else, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam (7/80-82) and other Abrahamic religions (Leviticus 18/22, Romans 1/24-28) and in the stories of those who were punished for engaging in this perversion in the holy books (Qur’an, 15/68-75, 2 Peter 2/6-10, Leviticus 20/13). Some Muslim activists who promote homosexuality misinterpret these verses and lie by distorting the true meanings of the verses and explain them as if it was not homosexuality being condemned but coercion in sexual intercourse. They are elucidating the Qur’an with connotation; however the commands of God are not described through connotations – they are always clear and precise.

In some of today’s societies, being opposed to homosexuality is considered as embracing a bigoted mentality and thus many refrain from speaking out against it. Yet, the command against homosexuality is not something fabricated by the bigots put forth years after the Qur’an was revealed; it is forbidden by the Qur’an itself. Therefore, it’s not open to any other interpretations. It is important to note that we are against the homophobic actions some people engage in out of hatred such as assault or beatings or any other kind of misbehavior. In the extremist Islamic perspective, homosexuals are to be thrown from rooftops or exposed to physical assault, which we certainly condemn in no uncertain terms. When it comes to homosexuality, what we are against is the spiritual, moral and physical damage it imposes on societies, especially on children. The solution for this is absolutely not violence, but proper education.

As of late, homosexuality has increased to a great extent and those who oppose it or take a stand against it are considered abnormal and are isolated in society. Some homosexual activists promote same-sex marriage and their rights day and night in TV programs, newspaper columns and in social media. They endeavor to portray the homosexual way of life as ordinary, healthy and similar to typical heterosexual families. As a matter of fact, all this is no more than mere eyewash. Yet, homosexuality is indeed a very serious danger to society morally, physically and economically.

Approaching the issue from a moral perspective, in countries where same-sex marriage has been legalized, the concept of the family has been ruined and the number of illegitimate children being born has skyrocketed; to wit, in some areas in Scandinavia, 80% of children are born outside of a married family. Embracing homosexuality inevitably destroys social morality by distorting the nature of families and thus raising the children in an unvirtuous lifestyle. That is to say, it is not unpredictable to encounter higher rates of sexual molestation with homosexual parents. As per statistics, 29% of children had been particularly subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent. We should bear in mind that the real number is astronomical; this is only the recorded percentage and there are indeed much more similar cases but the abused children are either too ashamed or too scared to report the incidents.

The mental health of homosexuals is also precarious. In accordance with a health report from the US, homosexuals are about 50% more likely to be subject to depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the general public and the risk of suicide is more than 200%. The median lifespan of a homosexual is 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual person. Homosexuals tend to die in their early 50s or late 40s if AIDS is the cause of death, while heterosexuals tend to die in their mid 70’s.

It is an old story that AIDS is the primary cause of death of homosexuals. In a study in 2008 one in five homosexuals in 21 big US cities were infected with HIV and almost half of them were unaware of their infection. They are also prone to many other STD’s which are harmful both to themselves and the entire society. Being unaware of these infections, homosexuals are in a risk group of spreading the diseases extensively in a society through blood donations or injections or having significantly higher levels of promiscuity as one study shows that 28% of homosexuals have had more than 1,000 partners. Additionally, AIDS is damaging to the economy and to the governments that fight against it: In the US alone, government investment in the domestic response to HIV has risen to more than $24 billion per year.

This list of threats goes on forever and it is an obligation to raise public awareness in order to take the necessary precautions to foster a better and healthy environment. Our intention is to counsel these homosexual people to abandon the abnormality that affects them and the people around them and their activists to stop promoting it as if it is all a bed of roses, because it is not. Every human life matters in society and we are ready to work on the salvation of everyone. Especially these days supporting homosexuality is being presented as a way of promoting freedoms and enlightening people about these facts is one of the ways to reach it. Conscious people have to take the responsibility to brighten this darkness being imposed on Muslim communities before it is too late.

Baldrick Cunningplan #fundie evcforum.net

The question isn't how I sleep at night. The question is how you don't choke to death, what with all the bullshit spewing from your mouth. The idea that "homophobia" (a fictitious word fabricated by liberals) is comparable to ethnic discrimination is utterly comical (although not in any way that makes me laugh), as is the idea that there's something wrong with the latter. I have the right to take away the happiness of homosexuals, just as I have the right to take away the happiness of any pedophile or any other breed of subhuman. The happiness of sick freaks must never come at the expense of the basic human sense of right and wrong. It certainly must not come at the expense of what is best for children. Anyone who supports abortion must hang from the neck till dead (it's genuinely nothing but baby-murdering...but I guess women don't have a problem with killing millions of babies as long as women get all the rights they want and don't have to experience any physical discomfort), but I can safely tell you that, were I not yet born, and I had sentience and the option of either being raised by homosexuals or being aborted, I would choose abortion without a second thought. If it's not wrong to discriminate against homosexuals then it can't possibly be wrong to elect the Grand Dragon of the KKK for president. How do I sleep at night? No. The question is how do YOU sleep at night?

And yes, I know that I supposedly supported abortion just now after saying anyone who does must die, but I already know that, so don't be a smartass. And I would be aborting myself, not anyone else.

Axle The Beast #fundie zeldadungeon.net

[My question is simple: Why on EARTH is homosexuality even controversial? At all?]

-Why WAS it controversial? Because people used to be intolerant and hugely violent monsters who would punish things they couldn't understand.
-Why does it continue to be controversial? Because some people still don't understand or agree with it, gay people and gay proponents don't like that and remember how horrible this used to be in the past, and neither side can see things from the other's perspective.

And no, I'm not implying there aren't still people who will do horribly mean or even violent things to homosexuals, like ostracize or beat them. But that is a medieval and cruel way of acting -- I'm not sure if I've ever met someone personally who didn't think it was cruel an inappropriate -- but it doesn't change the fact that in some case homosexual proponents will respond to criticism or even just plain old disagreement with them by treating the person like they're one of these monsters. That's projection, and as someone who has multiple homosexual friends and is pretty damn respectful of their way of life despite disagreeing with it, I don't much care to be lumped in with that sort.

Homophobe is used as a slur in a number of conversations I've been in, so I don't care to be identified by it. Most use of the term indicates fear or hatred of homosexuals, not just plain disagreement. Some uses do just mean disagreement, but considering that it has two distinct uses you might be cautious about using the word without clarifying your intended use, or else you will offend people who simply disagree with homosexuality because they can easily interpret it as you accusing them of hatred, fear, and the like. Bottom line is I don't care if people don't like it that I don't agree with their lifestyle; I don't agree with it, but I'm perfectly pleasant with every homosexual and bisexual I know. I don't see why I don't deserve the same respect they deserve for... having my own thoughts and way of life... without hurting anyone. I don't particularly think it's cool to call someone a name for that, and I do frankly liken it to using homosexual slurs; I don't see why we have to call people names when they're being plenty pleasant with people. Calling the monstrous people who do try to hurt homosexuals is a-okay by me, but I think it's a little silly to invent a new slur for it. Why not just call them what they are? Hateful jerks and/or monsters.

Anyway, enough of that. Back to the topic question...

What is my problem with homosexuality? It's not something that makes sense to me. I don't mean that I'm just like "but, wuh-wuh-why would someone like the same sex, durrr", I mean that it functionally doesn't have any place that I can see. The more common phrasing you'll hear people say is something like "I don't believe homosexuality is natural", and then that gets quickly rebutted by citations of examples of homosexuality in nature among animals. Yes, some animals -- not all -- engage in homosexual relations. That doesn't do anything to change the fact that it doesn't make sense to me. Animals doing it is NOT a good argument in favor of homosexuality since animals engage in certain other practices humans generally universally consider taboo: Cannibalism, necrophilia, murder, rape, torture, etc., and not all of these are even out of necessity; dolphins murder and rape the corpses of porpoises for fun. Throwing aside the animal example entirely and going with things like "it feels good so how can it be wrong", absolutely everything that "feels good" can kill you in excess, and other things that feel good can damage you outright like a number of drugs. Impulse and desire are not universal tools for determining right and wrong; this cannot be argued. Like anyone, I have angry and destructive impulses that I have to control to be a decent person.

So since I cannot see a reason for homosexuality to exist -- the distinctive traits between the genders pretty visibly only exist for the sake of breeding and I don't really see the point of sexual love unless it's driven by the breeding impulse (not saying you can only have sex to have kids either; don't misunderstand me) -- I find it unnatural, and therefore I disagree with it. To be clear: I don't think it's immoral or hurtful, I think it just plain doesn't make sense, I don't like to see people do things to themselves that I feel are illogical. Sure, plenty of people argue that they were born that way, but I have my doubts, and either way that can also be argued against in the same way animal behavior can; not every pre-existing psychological state people are born with is a good thing either. I'll say this: Human beings are exceptional at deluding themselves; it's seen best in the general human disdain for being wrong. I can't know for sure if that's the case with homosexuals -- I'm not one -- but I wouldn't write it off, at least in some cases. It's also because of this that I worry about overarching appreciation -- not acceptance, but an almost eagerness that I see from time to time -- towards homosexuality, because I've seen cases of people who I believe more or less deluded themselves into acting as homosexuals. Cases where they had a string of bad relationships, declared they hated the opposite sex, and then sought same-sex relationships as some kind of solution to this, which is an absolutely poisonous reason. Maybe this was a case of "the right thing in the wrong way" for some of them and they really were born homosexual, but I really don't believe it was the case for all of them.

That does not mean people shouldn't do what they feel is right; if someone's thought something through and decided the way they're going to be -- where that's a decision of how to act moving forward or a decision to embrace certain pre-existing impulses they already had, it doesn't matter -- then they should embrace it, live by it fully, and do it in the face of anyone who thinks they shouldn't. I'm free to question their decisions the same as they're free to question mine, but in the end I respect that they made their decision and decided who they're going to be, and it's their decision, not mine. I just can't justify it -- that's probably why I'm not gay or bi. :P

Finally to end off on the point of just letting people love... well, I think I've made it plenty clear that I do let people love, and advocate that others do as well. :bleh: As for how it affects my personal view of homosexuality, I still factor it into how I don't see why. Again, I see sexual relations as something evolved as an incentive to breed -- whether or not it's used for that exclusively -- so I don't really understand why someone would express their love sexually for the same sex. I "love" both males and females in my life, but the only ones I have sexual (or, romantic, if you prefer; they're the same thing) feelings for are some of the females... and I don't see how anything else makes sense. *shrug*

[I'm happy to see that you are reasonable and let people love. I just don't understand why people think sex has to involve reproduction anymore, we aren't going to go extinct due to lack of population anytime soon. I guess that they naturally feel the same way about the same sex and you and I feel about the opposite. We don't need to disagree with things just because we don't understand.

Why should a homosexual have to abstain from marriage and sex? Sure, maybe not everything that feels natural is "right", please respond relevantly and specifically for why homosexuality is wrong?]


I disagree with anything that is unnatural, significant and important, and that is either harmful to others (which homosexuality isn't) or harmful to oneself; I do feel homosexually is somewhat self-harmful, and the reason for that is because I don't think it logically makes sense -- I consider it a strange fallacy -- and therefore I think people who engage in it are deluding themselves with that fallacy. The fallacy is this: Sexual relations exist for reproduction, therefore two individuals who have can't and would never be able to reproduce have zero reason to get involved sexually in the first place.

And I said I don't think sex has to involve reproduction. I guess that's confusing so I'll explain: Sex only existed in the first place for reproduction; I don't think there's any disagreement on that. Every animal has their mating habits, from penguins who leave their partners after a year, to wolf packs who usually stay together in a big family all their life. As near as I can see, on a primal level human mating habits are to form families around their sexual relations and form links that way. This started for reproduction, but of course it has other facets and it's obvious that not every heterosexual marriage leads to kids or can even have kids considering things like sterility, but that doesn't mean the relationship doesn't have merit; people still engage in every other facet of the relation because humans are built to connect that way. I don't believe people are purely primal -- we're well beyond that -- so of course people can make their own decisions about how to live, but this is why I see homosexual relations as a fallacy. Yes people hook up and marry for reasons other than reproduction -- because we're hardwired to -- but that doesn't mean that the reproductive urge wasn't a part of why we do it in the first place. Not following the reproductive urge to its eventual purpose? I get it. Having sexual relations with people you can't reproduce with in the first place? It doesn't make sense as a concept.

Since I know you'll ask me what is wrong with homosexuals not following that urge through completely either, I'll simply say: Because there's no reason for them to have the urge towards one another in the first place.

The reason I think homosexuals or people who identify as homosexual in part or in full should resist their urges is because I think indulging in them is the same as indulging in a fallacy, and I never think that's the best thing for someone to do.

natsumihanaki20 #fundie deviantart.com

Same-sex marriage should not be a thing. Marriage is a constitution that should be exclusive to healthy non-life threatening heterosexual non-pedophile relationships. To a certain point, marriage is about procreation and child-rearing, but it does not necessarily have to be about procreation and child-rearing. Marriage is about the recognition or consecration of a healthy romantic relationship, or it at least it should be. Therefore, homosexual couples should not have the right to be recognized or consecrated through marriage.

Homosexual couples do not love each other, and are sick unions. Their relationship is a behavior deviant of the laws of nature, and of God. They are sick relationships whose 'love' is very alike a mental-disease, except it is actually an evil choice or result of wicked confusion. Governments should not recognize through marriage sick deviant relationships as if they were normal relationships, or even a form of love. The state must not embrace evil or immorality, but discourage it. By recognizing sick unions though same-sex marriage, the government is encouraging immorality.

Like Confucius said "Societies will achieve social and civil harmony only when individuals achieve moral harmony within themselves." Hence, encouragement of immorality and sickness will do naught but harm society, and threaten the harmony tying everything together. Same-sex marriage is alike allowing psychopaths to become doctors, or allowing a man to marry his own mother. It is not the recognition or consecration of a normal loving union, but the recognition or consecration of sickness as normality, and evil as good.

Homosexuality is a condition which is known to be exceedingly harmful, or at least this is what facts have shown. Studies have proven homosexuality to be a behavior which reduces the lifespan by 20 years precious years. This reduction in the lifespan of gays is not due to stigmatization since the studies were done in countries where opposition to homosexuality was basically none. Religious and ethnic groups which suffer from genuine discrimination ( I'm not talking about the ones who suffer from discrimination so severe so as to be killed due to what their country considers a crime, but about the ones who get beaten or prevented from getting good jobs due to what their country considers a crime) in other countries do not suffer from this appalling state.

Studies has also proven that homosexuality is a condition which increases risk of many deadly cancers, breast cancer among them. Some say this condition is because of gay's tendency towards unhealthy society-disapproved behaviors or states (smoking, drinking alcohol,...). But in all of the studies which revealed this execrable fact, heterosexuals engaged more often in unhealthy society-disapproved behaviors and suffered more of society disapproved conditions than did gays, leaving no other factor to be held accountable for gay's increased risk of cancer other than homosexuality.

There are plenty of other sicknesses caused by specious homosexuality, but due to their sheer number only this number shall be covered. Thus, the government or any other organization should not consecrate homosexuality through same-sex marriage, for it is a dangerous condition that should be discouraged not encouraged or considered equal to heterosexuality.

Homosexuality is no different from incest, both being sins against God, and medically unhealthy (homosexuality is also similar to zoophilia and other sick romances, but since most people are tremendously ignorant as to why they are similar; they shall not be discussed here for the sake of brevity). The consecration and embracement of one sick romance through the ceremony of marriage means that the other sick romance has an equivalent right to be consecrated and embraced through marriage.

Now, the fact that sick relationships should not be married does not mean that infertile couples should be prevented from marrying. Though infertile couples suffer from the sickness of barrenness, their sickness is not detrimental to the nature of the relationship or should it be an obstacle to marriage. Regardless of their inability to reproduce, their relationship is normal, not a relationship deviant to the laws of nature (opposites attract) or to the laws of God. The sexual acts committed by an infertile heterosexual couple pose no threat to their lives, and in no way are a cause of sickness. They are fully capacitated for child-rearing, and can efficiently bring up kids. Therefore, infertile couples have a complete right to be married, for they fulfill the essential requirements of marriage, and have the capability to satisfy all the optional wants of wedlock. They have the right to be married for their love is love, not sickness.

Marriage equality is a good thing, but this should not include equality among completely unequal relationships. Marriage equality should never include sick harmful relationships; marriage equality should only be for healthy heterosexual relationships. A fish should not have be treated like a cow. Unfortunately, marriage is not anymore what it actually is, the consecration of heterosexual relationships. As people became more detached from reality, and intertwined with immorality; the meaning of marriage and love has been lost. This ignorance has led many to belief in the myth that homosexuals couples can raise kids as efficiently as straight couples even though many recent and non-recent studies has said otherwise. Some in their ignorance has argued that the non-recent studies are wrong for they do not cover the well being of children raised in same-sex married couples. But, this train of thought ignores the results of recent studies which has covered random large samples of children raised in same-sex married relationships. One of these studies being the study done by Mr. Sullins (2015).

In their dark ignorance many have come to compare the performance of same-sex couples in the process of child rearing to that of single parents, even though children in same-sex couples fare worse. Homosexuality is not an inborn condition, and it is harmful. Thus, it is not a cause for special rights.

Buddha1 #fundie sciforums.com

The essential thrust of heterosexuality in the male is return to the womb. Since the vagina is the only pathway to the uterus, the vagina becomes the center of sexual attention. Sexual concern with other anatomical structures (such as breasts for the rectum) is quite beside the point, and a substantial segment of the heterosexual subculture looks askance at nonvaginal sex. The heterosexual male thrusts fingers, tongue, and penis into the vagina in a desperate, irrational attempt to find again the security of the womb, to return physically to the womb. Since that attempt can never succeed, heterosexuality is inevitably unsatisfying. But to the extent that the male can re-enter the vagina, through which he traveled when he was expelled by his mother at his birth, heterosexual sex approaches satisfaction. This explains why coitus is the preferred form of heterosexual sex: the tongue cannot penetrate very far into the vagina (and besides, the vagina is a very unsatisfactory object of oralism, for the essence of oralism is taking things into the mouth, not straining the tongue to reach out). Nor can a finger penetrate far. Of the parts of the male body, and the thrust into the vagina, the penis reaches farthest toward the ultimate object, the womb. This fact, combined with the fact that many heterosexual males find pleasurable the sensation arising from the penis's contact with the walls of the vagina, works to push coitus as the prime form of heterosexual sex.

Harun Yahya #fundie harunyahya.com

Families are the fundamental building blocks of society. In order for a society to flourish and remain healthy, the family should consist of a father and a mother who are able to produce and give rise to children. However, there is a rising trend in many Western countries, which is intrinsically in contradiction to what is considered a normal society: same-sex marriage. As of late, being modern and classy in society requires freedom, which is definitely true, but according to the changing western cultures and values that includes acceptance of same-sex marriage. Furthermore, many activists promote homosexuality as another human rights issue that must undeniably be protected. Some endeavor deliberately to oppose religious values and merits while some are misguidedly following them in order to be hip, modern, trendy and in tune with their notion of what a new modern culture should consist of. They are usually unaware of the damage it is imposing on society, especially on children and the young generation.

Accordingly, homosexual activists use every opportunity they get in order to spread their homosexual lifestyles both within their communities and outside their communities. The media seems to be the leading tool used to disseminate and justify their argument. Homosexual lifestyle and those promoting such rights are increasingly finding support and legitimization in the US via Hollywood movie and television shows, TV programs, reality shows, fashion related shows, news reports, columns, music videos, books, magazines and the list goes on. They intend to portray homosexual behavior as quite ordinary, healthy, and culturally hip. To intensify their argument, some activists depict homosexuals as very healthy, fit, good looking, classy, and successful people with executive professions within communities and societies. With the effect of these tools supporting the culture of homosexuality, 20% of Americans claim TV has shifted their opinion on the side of new form of marriages. Regrettably, in film and in the fashion industry people support homosexuality in order to get higher positions. The fact is however that reshaping marriage and marketing homosexuality are a grave danger to society via morality, physically and economically.

I feel it is important to remind the readers why I write this article. As a matter of fact, the purpose of this article is to remind young people not to fall into this brainwashing trap and to keep the strong spiritual values to have for an honorable life; in this way the members of society who pay heed to morals will respect them in the appropriate way. Therefore, it is everyone's responsibility to disclose the heinous and abhorrent acts that are deemed to be in compliance with this "new way" of life style all wrapped up in the name of human rights. Most importantly, homosexuality is strictly forbidden in the divine religions (Koran 7/80-82, Bible Romans 1/24-28) and in the stories of the holy books people who engaged in such indecency mentioned in the holy books were penalized (Koran 15/68-75, Bible2 Peter 2/6-10).

Considering the matter in terms of morals and ethics, we encounter a higher rate of child molestation in same-sex couple households. It is a moral obligation to protect the interests of helpless children in our society. Extensive researches show that children of same-sex parents are more likely to experience sexual confusion and to engage in homosexual activities themselves that will eventually cause them to suffer from psychiatric disorders, substance addiction, sexual assault, suicide, and sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS. In the US alone, government investment in the domestic response to HIV has risen to more than $24 billion per year.

For this reason, it is alarming to view the statistics in terms of same-sex marriage and the increase in the number of children they adopt. For example, 94,627 children live with homosexual couples in the US and the estimated total number of children living with at least one homosexual parent range from 6 to 14 million. Similarly in the UK, as of March 2015, the number of adopted children by gay parents skyrocketed in the last 12 months reaching a record high. There have been many recorded cases of sexual molestation of boys by their homosexual parents and many more unrecorded because they are ashamed or afraid to report it. Thus, it is important to note Pavel Astakhov's - Russian Ombudsman for Children's Rights - evocative comments regarding the molestation cases of same-sex couples in an interview: "Russian orphans always attracted foreign perverts because of accessibility. The foreigners were simply coming and taking children for money." In conjunction with this report, Russia made some adjustments on adoption of Russian children by foreign families banning American citizens from adopting Russian children in 2012 and in the following year the State Duma passed a law that banned the adoption of Russian children by foreign homosexual couples. It makes us wonder about the psychological trauma these little children suffer. The first step to overcome this situation is to train children in terms of this threat they may experience. Children starting from the age 4-5 should be informed very meticulously regarding this issue; they should learn to take the necessary precautions to protect themselves and never hesitate to report the sexual abuses they undergo as it is not their fault and not an act they should be ashamed of.

In order to receive acceptance and compassion from society, homosexuals argue with some illogical excuses to justify their indecent acts such as claiming they have high estrogen levels or that they are genetically born that way. Yet, all these assertions have been refuted through scientific studies. There is no significant difference of estrogen or testosterone levels between homosexual and straight men. Also researchers have not found any supporting evidence that people who are homosexuals are somehow genetically dispositioned to be so. There is no genetic evidence whatsoever. Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the US, and Scandinavia during the last twenty years all conclude the same point, that homosexuals are not born genetically that way. It should be kept in mind that even if they were right, none of these would justify their indecent behavior. A person may be born without any sex or with two sexes or with some physical sexual defects but they do not constitute justification to behave in an indecent way. A person is responsible to keep their chastity on every occasion in order to live an honorable life.

Everyone should feel the responsibility to raise public awareness in order to have a better social and living environment by considering the examples and evidence enumerated in this article. It is crucial to inform and educate people about the serious negative effects of homosexuality on them and their environment. Besides, the activists should end promoting it as if it is something enviable because the truth is indeed on the contrary. However, it is important to stress that I am completely against violent and barbaric actions against homosexuals since what we are opposed to is only the abnormal acts they do. Therefore, people of good should join forces to protect against the damages which homosexuality inflicts on society as a whole.

His Love is Eternal #fundie fanfiction.net

[Bible Fan Fiction?]

Many people in these troubled times claim that gay men were born with the hateful desires they have. I am here to tell you that they are wrong. I used to live the homosexual lifestyle for many years until Christ came to me and showed me the lie I was living. I asked Him to come into my heart and make me whole again, and He did!

When I was a child, my mother was diagnosed with Leukemia. I prayed to God that if He cured her and let her live, I would never again ask Him for another selfish thing in my entire life. But The Lord felt it was time to take her away from her suffering and back into His loving arms, and her earthly body passed away. My hateful father began abusing me after my mother died. He was a gay man, and he took out his sick pedophillic desires on me for years and years.

Eventually I began to hate The Lord for the things He had (righteously) done to my life. In a moment of selfishness, I decided that since God was not giving me the petty little things that I asked for, this was justification for me to begin breaking His commandments and doing whatever I pleased.

I am ashamed to say that when I reached adolescence, I began to have unnatural sexual feelings for men because of the gay sex acts that my pedophile father had performed on me as a child. At first, I was rightfully disgusted by these feelings, as all good people should be, but the devil whispered my name to the gay people at my school and they started to pressure me to conform to their hateful lifestyle. They said me that being gay was not bad, and that it was God who was wrong, not them. Can you believe that? Those gays thought they had better judgment than the Creator of the universe itself!

The gay men and their demons told me that it was okay to give in to the devil's temptations, since there was no God anyway. And besides they said, God loved everybody regardless of their sexuality so it was fine if someone wanted to have sex with other men, or with animals, or with innocent children. It brings me great shame to admit that I gave in to their relentless pressures and started to engage in sick homosexual activities.

At first I only had gay sex with a few people, but as I became more comfortable in my rejection of God's Word, the numbers increased rapidly until I, like many gay men, was having sex with hundreds of different partners. I hung out in gay bars and picked up men I didn't even know, with whom I would have sex and then never see again. It was at this time that the devil introduced me to drugs. It was marijuana at first, but soon I was using heroin and methamphetamine on a regular basis. Looking back, it was just a way to dull the natural pain of being so separated from God because of my evil, unnatural lifestyle.

I attended anti-Christian LGBT rallies, where I would march alongside men who wore women's clothing and people who advocated pedophilia (NAMBLA). Sometimes we would block innocent people from entering churches because they didn't think it was right let us do whatever we wanted to, even if it was against God's Word. I was told by some of these good people that what I was doing was wrong, but I just sneered at them and called them hateful bigots. My mind was closed to the sinful evil I was committing by hurting these good, honest, loving people in the name of hateful organizations that want to rewrite God's word to make it "okay to be gay."

At this point I was engaging in orgies and all kinds of horrible fetishes every day and I got addicted to using drugs to cover the shame I (rightfully) felt. Like most gay men, I began using drugs without regard for my safety, and it is a miracle of God that I did not get AIDS from sharing needles and having unprotected sex with disgusting homosexual men. I began to contemplate suicide because that it was okay since there was no afterlife anyway. Although I blamed God and His Christian followers for my depression, I now know that it was actually a result of my sinful lifestyle as a homosexual. The devil, who had tricked me into thinking I was born gay, wanted me to kill myself then so that I could never see Christ's Kingdom! Instead, he wanted me to burn in Hell with the other homosexuals.

Then one day, just as I was at my lowest point, something amazing happened. Someone, I don't know who, left a so called 'Chick Tract' on my doorstep. I had seen these before, but this time The Lord guided me to read it and take in its true message. It was about how homosexuals are abominations in the eyes of God, and the only way to be saved from such a hateful lifestyle is to accept the loving, wonderful embrace of Jesus Christ. All at once I realized how foolish I had been to indulge my evil fleshly desires.

The gay lifestyle I had been living was destroying me, and more importantly destroying my soul. But there was and is salvation in Jesus Christ! As soon as I came to this realization, I literally fell on my knees and called out to Christ, asking Him to save me from the evil spirit of homosexuality that pervaded every aspect of my life. And He did, even though as a homosexual and an atheist I most certainly did not deserve it.

My life began to get better from then on, now that I wasn't letting the devil lead me around like all the other gays. Christ protected me and showed me the true nature of those evil men I had listened to, who told me that I was born gay and that God loves people who rape children and that there is no afterlife. I saw for the first time what a vile life I had been living, sodomizing other men every night and calling those who had tried to show me the righteous way bigots. Soon, I joined a Baptist church, where I truly felt at peace for the first time in many years. The Love of Christ did what the so called "love" of hundreds of gay men could not. I know now that I am truly Saved from my sinful evil by His gracious and loving sacrifice on the cross all those years ago.

To any and all homosexuals that may be reading this: I know you will probably close your minds immediately and refuse to accept the Truth that I am offering to you, because the demons in your life are screaming to drown out my words. Still, I will say it if it will help even one homosexual leave such a sinful lifestyle and join the Faithful with Christ in Heaven. Homosexuality is wrong and unnatural. The media and your friends and even your so called "pastor" may tell you that it's okay to break the laws of God, but it's not. What you are doing is an abomination in the eyes of The Lord and you must realize this before you can truly accept His gracious offering of salvation.

If you are willing to accept that your lifestyle is sinful and evil and against God's will, then all you have to do is ask Christ to come into your heart and save you. If you are not willing to do this, then I must warn you that you will go to Hell when you die. I know it is hard to take in, but God is not going to allow gays into His Eternal Kingdom. You must repent your vile behavior and ask for the salvation of Christ before you can be saved.

All you have to do is say "Jesus, please save me from the demon of homosexuality!" and He will come into you.

Remember, God's Love for you is eternal!

Eivind Berge #fundie eivindberge.blogspot.hr

We live in ever more hateful times. This ongoing prosecution, in which a suspended policeman is charged with the newly invented crime of reading erotic short stories, pushes the envelope of feminist sex-hostility another notch forward and inspired the following essay from me.

When words are criminal, so are thoughts. Whether thoughts are written down or not makes no moral difference, and any words that sexualize a minor are criminal. My opinions on "child" sexuality (referring to anyone under 18) are fundamentally criminal, and only technical and resource limitations (mind reading technology is not there yet) prevents the state from convicting and imprisoning me. Notice that the law covers every medium of thought currently accessible to the police, and if they could read our thoughts directly, they would surely do so and base their prosecution on it.

This is the feeling the Norwegian child porn law gives rise to. I fundamentally do not fit in. I seethe with roiling hatred against the state, and the hatred is mutual, because the spirit of the law means I belong in prison and not in society. This conflict cannot be resolved, because it is fundamental, unequivocal, mutual hatred. When all is said and done, we hate each other, society and I.

Let us meditate on what this means, and face the horror of the law. Whether you have any interest in breaking it or not, the atmosphere it creates is true horror. I don't particularly care about the specific short stories that incriminated this policeman, but I care very much about freedom of speech and thought. The Norwegian legislature has decided that your mind is meant to exist in a prison of criminality, shuddering in fear of thinking unclean thoughts, reading or hearing unclean words or, horror of horrors, seeing unclean images. The scumbags in law enforcement will even target their own for perceiving unclean information, for that is how fucking seriously this society takes mind control. This society has decided that not even thoughts are free, with all the horrifying consequences that entails, because we worship the mythical innocence of the child above all other considerations. An innocence which is entirely specious, but that doesn't matter, because it is the idea of childish innocence that these laws are meant to protect, and explicitly so since they also apply to fiction.

This society is incapable of being rational about "child" sexuality, because as soon as a sexual reference is made to anyone under 18, or even according to the law someone who merely appears to be under 18 (as in acting), and even a fictional one, all expression is forbidden and the only possible response is state-enforced violence. If the law is to be taken seriously, we must burn most books and imprison all men and throw our cultural heritage out the window. If a man keeps as much as a diary or a scrap sheet of paper where anyone under 18 is sexualized in any form, he must be surveillanced, hunted down and imprisoned. It is surreal that I am damn near the only one who hasn't internalized the charade, who speaks up against it, who feels seething hatred in the opposite direction than everyone else, whose hatred is directed squarely at me and anyone who transgresses their moronic taboos. Usually the transgressor will himself have internalized the taboos, so the most he will do is claim he "didn't do it" while obsequiously parroting the same sex-hostility.

There are very few living people I respect. It is almost impossible to find a person whose mind has not been captured by these taboos. Nearly everyone supports or at least condones child porn laws, probably more than 99 people out of 100, and if you are one of them I disrespect your puny intellect and hate your guts. You gullible fool who don't understand the monstrosity you enable, at best, or odious creep who has actually internalized the sex-hostility! I know some of you have thought these matters through as carefully as I have, and chosen the other side. In that case I have no illusions of convincing you otherwise, because I know we fundamentally hate each other and it is not based on any misunderstanding.

I ponder the law and realize that my soul is criminal. My country fundamentally wants to imprison me for who I am, a normal man, and other men don't want to stand up against it even though they are just as much targeted themselves. I do not fit in, and don't want to fit into this sick society. I had to pinch myself to check that I am not having a nightmare, because this is so batshit crazy that I didn't seriously expect it to be enforced, even though I knew the law has been intending it for years. As far as I can tell, the dystopia is real. I am literally living in a country where the police can and will persecute you for reading or writing fictional stories. And worse, I am just about the only one who sees anything wrong with it. It is deeply disturbing, and breaks down certain barriers that I thought would protect us. I have never been so scared of the government as I am now, because this is not only hateful, it is absurd. When I was arrested and accused of incitement, there was at least some logic to the prosecution's case, some potentially real evil they were investigating, but this is entirely unaccountable. When the government is capable of persecuting you for the content of your library and personal records/drafts -- including fiction, for God's sake! -- is there any refuge left? Is there any limit to what they might decide next? And when they even target one of their own for such an absurdly victimless reason, what makes you think you are safe?

GAY TRUTH blogspot #homophobia verygoodgaynews.blogspot.com

[=Authors note and context: This is from a blog that calls itself "GAY TRUTH" and claims to be about "Very Good Gay News" - it is in fact an anti-gay propaganda site. It's author(s) are unknown=]

A teacher claiming to be a Christian says Christian school asked her to quit for supporting homosexual fake marriage and being unable to support the school doctrine of faith and employment.

Rachel Colvin claiming to be a Christian who worked for Ballarat Christian College was asked to resign over her public beliefs about gay marriage which is in reality - homosexual fake marriage. 

Rachel Colvin in defiance to scripture is taking legal action against Ballarat Christian College, claiming she was forced to resign over her personal support for homosexual fake marriage while at the same time was unwilling to sign the school's code of conduct.

Rachel Colvin was an English teacher at Ballarat Christian College from 2008 until February 2019.  Colvin said that in August last year the school informed her she would no longer be offered certain teaching and professional development opportunities, despite her offer to keep silent about her personal and immoral support for fake homosexual marriage. She said she was required to attend counseling sessions with the head of teaching and school chaplain.

Colvin has lodged a discrimination case with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal under the state’s Equal Opportunity Act 2010. The tribunal is yet to list the case for a directions date or hearing. A homosexual group is providing support to Colvin in pursuing the case.

“I loved my job. I am an extremely hard worker and loyal to a fault, and to have it end the way it did was, at first, professionally humiliating,” Colvin said in a statement. She ultimately humiliated herself claiming to be a Christian who does not follow God's word, make God the creator of sin, chooses to re-interpret all the homosexual passages that clearly state homosexuality is a sin, and then seeks to confuse young people by stating homosexuality is good.  

Rachel Colvin claiming to be a Christian demonstrates by her statements which clearly violate the word of God - that she is not a Christian:   

“I see it as a God-given opportunity to stand up for what is right, to represent what God is really about: loving others. They were created as they are, in the image of God, and that they are fully loved by God and share equal dignity with all human beings,” she said.Rachel Colvin position on homosexuality is simply wrong

The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1–13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26–27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. When people continue in sin and unbelief, God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not inherit the kingdom of God.

God does not create a person with homosexual desires.  Rachel Colvin is wrong. The Bible tells us that people become homosexuals because of sin (Romans 1:24–27) and ultimately because of their own choice. A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as some people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person’s choosing to sin by giving in to sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger/rage, does that make it right for him to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true with homosexuality.

However, the Bible does not describe homosexuality as a “greater” sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 that will keep a person from the kingdom of God. According to the Bible, God’s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Philippians 4:13).

The school correctly updated its constitution last year following the disputed legalising of fake homosexual marriage in 2017.

“God designed the two genders, male and female, for the purpose of joy and procreation within the sole relationship of marriage. So a marriage can only be between a male and a female, and upon this foundation alone should children be conceived and families formed,” the clause says.
While the Bible strongly condemns homosexuality, it never instructs that homosexuals are to be hated. As Christians, we are to speak out against the perversion of homosexual activity not support it, promote or even claim God loves it. 

The Bible is explicit in its condemnation of it, as well as God’s wrath towards those who practice such behavior. As Christians, we are called to clearly and lovingly call sin for what it is. Using the term homophobia to refer to anyone who opposes homosexuality is a distraction, not a valid argument or accurate representation. 

A Christian should have only one fear regarding homosexuals, the fear that they will suffer eternally because of their decision to reject the only means of salvation—the Lord Jesus Christ who offers the only hope for escape from a degrading and destructive lifestyle.

Rachel Colvin may have grown up in an evangelical Christian family in the US and may have served as a missionary, but has obviously strayed from scripture and God regardless of the claim to be a believer. 

She refused to support that statement of faith and should have voluntarily resigned rather than take her employer to Court. This clearly reflects the fact she is no longer a faithful follower of Christ based on her unbiblical statements. 

 Sex between two adult males was always considered abhorrent. For instance, St. Paul condemned men’s “indecent acts with other men” (Romans 1:27). He did not differentiate between pedophilia and adult homosexual acts; both were sinful sexual perversions in God’s eyes.

The biblical condemnation and rejection of homosexuality was not a novel idea introduced by St. Paul. Jude, the writer of the New Testament book that bears his name, told his readers that sexual immorality led God to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Jude 7). And it may be that Jesus also had this sin in mind when he referred to God annihilating these two ancient cities (Matthew 11:23).


Christians are said to be homophobic simply because they condemn homosexual behavior as sin. But the fact is that the term homophobic is merely a word used by homosexual activists and supporters in their attempts to deflect a genuine criticism of an immoral and unhealthy practice. 

Without question, there are people and organizations who have developed irrational hate of homosexuals and who are prepared to use violent actions to inflict suffering upon homosexuals. 

However, the problem is that the homosexual-rights activists have accused anyone who opposes homosexuality of harboring similar hatred. Therefore, Christians who rightly discern that homosexuality is an unnatural sin are equated with violent lunatics who hate for hatred’s sake.

thoughtsandreplies #fundie thoughtsandreplies.tumblr.com

[ Heterosexual marriage has its downsides, too, you know. The currently-high divorce rate is a great example of this, as is the high rate of adultery amongst heterosexuals. But does that mean that heterosexuality, in and of itself, is wrong? Of course not. So why think that homosexuality is wrong, then, just because it has some downsides? It seems like the only real argument you have against homosexuality is that it goes against the Bible. But since when is everyone required to follow the Bible? ]

There is a reason there is no such thing and never will be any such thing as ‘gay marriage’. Because marriage is definitively the bringing together of a man and a woman to secure to their children their natural parents.

David Blankenhorn’s Protecting Marriage to Protect Children Sept 19, 2008
Marriage has always been a partnering of opposites, male and female, and to pretend two gays can be married is to not know what marriage is. 


HeroicNews: Why Marriage can Never be Gay, Dec 28, 2013


It is critical for healthy child rearing to have stable consistent parental relationships from either side of gender dimorphism. Daughters need respectable fathers to learn to expect to be treated with respect. Boys need mothers to teach them the value of respecting the weaker sex. And children learn by watching all the time their parents, without their even realizing it. And absent the dynamics of a opposite sex relationship a hideous void rends asunder their formative years. 

CBS News: Kids of gay parents fare worse, study finds, June 12, 2012


The divorce rate statistic that’s been going around for the past few decades is actually a wanton deception. Thomas Sowell explains it best:

“In a given year, the number of divorces may well be half as large as the number of marriages that year, but this is comparing apples and oranges. The marriages being counted or only those marriages taking place within the given year, while the divorces that year are from marriages that took place over a period of decades. To say that half of all marriages end in divorce, based on such statistics would be like saying that half the population died last year if deaths were half as large as births. Just as most people were neither born nor died last year, so most marriages did not begin or end last year. “-Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed

CNS News: How Does Gay Marriage Hurt Us? Here’s How! June 17, 2014


Marriage is a religious and cultural institution and just like most people in western society know nothing of how fundamental the Christian world view has shaped our society, so too are most ignorant of how Marriage supports society.

To garner the beginning of an understanding just look at the repercussions of the destruction of the Black Family. [which btw was on the rise when the socialism of the Great Society destroyed it]

Just as you cannot demonize heterosexual relationships because of their particular failures, you cannot attribute homosexual relationships with successes they are by nature incapable of achieving, specifically because of the natural differences of the sexes which cultural revolutionaries so ardently try to deny the existence of… 

Masha Gessen Gay Marriage Activist, “Marriage shouldn’t exist” Apr 23, 2013


It seems like the only real argument you have against homosexuality is that it goes against the Bible. But since when is everyone required to follow the Bible?

Take note, and look back at the exactly ZERO times I brought up the Bible. 


In my previous post I explained the morality of LIBERTY, the definition of mental illness, and various statistics. In this post I’ve explained the nature of marriage & why homosexuality must fall short [gender dimorphism] marriage’s relevance to child rearing, faulty divorce statistics, and noted the definitive repercussions when the family is dissolved. [We absolutely know that a child is less well off without both a father and mother, period].

Nowhere did I ever suggest an ironfisted theocracy. =/ I said, in toto, Liberty trumps your feelings. & Homosexuality is unhealthy. 

You seem to be inventing what you think I’d say rather than reading my words. =/

As you can’t get that much clear, I don’t see the point in distinguishing between universal nature of one thing [homosexuality] and the failings of another [marriage] within individual instances and or trends in a relatively small time segment of cultural revolution. =/ 

Humans are by nature flawed. To point out the nature of homosexuality and it’s unachievable virtues, and those same virtues found redonkulously in TradMarriage is not to overlook the failings in particular TradMarriages.

Of course [since you brought up the Bible out of the blue] ancient Jewish wisdom teaches that love of yourself is only the basis on which to grow. The Golden Rule: Love thy neighbor as thyself, is the next step. And courage requires reaching out to ‘other’s. 

In homosexuality this natural development of human morality is squashed. Getting along with a life partner so different as to be another gender altogether is the natural means to forcing human growth. 

And just fyi, the likes of J.D. Unwin have studied anthropological matters which to me suggest the probability that fidelity in TradMarriage relates to measures of advancement in civilization itself. 


BUT without the Bible you really have no idea where we would be, AT ALL. Classical Liberalism was of Christian derivation, esp. the Christian Philosophy called “Scottish Common Sense”. There never would have been any kind of abolition movement. The world before Jewish laws of the old testament giving indentured servants specific legal rights shows only a glimpse of what the imminent pagan world was like. They had to institute laws against child/human sacrifice because it was a real normal thing going on. 


Every Atheist in the world cannot lift himself off of his intellectual belly without the moral foundation of Christian pluralism.The golden rule is the basis for the non aggression principle. Civil rights are derived from Natural Law a Biblical concept. 

Ethan Huff #transphobia #wingnut naturalnews.com

Just as the Health Ranger predicted, Big Tech is now declaring war on gays to satisfy trans

Today’s LGBQs are finding themselves at odds with the Ts, as the Ts are increasingly demanding that the LGBQs submit to their ever-evolving sexual demands or else be deemed “bigots.” And just as Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, long predicted, Big Tech is siding with the Ts in shutting down the free speech rights of the LGBQs because the Ts find their viewpoints “offensive.”

All acronyms aside, here’s the rub: Mentally deranged transgenders are angry that homosexuals aren’t sexually attracted to their mutilated trans bodies, so these transgenders are exploiting platforms like Facebook and Twitter to silence all homosexuals. As it turns out, homosexuals prefer others of the same biological sex, and aren’t interested in transgender freaks who merely “self-identify” as some other gender.

A homosexual male, for instance, is attracted to other biological males, not a transgender “male” who was born with a vagina, but later had it surgically altered to become a fake penis. The same goes for homosexual females, who prefer actual females and not mentally ill dudes who took cross-sex hormones and underwent a litany of gender-bender surgeries to become “women.”

For daring to espouse biological reality, homosexuals have found themselves as the new sworn enemies of the trans mafia, which recently petitioned Facebook to shut down a homosexual men’s group known as “The Boxer Ceiling” for this exact reason. This group, which is no longer visible on the social media platform, had described its mission as exposing “the abuse of gay men and lesbians by proponents of Gender Identity Ideology.”

Members of The Boxer Ceiling say that they have been “relentlessly targeted and harassed by Gender Dogmatists (both trans and non-trans), who fundamentally disagreed with our basic premise that everyone deserves sexual autonomy.” And after creating their group, these members were targeted even more by the trans mafia, and were eventually forced off the Facebook platform entirely.

When Breitbart News attempted to reach out to Facebook for a statement, the Mark Zuckerberg empire did not respond. Attempts to locate the page for The Boxer Ceiling group on Facebook are also pulling up a message stating: “This content isn’t available right now.”

For more related news about social media censorship of politically incorrect speech, be sure to check out Censorship.news.

Dear victim society: What goes around comes around
A group of lesbian feminists encountered similar opposition from the trans mafia during a recent event it held at the Toronto Public Library.

Trans freaks threw a big hissy fit outside the facility after learning that a panel organized by Radical Feminists Unite-Toronto was taking place inside, and included a woman by the name of Meghan Murphy, founder of Feminist Current, who, like the members of The Boxer Ceiling, believes that biology trumps mental illness.

Not even 10 years ago, this type of trans insanity wasn’t even on society’s radar. But today, not only is the trans mafia demanding absolute acceptance and embrace of its perversion, but it’s also normalizing tyranny against all opposition with the help of Silicon Valley.

Watching the LGBTQP mafia at large – the P stands for pedophilia, by the way – eat its own is humorous, to say the least. We all saw it coming, at least those of us who’ve been paying attention to the movement’s rapid decline into total depravity.

“Now they’ve learned that when you are lower on the victim pyramid, you must cede your rights to those above you,” wrote one Breitbart News commenter about the plight of today’s homosexuals.

“Clearly trans resides higher on the pyramid than simply gay. One would assume that someone like a cis-male female-identifying non-binary pansexual Muslim refugee from Syria with chronic PTSD would be at the top of the pyramid.”

Andrew Anglin #pedo #sexist dailystormer.name

Across the world, there are various laws regulating the age at which a female can legally make the decision to have sex. The age is entirely arbitrary, and ranges from as low as 12 to as high as 19, depending on the location. Generally in the developed world, 16 is the accepted norm.

The fact that it fluctuates so much between locations goes to prove that it is without any biological basis. It is visibly evident that there is no biological difference between a girl of 15 years and 11 months and a girl of 16 years.

Making the situation even more ridiculous is the fact that a girl is indeed legally allowed to have sex with boys her own age or younger before she reaches the magic number. Thus it is that she is considered to be entirely capable of issuing consent to a man, it is simply that she is not capable of issuing consent to an older man.

The final layer of absurdity is that it is not the girl who is punished for engaging in the illicit act, but the man whom she has targeted to loose her wiles upon. What this creates is a situation where a girl can target a man for seduction, lie about her age, and get him locked up. Furthermore, governments can potentially entrap a man with a fully developed girl of 15 years and eleven months, sending her to seduce him and then arresting him on crimes against consent.

What exactly is this “consent,” which is so capable of being twisted into various shapes in order to criminalize men?

The legal definition of the term is this:

Voluntary Acquiescence to the proposal of another; the act or result of reaching an accord; a concurrence of minds; actual willingness that an act or an infringement of an interest shall occur.

So, in theory, a woman is incapable of acquiescing to a proposal of sex from a man – but only an older man – until she reaches the mature age of 16 (or whatever the age might be in your region).

The frightening thing is that the concept of “age of consent” assumes that there is ever any age at which a woman is capable of making informed and responsible decisions about something as serious as sexual activity.

However, in America, most adult women are fat. This means that as adults, they are incapable of making proper decisions about what they eat. But somehow we have reached the conclusion that they are capable of making decisions about their reproductive behaviors? This is absurd on the face of it.

As such, it is my view that the concept of consent must be abolished entirely, and women must be disallowed by law from engaging in sexual activity without the permission of a male relative or, if no male relative exists, the state.

The fact that we have the concept of an age of consent in our society means that it is acknowledged by society that there is a state in which a biologically fully developed female is incapable of deciding who she has sex with. And I am not aware of a single “my body, my choice” feminist who takes issue with this.

In other words, from the most staunch conservative to the most radical leftist, we all agree that a woman under the age of 16 is utterly infantile to the point of needing her biological functions restricted by men with guns. I do not see evidence that a woman ever exits this infantile state. In fact, it would appear that women become less capable of managing their lives as they age. A high school girl is generally much better behaved than a college girl, and a female who has graduated college is radically irresponsible. Women are so completely infantile that they will forego their childbearing potential by spending all of their most fertile years drinking, doing drugs and having “consensual” sex with a parade of different men. When the woman reaches thirty, and her looks have faded and she is alone, she will enter a state of confusion and begin blaming others for her unfortunate predicament. Women in their forties and fifties will then get divorces and utterly destroy the lives of every member of their families in order to pursue some type of vague “personal happiness” agenda. Women in their fifties and sixties begin engaging in bizarre and anti-social political activism which serves the sole purpose of harming society at large. It is not until her biology slows down her ability to move freely that a woman ever becomes less dangerous and destructive, less of an existential threat to society at large, less of a public nuisance, than she was at the age of 16.

With so-called “consent,” we have created a system where the completely unregulated sexual desires of women completely control all aspects of society. Women are able to give or deny consent on an industrial scale, and use this mechanism to completely control the behavior of men. They use this power granted them by the state to transform society into something which they apparently believe benefits them, but which does not bring a single objectively good thing to the people. Every outcome we have seen from giving women consent has been negative. We have only barren wombs, incels and broken families to show for embracing the imbecilic concept that a woman is capable of making responsible and informed sexual decisions.

Society does not benefit from women of any age being given sexual consent rights. Men do not benefit from it. Not even the women themselves benefit from it. Nothing good has come from giving women consent rights. The application of Consent Theory was a weird experiment and it failed, and it is time for the state to revoke these rights.

All female “rights” are given to them by men, as is clear by the simple fact that women are not capable of surviving without men, nor are they capable of physically overpowering men. Consent was a privilege given to women by men and it can and must be taken away just as easily. Applied Consent Theory is totally unsustainable due to the anti-natal results, and will eventually lead to a birthrate of zero. We cannot afford to continue to play this ridiculous game.

We need to replace the consent system with a system of strict regulation where the concept of consent is no longer considered. We can call this “no consent at any age.”

Furthermore, it is the woman who chooses to have sex, not the man. A man, particularly a young man, is virtually incapable of resisting sexual urges if a woman throws herself at him. So, it is the woman who should be punished for violating “no consent at any age” laws. Women who violate these rules and engage in unregulated sex need to be punished severely with lashings. A woman who repeatedly breaks consent laws and consents to unregulated sex must be branded on her hand or face with a permanent mark so that all of society can see her disgusting and anti-social crimes.

This is the only way we are going to successfully create a functional society where all stability is not solely dependent on the unbridled sexual desires of infantile women.

Xeru #fundie battledawn.com

[ Personally I think homosexuality is rather disgusting (but I'm a hypocrite when it comes to lesbians...shame on me), but who am I...who are we pretending to be by saying SOMEONE ELSE cannot have a different ideology than us? ]

Weak. To use a comparison, think about how having sex and going nude in public is illegal under 'public indecency'. Your argument here does not apply. "Personally, I think that going nude in public is rather disgusting, but who am I...who are we pretending to be by saying SOMEONE ELSE cannot have a different ideology than urs?" I mean, do you see how this doesn't hold any water? 'Different ideology', as demonstrated by the current laws and those of history, does not grant you a universal right to do whatever you want. The opinions of society must be taken into account.

[ k, let's see. Ur friend is a homo, she likes girls only. Does it affect u? No, unless u like her.

Another example, u're an atheist, and ur friend is a Christian. Does that bother u? No, unless he tries to make u believe there is a god. ]

Still a weak argument. There is a reason for public indecency laws. The majority should not have to put up with an action from the minority that causes their lives to be uncomfortable. There are a lot of things that you don't like. There are a lot of things that I don't like. However, there are also things that society dislikes. I and much of society object fundamentally to the thought of having to live through something that disgusts me--not just ideologically, but biologically. For instance, society dislikes people pissing everywhere. What are you going to say now--just pin up your nose? Really? For instance, this forum dislikes me putting up nude pictures. What's your reply to that--close your eyes?

I am okay with closing up all homosexuals into a room and letting them live there. Or maybe making a homosexual town for them to live. That's what you're saying, right?

[he's talking about the reasons why marriage is forbidden.

if it's not becuz they are the same gender, it's becuz one of them is black (aka racism) or Hispanics, Jew or Muslims (religion), all of them are stupid. ]

That's a really dumb comparison to make.Racial/Cultural lines is one thing. I am prepared to transcend that.To step over what biology dictates...that's objectionable.


Once again, I am wholeheartedly open with having gays in forests and deserts, where they have nothing to do with me. I am very open to this. However, the legalization of same-sex marriage means that they have the same rights as us and can cuddle in public and can flirt in public and sneak a quick kiss in public. I cannot stand for that.

. Homosexuals can go ahead and be homosexuals. You can be whatever kind of messed up person you are. Just as long as I have no part in it.
I am okay with homosexuals being closet homosexuals. I do not want to persecute them. However, I fundamentally object to them having the same public rights as us.

nevercomment #fundie abcnews.go.com

What I don't understand is this: If somthing feels good, seems right and fits into what I want to do, then it must be okay. There are a lot of things in life that feel good, seem right and fit into your life that are not right. I am sorry, as a Christian, I don't want to judge anyone or deny anyone their rights but wrong is wrong. Homosexuality is wrong. I don't care if monkeys do it, Ellen Degeneres (spelling) does it, I don't care if the person I most admire does it. It is wrong. I now that when we all sit back and look at the design of the human body and see how perfectly man and woman fit together we must be in awe at the perfection of God's design. I don't care what you tell yourself during the day, but at the end of the day, at night when you are alone with your thoughts and your conscience, you know that the lifestyle you have chosen is wrong, if you are a homosexual. Birth defects and genetic disorders are not God's fault, they are a result of sin. Adam and Eve were created to live forever, perfect. But because of sin, through time, the flesh has become less and less perfect, thus you see disease, cancer, birth defects, genetic disorders and yes a love for that which is unnatural. I believe God loves us all, but does He love all that we do, NO! But Him being God give us all the right to choose. So if you choose to be a homosexual I can not judge you, but allow me the right to choose that marriage is between a man and a woman. I never thought I would live to see the day that Christians would back down from the Word of God because so many people say that we are judging. Let every man be a lie and let God be true.

MAP Biology #sexist mapbiology.wordpress.com

Females in prehistoric societies

Ages 0-6, infants and younger juveniles:
Girls this age are a long way from reproductive age and it’s generally not worthwhile for a man to invest much effort in acquiring them as wives. Mortality is high and there’s a good chance a girl this age won’t even survive to reproductive age. If a girl this age is offered to man as a gift he might as well take her but it’s not worth investing effort in chasing after girls this age. It’s generally best for a man to ignore girls this young. There’s little competition between the males for girls this age.

Ages 7-11, older juveniles:
These girls are closer to reproductive age and it’s now worthwhile for a man to invest effort in trying to acquire them as wives. They’re past the younger juvenile stage and the chance of them surviving to reproductive age is over 90%. Competition for girls this age is rising as they approach reproductive age. Men often fall in love with girls this age and get married to them but won’t usually have intercourse with them until adolescence. Similarly, girls this age may be abducted by raiders from other tribes to be kept as wives but they won’t usually have intercourse with (or rape) them this young.

Ages 12-16, adolescents:
Now the heat’s really on. The girls are on the verge of reproductive age and approaching the deadline. They are ready to mate with but haven’t yet got pregnant. Competition for them is at its fiercest since the man who wins a girl at this age can have all her future fertile years to himself and won’t have to wait long before she starts reproducing. Fights often break out over them and sometimes result in death. At this age they’re at their greatest danger of being kidnapped by raiders. Their pristine, perky adolescent boobs and bodies make them stand out from the juvenile girls and the adult women whose bodies show signs of prior pregnancies such as drooping boobs and stretchmarks. Their faces and bodies have an adolescent sparkle that catches men’s attention and incites men to chase after and compete for them. Their vaginas are not yet damaged by childbirth. Girls this age without husbands or male protectors are routinely pushed around, sexually harassed, and raped by the other men in the tribe. I’m not just saying this to be shocking, this is how savage ancestral humans probably were.

Age 17 onward, adults:
Competition for girls now goes into decline. Girls this age have now started reproducing and are biologically adults. From this age onward the number fertile years women have remaining goes into decline. This decline is reflected in declining physical appearance. Their boobs get saggier with every pregnancy, their stomachs accumulate stretchmarks, their waists go flabby, their faces grow duller every year, and they develop cellulite and get fatter. Remember these people are near-naked and everything is on display. Women in modern societies can cover themselves up and wear bras that give the illusion their boobs are still pert and artificially recreate their adolescent attractiveness.

Jay Myers Documentaries #conspiracy #quack youtube.com

Adrenochrome, a substance extracted from a living human body. But could such a drug be real? According to numerous, independent researchers, not only is it real, but many of the Illuminati elite are addicted to it, and will stop at nothing to satisfy their depraved demand. Join me, as we dive down the dark rabbit hole of adrenochrome.

Long before popular culture portrayed vampires as sexy heroes, stories of a monstrous nobility that craved human blood were very much real. Elizabeth Bathry, the infamous "blood countess", was a Hungarian noblewoman who systematically murdered numerous young servant girls, not only bathing in, but consuming their blood. Elizabeth would pierce the flesh of the victim, hoist her up to the rafters, and swallow the blood as it ran down.

Could their really be a sect, among society, that is actually addicted to blood? And, if so, why?

Deeper research shows that the answer might lie with a certain hormone that floods our bodies during moments of intense fear or excitement: Adrenalin.

@Jeff Wise

So Adrenalin is a substance that your body releases into your bloodstream when you're in a potentially dangerous situation.

It's responsible for the fight-or-flight response in mammals, heightening senses and increasing strength and energy.

@Jeff Wise

In some ways, the fear response gives us superhuman powers [transcriber note: the original video played the snippet where he said "superhuman powers" twice].

@Jeff Wise

You find that you're able to really concentrate. You're able to use muscle strength in ways that are otherwise impossible.

@Jeff Wise

Basically, these chemicals that cascade into our bloodstreams and flood into our brains, they change the way we think and they change the way our bodies function. We don't feel pain.

In the right conditions, it can be exhilerating and downright addicting [transcriber note: the video shows stock footage of a roller coaster], thus the term, "Adrenalin junkies."

@Jeff Wise

When we do a parachute jump, we're experiencing the same chemicals in our brain that a meth user experiences in their brain. So, you absolutely can become addicted to that sensation.

Whether human or animal, blood sacrifice has long been a part of the rituals of many cultures, and it was discovered that after consuming the fresh, Adrenalin-saturated blood of a terrified victim, participants would experience a type of high off of the Adrenalin, which could include increased senses, hallucinations, and a sense of euphoria. Sometimes, assigning a supernatural causality to the effects.

Eventually, the precise timing was worked out, so that the victim was killed at the precise moment when the maximum amount of Adrenalin had been pumped into the body. This knowledge was passed down through secret societies, mystery schools, and intergenerational satanic cults.

@Linda Wiegand

When they torture the children, it causes a physical reaction of the endomorphines in your body, to increase because of the terror and the pain. So when the Satanists drink the blood, they actually get a chemical reaction — like a drug high from the blood of the tortured victim.

@David Icke

These entities are feeding off human energy, and one of the things they do is, when they're sacrificing somebody, the people with invisible light, the Satanists and the bloodlines, they'll drink the blood because when the terror reaches a certain point in the ritual, a certain Adrenalin goes into the blood which gives these people a high. I mean, sick is not the word. But on another level — an energetic level — the entities are feeding off the energy coming off of terror and fear.

Most satanic sacrifices involve some consumption of the blood, possibly even body parts. More disturbingly, some of these groups make a point of preferring the blood of children, believing it to be more potent.

Another reason the elite drink children's blood is for its known rejuvenating effects.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

[After learning that the University of Cambridge has a copyright on the King James Version]

Dr. Jack Hyles has publicly stated that even though the publishers of his books sometimes claim a copyright, NONE OF HIS BOOKS ARE COPYRIGHTED!!! You can hear Brother Hyles say it for yourself in this awesome MP3 sermon...

THE GREATEST ARE MADE TO SERVE (In this sermon Dr. Hyles states that all his books are not copyrighted, including the ones where the publisher says they are. Pastor Hyles wants his materials to be shared worldwide... copied, reproduced and distributed for the glory of God).

Likewise, God's Word cannot be copyrighted, even though wicked people like Cambridge University Press FALSELY claim so. They are arrogant fools, having NO AUTHORITY from God. England is nothing! The English crown is nothing! Pastor Steven Anderson has been legally banned by the same ungodly English crown, forbidden to even land on an airplane in connecting flights in London, because of his courageous Bible-preaching against the sick and vile homosexual agenda which is plaguing society today. Homosexuality is a wicked sin! The country of England is even worse than the United States. I read last year that the murder rate in London has now surpassed that of New York City in the United States. England is a cesspool of debauchery, adultery, homosexuality and arrogance today!!!

Jesse Helms #racist americablog.com

[Equal opportunity bigot Jesse Helms died July 4]

Jesse Helms on "negroes":
As an aide to the 1950 Senate campaign of North Carolina Republican candidate Willis Smith, Helms reportedly helped create attack ads against Smith's opponent, including one which read: "White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races." Another ad featured photographs Helms himself had doctored to illustrate the allegation that Graham's wife had danced with a black man. (The News and Observer, 8/26/01; The New Republic, 6/19/95; The Observer, 5/5/96; Hard Right: The Rise of Jesse Helms, by Ernest B. Furgurson, Norton, 1986)

The University of North Carolina was "the University of Negroes and Communists." (Capital Times, 11/22/94) Black civil rights activists were "Communists and sex perverts." (Copley News Service, 8/23/01)

Of civil rights protests Helms wrote, "The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights." (WRAL-TV commentary, 1963) He also wrote, "Crime rates and irresponsibility among Negroes are a fact of life which must be faced." (New York Times, 2/8/81)

Helms on "degenerate, weak, sick homosexuals":
Over the years Helms has declared homosexuality "degenerate," and homosexuals "weak, morally sick wretches." (Newsweek, 12/5/94) In a tirade highlighting his routine opposition to AIDS research funding, Helms lashed out at the Kennedy-Hatch AIDS bill in 1988: "There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy." (States News Service, 5/17/88)

Helms being a racist:
And the man ABC News now describes as a "conservative icon" (8/22/01) in 1993 sang "Dixie" in an elevator to Carol Moseley-Braun, the first African-American woman elected to the Senate, bragging, "I'm going to make her cry. I'm going to sing Dixie until she cries." (Chicago Sun-Times, 8/5/93)
Helms filibusters making Martin Luther King day a national holiday:
A year before the election, when public polls showed Helms trailing by 20 points, he launched a Senate filibuster against the bill making the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. a national holiday. (David Broder, Washington Post, Aug, 29, 2001)

On cutting AIDS funding:
Sen. Jesse Helms says the government should spend less money on people with AIDS because they got sick as a result of "deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct," The New York Times reported Wednesday....

"We've got to have some common sense about a disease transmitted by people deliberately engaging in unnatural acts," Helms told the Times.

Robin Goodspeed #fundie voiceofthevoiceless.info

In January of this year, Glenn Beck, the conservative radio and television host, stated on his radio show that if anyone within the sound of his voice hated a gay person, they could not be a fan of his or have a friend anywhere on his show. Mr. Beck is a Christian, a Mormon, and professes to believe the Bible and follow its precepts. If that’s true, I’d like to share the following with Mr. Beck and other alleged Christian defenders of homosexuality.

I am an Ex Homosexual, Ex Lesbian, Ex Queer, Ex Gay who is extremely grateful to Glenn Beck for inspiring me to leave homosexuality. I lived my entire adult life as an out, active, atheist lesbian. My personal redemption story began in 2009. In a dark, empty movie theatre on the west coast, I watched Glenn Beck act out his autobiographical “The Christmas Sweater.” In the depths of his alcoholism, drug addiction, depression, and suicide, Beck had a dream in which Jesus Christ appeared to him, forgave him, and freed him from addiction and suicide. This was before he chose to become a Mormon. I knew in that instant that if Jesus Christ could free Glenn Beck from alcoholism, drug addiction, and suicide, Jesus Christ could deliver me from homosexuality. I asked Jesus to come into my heart and forgive me and He did. I was freed immediately from any and all desire or temptation to continue in the homosexual life and filled with a passion to tell the truth about homosexuality.

I was not born a homosexual. I was not “born that way.” There is no scientific proof, or proof of any kind, that there is a homosexual gene or that homosexuals are “born that way.” I was sexually molested at the age of 2 and I began making choices at that age that lead to a life of homosexuality. I chose that life and I clung desperately to the lie that I was “born that way” so I would never be held accountable for my choices. This is what every sinner wants. I was a permanent, perpetual victim who demanded to be placed in a special, blameless category of sin. I was “constitutionally incapable of being honest with myself” and as America became increasingly atheist and hedonist, I received more and more permission to practice my special sin of choice.

The secular counseling world, especially, which I sought out to combat addiction, depression, and suicide, demanded that I believe I was born that way and that I just accept and love myself more and better. But even passionate, powerful defenders of homosexuality cannot remove the consequences of sin. In my heart of hearts, where God resides, I knew what I was doing and how I was living were wrong and I could not escape my shame and guilt and pain. Glenn Beck admitted his sin of addiction and Jesus Christ forgave and healed him. God used Glenn Beck to reach me. When I asked, Jesus Christ forgave and freed me from my sin of homosexuality. I pray that Glenn Beck and other alleged Christian defenders of homosexuality can hear the truth now.

Satan is the Father of Lies and he attacks every child. We are all born children of God; we are all attacked by Satan; and we are all sinners. The only thing special about the sin of homosexuality is the audacity and persistence of the lie defending it. If you love the homosexuals in your life, stop defending their sin. God loves them and God will forgive them, if they turn to Him and ask. Help them believe that He will forgive them. Help them reach out for His forgiveness and love. Love their souls instead of their sin. Pray for their redemption. I am an Ex Homosexual today through the prayers of those who truly loved me, the grace of God, and the power of Jesus Christ, praise God. The homosexuals you love deserve redemption too.

MAP Biology #sexist mapbiology.wordpress.com

Girls under 12 can be wives too

If girls about 12-16 were the best to acquire as wives what about girls a bit younger say 9? A 9yo wife wouldn’t be ideal since she wouldn’t reach reproductive age for about 8 years but it can still work. Humans have long lifespans and as long as he’s not too old a man can afford to wait. Even if he does die before she reaches reproductive age he can still benefit through inclusive fitness since widows in primitive societies are usually passed on to their dead husband’s brothers or other close male relatives.

In primitive societies it’s quite common for men to marry girls of this age so although it’s sub-optimal the strategy definitely does work. We must expect men to have evolved adaptations for acquiring girls of this age such as finding them physically attractive and being susceptible to falling in love with them but to also be averse to having intercourse with them since they’re not physically ready for it.

As we go younger and younger there will be a point at which girls are too far away from the beginning of their reproductive lifespans and the probability of them surviving to reproductive age is too low for it to be worthwhile for a man to chase after them, assuming older females are available too. My estimate of this age is under about 7. I arrived at this estimate partly from gut feeling and the fact it’s uncommon for men in primitive societies to marry girls under the age of about 7.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

The homosexual community are infested with masculine females and effeminate males.

This very fact evidences that homosexuality is against nature. When two lesbians cohabit, one always assumes the male dominant role. Masculine lesbians are called “dykes” or a “butch.” Likewise, the same is true for two homosexual men, but in this case, one male takes on a female role (thus becoming effeminate). This sick reality proves that no one is born “that way.” In any homosexual relationship, one partner will always assume the male role and the other a female role.

The reason why homosexual men often grow large mustaches is to simulate the female's sex organ during oral sex with another man. That's the gross and harsh reality of homosexuality. Nature itself teaches that homosexuality is a sick, bizarre, abnormal, demented, Godless form of perversion. God hates all sin, including homosexuality.

The lowest point that any society can deteriorate to is a homosexual culture. Most Americans don't realize the extent to which America has sunk low in wickedness. Parents are paranoid nationwide about sex-perverts raping their children. There is an irrefutable connection between open sexual immorality, homosexuality and pedophile. Sexual immorality always preys upon innocence. Pedophilia is the natural trend of homosexuality, because it is perversion. One perversion invites another.

aelencloud #fundie newsbusters.org

Why is defending traditional marriage archaic? If society "needs to move on" from archaic defense of traditional marriage, what is the next move and why is that move "right"? If what makes the next move "right" is supported by the "it's what makes people happy" logic, then why is Adolf Hitler seen as a madman if he found happiness in murdering millions of Jews? Why is there a criminal system in our country if raping children is what makes someone happy? Why are there speed limits if driving 100 MPH is fun to me? Why do I have to pay bills if I find happiness in making and keeping my money?

What about homosexuality makes it okay in our society only because it means some couple is happy? Are there no further implications about that? What is the acceptance of homosexuality saying about the rules of survival in biology (that relationships between male and female of a species ensure the future of that species)? What about the moral implications about sexuality in general? Is there no limit to sexuality in our society? What about children? How will we teach them that, no, a man does not always have sexual intercourse with a woman, even though biologically every single person is born wired to be attracted to the opposite sex?

Why is the move to accepting homosexuality considered a benefit to society? What does such moral liberalism imply about how we gauge the ethics of issues in our society?

Why the hell do I even try to ask these questions of a stupid and decaying society?

baileysmom #fundie rr-bb.com

Homosexuality IS a choice. Having homosexual sex is a choice AND I firmly believe even the "attraction" that they claim to have for the same sex is also a choice. God did not create anyone to be a homosexual. He made everyone heterosexual, which means everyone has heterosexual feelings and attractions. All men are naturally attracted to women, and all women are naturally attracted to men. Even those who cliam to be gay or lesbian. I believe those who choose to be with someone of the same gender do so because they have "issues" of some sort -- I would bet nearly all of them were abused or, if not that, then they have serious rebellion issues and want to be "different." Nothing else could make someone want to turn their backs on their natural attractions and go after a relationship that is completely unnatural.

Years ago it was against the law to be a homosexual. Homosexuality was seen for what it really is -- a danger to society. No, I do not advocate imprisoning or harming homosexuals in any way. But I do think we need to push back hard against the gay agenda. How did it get to the point that in today's world, we are arguing over gay MARRIAGE? HOW did it get to that point? The culture of acceptance and tolerance has gone to far. Instaed of embracing this sin and telling them its okay, we need to reach out to homosexuals and urge them to repent and change their ways before it is too late.

kjistrom #fundie rr-bb.com

[A thread that was a reaction to the discovery of an echo of the Big Bang has turned into a discussion on whether the speed of light is decreasing. Another fundie has criticized a creationist astronomer named Barr Setterfield.]

All of science believed that the s. of l. was decaying up until about 1950, many peer-reviewed papers were written. When they came to the understanding that their Evolution Theory would not work, they changed the s. of l. to a constant knowing that most could not do the math. Setterfield took on the task and was ridiculed for it for years, only in the last few years has his work been recognized as right. They still refuse to say their sorry for the ridiculing of his work though, because of their beloved Evolution Theory, but they know he's right

...

Light was not created from the distant stars to the earth, the light was created from the earth, our Lord and Creator was standing on the earth when He created the light and it went out from here. Science always gets it wrong because of that.
I'm not dogmatic on this but I would think that some of the light still has not reached the farthest stars. Science would say that the light has not reached the earth yet, their wrong.

...

No scientist that believes in Darin's nonsense and his book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."
Secular Science has stopped those like the Setterfields from publishing just like any creation scientist can not publish any of their findings.

David Prosen #fundie cuf.org

My family consisted of my father, mother, and my younger sister, Darlene. My mother and I always had a good relationship, but my father and I did not. He was an alcoholic and often physically abused me.

While growing up, my Dad tried to teach me the things in life that he enjoyed, such as carpentry and landscaping. However, it would always end with him losing his patience, screaming obscenities, and calling me names. My dad never taught me sports such as baseball or football. At school, when it was time to divide in teams, I was one of the last picked. The team that ended up having me loudly complained and made it clear that I was not like them.

Everything associated with masculinity brought me much panic. As a child, I didn’t enjoy playing with cars and toy guns. Instead, I enjoyed role-playing games such as house and, yes, even dolls. For as long as I can remember, I had an attraction to the same gender. When I reached puberty this attraction intensified and brought me much turmoil. This confirmed to me that my male peers were right; I was different.

At about age 15, an older male befriended me. I began to look up to him as an older brother. One night, this friendship was betrayed when he took advantage of me sexually. He played many mind games and emotionally abused me. I sank into a deep despair as this sinful behavior continued for three months. I then decided to give Jesus a chance. At first, I was on an emotional high, but despite my years of catechism classes, I didn’t understand my faith or the sacraments. For example, I didn’t recognize the sustaining power of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. When the emotional high left, I became very lonely and felt once again that I didn’t fit in.

I began using marijuana and alcohol to help numb the pain. Once I turned 18, I went to my first gay bar. At first it was exhilarating. I felt like I finally could be myself, but the emptiness only worsened and I relied even more heavily on substances to help deal with the pain. I had lived an active “gay” life for two years, but was given a special grace and realized how sinful I had been. From this point on I turned my life over to Christ several times, but again, still not understanding that conversion is an ongoing, daily process by which God’s grace transforms us. I would always end up falling back into the bondage of sin and heading deeper into darkness. After one of these falls, I learned of places where one could go to have promiscuous sex. I so desperately wanted to be held and loved that I fell into a horrendous cycle of addiction. I would want to be held, fall into sin, feel worse, do it
again to feel better, feel even worse, and on and on and on.

In the midst of all this pain, the worst was about to happen. My sister, whom I had become very close to, suddenly collapsed with a heart attack and died instantly at the age of 21. After working through some of the grief, her death forced me to face my own mortality. I needed to seriously work at building a strong foundation on Christ, instead of looking for the emotional highs that I had depended on in the past.

I was chaste for five and half years by His grace and some awesome things started happening. I quit alcohol and drugs and completely dropped out of the “gay” scene. Also, God helped me forgive my dad and the relationship between us improved.

But I wasn’t able to see these amazing things God was doing because every day was a living hell for me filled with shame. I begged God many times every day for a cure, but the attraction never went away. Some people said, “You don’t have enough faith.” Others said, “You must be sinning in some other area of your life.” These statements only added to my shame. One day, a friend of mine said, “David, maybe God isn’t curing you because maybe there isn’t anything wrong with being homosexual.” After much thought, I decided she might be right.

Although I went back into living a life of sin, I believe God used this imperfect situation to teach me some truths about what love really is. He never let go of me, even when I let go of Him. One day, I felt God say to my heart, “Yes, you never chose this attraction, but you can choose whether or not you will act on it.” I picked up the Catechism and learned that this was a cross, and that we all have our crosses to carry. “Then Jesus told his
disciples, ‘If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Mt. 16:24). He gives us the graces to carry our crosses; all we have to do is ask Him and be open to these graces. If it weren’t for crosses such as Darlene’s death, I am sure that I would be spiritually and physically dead.

By God’s grace I have been chaste for 5 years and this time there is no shame . . . praise God! I enrolled at Franciscan University of Steubenville last year and, since then, the Lord has been leading me on a journey of healing. The Lord had shown me that I was harboring anger toward my childhood male peers who mocked me and teased me. I learned that I transferred this anger toward any male that was perceived by me as extremely macho. By God’s grace, I have let go of this anger and so many tremendous things have been happening.

For a paper in my Christian Moral Principles class, I read Dr. Gerard J.M. Van Den Aardweg’s book, The Battle for Normality: A Guide for (Self ) Therapy for Homosexuality. The Lord used this to bring about much more healing. I learned that the attraction I had toward males was actually an admiration of those who had masculine or physical traits that I felt I lacked as a child. In puberty, this admiration became sexualized. In addition, I learned that when I was living the homosexual lifestyle, I was coveting what other men possessed. I was affirmed when men who were more masculine or attractive than me showed and interest in me.

God has shown me that true love is not primarily about seeking affirmation, or attempting to have our physical and spiritual needs met. As Pope John Paul II says in Theology of the Body, love is a sincere gift of self, and our various needs will be met by God and others when we express love in this authentic manner.

God has brought into my life Catholic male friends who have spent time with me this past summer showing me how to throw a ball, catch, and hit. That child inside of me has been getting the affirmation he had so desperately sought. And as a result of these healings, I am feeling things toward the opposite sex that I haven’t felt before. Do I still struggle with same-sex attraction? Yes, but the attractions are less intense. I don’t know what God’s will is for me, but I want to remain open to it whether it is the chaste single life or even marriage.

One thing I found very helpful in my journey is my involvement with Courage. Courage is the only Catholic support group for those with same-sex attractions that is approved by the Catholic Church. Members in Courage strive to live chaste lives in accordance with the Church’s teachings on homosexuality. During these past 10 years, I desperately sought support from other Catholics who were going through the same struggles but who wanted to live chaste lives. In my former diocese, I found little or no support, and often what support I was given condoned the sin. This has helped me realize how important it is that we promote and support Courage.

I was blessed to be able to go to the National Courage Conference this past summer and was so impressed. Our Holy Father calls Courage “the work of God.” I couldn’t help but meditate on those words as I experienced God’s love, power, and healing as attendees shared their stories with others who are on the same journey.

Some people told me that I had to be true to myself and accept my homosexuality in order to be happy. God has shown me that I am being true to myself by living in accordance with His Word. I am much happier now than I have ever been before. I no longer escape pain but, instead, I try to work through it. And each time comes growth. And with each growth comes a profound joy and peace in Jesus Christ.

Mike Hughes #conspiracy vice.com

Earth is round. This is not a highly disputed fact, unless you're a member of the 16th-century Roman Inquisition or the rapper B.o.B. And yet, thanks to an immeasurably flawed conspiracy theory, a small but dedicated group of people is still convinced that Earth is flat. One of these so-called Flat Earthers is a guy named "Mad" Mike Hughes, and Hughes—a 61-year-old limo driver—has spent the past few years building a homemade, steam-powered rocket in his garage to prove he's right.

This Saturday, Hughes will climb aboard and launch himself and the rocket up into the air, hoping to move one step closer to demonstrating, once and for all, that the world as we know it is actually a flat disk with a giant wall of ice around it, the Associated Press reports.

"I don’t believe in science," Hughes told the AP. "I know about aerodynamics and fluid dynamics and how things move through the air, about the certain size of rocket nozzles, and thrust. But that’s not science, that’s just a formula. There’s no difference between science and science fiction."

Hughes will launch his rocket—which cost him about $20,000 to build and is sponsored by the group Research Flat Earth—Saturday afternoon over Amboy, a ghost town in California. He expects to hit speeds of up to 500 MPH.

"If you’re not scared to death, you’re an idiot," Hughes said. "It’s scary as hell, but none of us are getting out of this world alive. I like to do extraordinary things that no one else can do, and no one in the history of mankind has designed, built, and launched himself in his own rocket."

Hughes already took to the skies back in 2014, when he launched himself 1,374 feet into the air in an earlier rocket. He survived, but reportedly needed three days to recover from the effects of the G-forces.

Saturday's launch will be available to watch live on "Internet PPV," according to Hughes's personal website. If he pulls off the mission, Hughes told the AP, he plans to start work on a rocket that will take him even higher, hoping to eventually make it to space and see the big, flat Necco wafer that is our planet with his own eyes.

Nothing is out of reach," Hughes said. "Anything can be done. You just have to put enough money, time, and thought into it."

Anonymous Gossiper #fundie givemegossip.com

*BOLD 1, great point, that's why their depravity should remain in their closets, not celebrated in a boisterous manner every summer in their pride parades that are, of course, gov sponsored and fully allowed. Remember don't ask don't tell? OUT the door with that; the homosexuals need others to know they're homosexual, especially the innocent children, which they would love to take home and snuggle.

*BOLD 2, yes, that would be every person who registers as LGBT. Sick and demented. Not child-raising material. Children need a healthy atmosphere, one where there are 2 parents of opposite sex, as nature obviously intended. Raise them in an unnatural way such as with 2 homosexuals, and you wind up with an imbalanced child. It should be a litmus test for parenting that if you don't even know what it takes to conceive and bear a child, IE, using your sexual organs properly, you shouldn't raise a child so that it becomes as confused as the sick person who has adopted it. It really isn't a matter of fear or misunderstanding either; homosexuals and homosexual advocates love to use the term "homophobe" to describe those with anti-homosexual sentiments, however, we are only disgusted and sickened, and more so that at an ever earlier age, children are being introduced to LGBT homosexual concepts that will turn them as sick as those promoting it.

*BOLD 3, the human species was doomed from the beginning, and we are only seeing a decline in intelligence and morality, as evidenced by the rampant homosexuality going on in today's society. It is a regression of intelligence, and leads only to population reduction, not growth. Homosexuals can't even have pure thoughts, let alone unbiased ones when it comes to their perversion.

kingjameswriter1965 #fundie kjbisjesuschrist.blog

I know I may raise a few eyebrows when I expose this new gaming trend called Stadia. As always, I am against anything that is idolatry against worship of the one true God in Jesus Christ. Any thing, any person, any hobby, any vice or sin, is IDOLATRY (worship of a false god). You cannot worship God and for example, money, at the same time. God will NOT allow any other to steal His glory, which is rightfully His alone. To do so is to commit a grave sin.

This is what Wicked-pedia says about Stadia:

“Stadia is a cloud gaming service operated by Google, said to be capable of streaming video games up to 4K resolution at 60 frames per second with support for high-dynamic-range, to players via the company’s numerous data centers across the globe, provided they are using a sufficiently high-speed Internet connection.” …

Notice Google never says a bad word against anything they promote. They make it look desirable and worthy to possess. They are in cahoots with the evil powers that be who want to demolish anything innocent, beautiful and pleasing to God. I personally despise Google, Facebook, Twitter and all their evil internet kin. They are of their father the Devil, and the lusts of their father they will do (John 8:44). They are all damned to Hell where they came from, and will reap rewards of shame and contempt in the everlasting flames of the Lake of Fire. PARENTS, WAKE UP AND PAY ATTENTION!! THE INTERNET IS NOT YOUR OR YOUR CHILDREN’S FRIEND!!!

Now I admit I am not educated about gaming of any kind, but I do know that it is a shameful waste of time for a person of any age to spend countless hours in front of a gaming console or TV set pretending to be something you are not. Tell me it’s not true how many young people think they’re playing a game with someone their own age across the globe and in reality it’s a 60 year old pedophile looking for a young person to destroy. Call me old fashioned, I’d rather be such than to have my mind warped by the Devil’s devices in these ever-evolving “games”, which are nothing but selfishness and pride packaged in bright colors and ear-pleasing sounds. All you see and hear are the “good” things of the world, never the end result. The Devil always shows you the glory and the power, but he never lets you in on the wasted lives that could have (and should have) been used for God.

God gave us a free will to decide what to do with our life. I am not saying that He will force you to worship and serve Him; He will not. He lets you decide what you do, who you are, what profession you serve, what flavors you like, what dreams you have, etc. However, He created each of us to worship Him and to serve Him. You will stand naked before God after your final breath and He will ask you what you did with His Son, Jesus Christ. Ecclesiastes 12:13: “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.” The “whole duty of man” emphasizes believing on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation, because without Him we can do nothing for God. That verse in Ecclesiastes sums it all up. Anything and everything else is idolatry, therefore in vain and worthy of judgment.

By the way, gaming is nothing but a poor substitute for imitation of something that you want to be. It is the heart that is desperately wicked, and the heart is what people go by to satisfy their ungodly lusts. I’m so sick of hearing idiots say, “Follow your heart” when it’s the HEART that is so wicked and evil. For example, take Gears of War. Why in the world would you want to appear like some mutated ape going around slicing other players to death with a chainsaw? You want to tell me God winks at such wicked pride? That is sick. It’s no wonder today’s youth are so obsessed with death and killing themselves and others: THAT’S ALL THEY KNOW!!! Where are the Christians???

I am speaking to a generation that doesn’t know God and rejects the Lord Jesus Christ. These games from Hell are leading everybody who plays them into the Lake of Fire. I say that because ”gamers” don’t realize the wrath being recorded in the books in Heaven. Every idle word that you speak will be accounted for in the judgment (Matthew 12:36); how much more will these idle “games” which warp the mind and destroy the soul.

You better listen to me, young people. Forget Stadia, X-Box, Nintendo, and the like. You need to get saved and throw away your devilish games and hellish consoles NOW. The sooner, the better.

Miguel #fundie theantifeminist.com

Ephebophilia (or ‘hebephilia’) is a word commonly bandied about online by individuals wishing to differentiate between men (like themselves), who are attracted towards underage teenagers, and ‘paedophiles’ who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. Of course, the media, and the legal system, makes no such distinction. However, many who would champion the right of men to have sexual relations with girls currently under the age of consent feel strongly that if this distinction was more widely known and accepted then it could facilitate a more reasonable public discussion on the age of consent and the laws and punishments relating to sex with teens. Paedophiles are evil perverts and beyond the pale, but ephebophiles? Well, they are not so very different from the average red-blooded man – they just like their women a little bit younger. Yes, they are suffering from a clinical disorder, as paedophiles are, but it’s not so harmful and they are a lot closer to the normal spectrum than subhuman paedos.

So is ephebophilia a real thing? Does the concept serve any useful purpose in the context of the feminist war upon male sexuality and age of consent issues in particular? And am I just as much as a hebo as some of my former readers who have championed the label in the past, such as ‘Human Stupidity‘?

As regulars will know, I’ve made a point of strongly disavowing the very idea of ephebophilia. There are two good reasons for this.

Firstly, my experience of ‘ephebophiles’ both here and elsewhere online. Self-identified ephebophiles tend to be universally 1/ clearly autistic 2/ tactically clueless 3/ prone to paedocrisy and even 4/ Left-Wing and pro-feminist (obviously some exceptions, such as HS) and certainly ‘anti-misogynistic’.

To put it bluntly, based upon my experience, such people are worse than useless in the fight against the Sexual Trade Union. I’d rather go into battle against an Isis horde with only a dozen disabled, pacifist, transgenders alongside me than these creepy ‘ephebophiles’. Hell, I’d rather take on a handful of Russian Ultras with a thousand English football hooligans to back me up. That’s how pathetic these aspie hebos are when it comes to the street fight we are all in.

Secondly, I see no strategic advantage whatsoever in embracing the label of ephebophilia. ‘Hebos’ are so clueless that they really do believe, in their aspie naivety, that the same hysteric mobs who burn down the homes of pediatricians will take kindly to a group defining themselves by a slightly different Ancient Greek term meaning ‘ perverted love of underage girls with hair and perky breasts’.

Of course, this isn’t quite fair. Ephebophilia means ‘love of youth’ (form the Greek word for youth – ‘hebe’). And the attraction to young post-pubescent girls is indeed normal. The point is, to paedohysterics, a word doesn’t change a thing. David Futrelle, child snuff porn apologist and paedocrite that he is, is right to mock the idea that it could ‘win over’ feminists or the paedo hating population at large. In fact, it could make things very much worse. I have spoken here before of the fact that shows like ‘To Catch a Predator’, and ‘anti-paedophile’ vigilantes such as Stinson Hunter, nearly always target men who are trying to have sex with girls only a little under the age of consent. They never try to entrap real perverts and child molestors.

The reason why we have this insane moral panic over ‘paedophiles’ is not because perverts who molest 5 year old children are hated. It’s because society hates and fears even more the normal men who break age of consent laws by having sex with nubile young teens. Paedocritical men are shouting at the bulge in their pants at the thought of climbing into bed with a sexy 14 year old, and all the legal consequences that would follow for them, and paedohysteric woman (and feminists) are shouting at the millions of men who would not even hide the bulge in their pants and openly pursue teenage girls if it wasn’t for the law, the shaming, and the feminist induced hysteria over ‘paedophilia’.

It is true to an extent that establishing the concept of ephebophilia in mainstream discourse would help to clarify what real paedophilia is and isn’t. Real paedophilia is a psychological perversion involving the sexual preference for pre-pubescent children (in today’s USA, that means girls under the age of 10 or so). But at the same time, I see absolutely no advantage in replacing one clinically defined pathology with another. Anti-feminism is the fight against the feminist suppression and pathologizing of normal male heterosexuality. It is normal for men to be sexually attracted to females who have started puberty and who have the maximum number of fertile years ahead of them.

Ephebophile activists believe they can identify themselves as a group and fight for and eventually win their sexual rights, just as gays (supposedly) did. No they can’t. However, MEN can perhaps reclaim their sexual rights against feminists. Only normal, heterosexual MEN can win in the fight against the war on male sexuality.

With all this said, however, I wouldn’t be honest not to add my own personal experiences over the last couple of years, and describe how they have perhaps enabled me to look at the ‘ephebophile question’ in a new and more nuanced light. For some time I’d largely given up on dating. I was getting older, I was still introverted and awkward around the opposite sex, and in any case, as ‘the Anti-Feminist’ I saw all women as rapists, every one of them limiting male sexuality in order to futher their own selfish sexual ends. Walking down the street and smiling at a pretty jailbait as an act of defiance was the limit of female involvement in my world.

For over two years now I’ve been spending the majority of my time in Eastern Europe. As most readers accept here, Slavic women are much more feminine and better looking than their Anglo counterparts, with Russians at the very apex of the female beauty pyramid. Furthermore, they age rather differently too. Yes, of course any normal man would be attracted to even an average Russian 15 year old girl, but the ‘Manosphere Myth’ that I’ve criticised here in the past regarding peak fertility and women reaching their maximum attractiveness at 21-25 isn’t so implausible when you constantly see such stunningly beautiful long legged slim women in their early twenties all around you.

In Eastern Europe I don’t get the achingly painful sense of regret at seeing a pretty 14 year old girl and thinking that by the time she is legal, she will already be losing her youthful charm and beauty. The fact is, in the UK, and even in countries such as France and Germany, the majority of girls are burnt out, bitter, overweight slags by the time they reach 18. Because of diet, lifestyle, and genetics, even pretty 14 year olds do start to lose it by the time they are off to university. In Eastern Europe, puberty arrives a little later, lasts longer, and everywhere you turn there are 20 year old women who are ravishingly beautiful, have perfect skin, possess the long slim legs of ballerinas, and who wear elegant fashions with a graceful air.

Furthermore, I’ve fallen in love with at least a couple of such specimans. One of them is now 26. I have seen photos of her when she was a teenager and the curious thing is she didn’t look anything special even at 17. By 21 she was modelling, and even now as she approaches her 30’s, I get jealous looks constantly when I am with her, even in a city where HB8s are the norm. Even the likes of Krauser PUA would give me a nod of respect if he saw me with her. Look closely and she has crow feet developing around her eyes. Her skin is no longer perfect. But if I could re-wind time I would not wish her any younger than 21. And it’s not down to make-up either. I have seen her without, and she is still beautiful, and more beautiful than she was when she was a schoolgirl.

Another of my girlfriends is 20, and very pretty. She still looks like a teen, and even behaves like one in many ways, though thankfully more in a cute than insufferable manner. Although beautiful, I do not recieve so many jealous looks when I am with her as when I am with the woman who is a good deal older. This girl, I only met recently. I have seen photos of her when she was 18, and she looked almost perfect. I would have liked to have known her then, and I would still not object to a girlfriend such as her who is 16 or 17. However, in Eastern Europe the age of consent is not such a weighty issue given the mass of beautiful females aged above even 18. And this is probably why paedohysteria is primarily an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon.

So in the light of my experiences, how would I finally appraise ‘ephebophila’? As to whether it is a real thing, I am both more and less inclined to say yes. Despite my disavowal of the term here in the past, I somewhat suspected that I might be ‘a little different’ to the average man. Not just in being honest about attraction to young teenagers, but perhaps more strongly attracted than most. Although partly right, I think I had simply fallen into the same mistake that I’d rightly accused self-identified ‘ephebophiles‘ of making. The honesty to accept that teens are attractive can lead you to identify yourself, even subconsciously, as ‘somebody who is attracted to teenage girls’ and different to other men, and to somewhat ignore the charms of slightly older females. And this is compounded by the disgraceful state of femininity in the Anglo-Saxon world, a world in which the only feminine and loveable girls left are indeed mostly under 18.

If ephebophilia exists, therefore, it is not a clinical disorder, such as real paedophilia is, but rather a situation in a man’s life brought about by feminism and the state of women in the Western world.

And as a badge, it’s still tactically clueless and aspie.

My experiences of falling in love have also altered somewhat my views on ‘normal male sexuality’ in the sense that I now give more value to the merits of sex within a loving relationship. Of course, I am not now claiming that the female monogamous system is ‘right’ for men. I am currently in love with two beautiful women, and I think I have emotional room left for a couple more as well, hehe. All I’m saying is I no longer mock the notion of love, and that sex with love is, after all, something that every man should be able to experience as part of a happy life. I also look at porn less, and so I have to admit, I am closer to Eivind Berge’s view that real relationships are better than fapping. However, I still feel that he doesn’t understand the dangers of giving the slightest credence to feminist arguments against porn. And also, not many men can have girlfriends as good looking as his, and not many men approaching 50, as I am, can walk down the street with a beautiful 20 year old, or a HB9 26 year old, as I can. Porn never stopped me having relationships. Rather, it was a life-saving substitute in fallow times. It also helped to keep the flame of desire alive as I sank into middle-age.

And that thought leads nicely onto a final word regarding my contribution to men’s rights activism and the lack of updates on this blog. Yes, I am in some ways happier and more content than before, and therefore no longer feel the need or have the desire to carry the stress and time commitment of regularly posting articles here. It’s also true that I certainly no longer feel any personal pain at current age of consent laws. I would certainly be satisfied forever more at having relationships with beautiful Slavic girls aged 16 above, or even 18 above. But this certainly isn’t the reason for my lack of involvement in men’s rights. I still maintain that the ‘age of consent’, or more correctly, all the many issues that revolve around it, as part of the wider assault upon male sexuality by feminists, is the leading men’s rights issue. But perhaps I am less inclined to maintain this site, just when I am finding some happiness and sexual satisfaction, to cater to disloyal self-identified ephebophile readers such as the likes of Jon or Human-Stupidity, themselves prone to paedocrisy whenever it suits them.

eeveelutionsforequality #fundie eeveelutionsforequality.tumblr.com

IM AN ANTI-ANTI AND BELIVE IN SHIP AND LET SHIP AM I THE ONLY ANTI-ANTI THAT FEELS UNCOFORTABLE ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF THE TUMBLR MAP POSITIVITY MOVEMENT? DONT GET ME WRONG, I BELIEVE THAT MAPS SHOULD FREELY GET HELP WITHOUT JUDGEMENT AND THAT THEY SHOULDNT BE HATED UNLESS THEY ACT ON THEIR DESIRES. BUT THE CONCEPT OF AN UNSUPERVISED COMMUNITY OF MAPS FEELS KINDA SKEEVY TO ME ,ESPECIALLY WHEN IVE SEEN MAPS GUSH ABOUT THEIR UNDERAGE CRUSHES AND TALK ABOUT HOW THEY REGULARY WORK WITH CHILDREN ALONE..


You’re not the only anti-anti that thinks that, but unfortunately if you were looking for like-minded people to validate those feelings then you’ve come to the wrong place.

Of course, I stand by my belief that a closed off ideological community will frequently result in echochambers, drama, potential manipulation, corruption, and the like, that groups should always be open to criticism and discussion, for their own safety and successfulness.

The MAP community isn’t closed off though - the members interact with people outside of the community, there are allies who are part of the community, and there’s no political ideology that one has to subscribe to in order to join the community, so the members themselves self-police the risk of echochambers because they vary in stances on any given topic. There are conservative MAPs, liberal MAPs, MAPs who are against loli and ddlg, and MAPs who love those things. There are people in the community who are there because science and child abuse prevention and psychology, and there are people who are there because they started as anti-antis and realized that the “suicide baiting is wrong” and the “thoughts can’t harm” stuff applied there as well, there are people who are there because they hate and/or are concerned about pro-cs and see the NOMAP community as the best way to counteract them, and so on and so forth. There are so many reasons and thought processes and discussions - they even try to talk to and discuss things with antis themselves - so the community is incredibly good at being aware of the risks that come with closed-mindedness.

People work with adults. Whether or not somebody can do so safely is dependent on that person and on their own self-control, not on their paraphilias or attractions. There are people who take advantage of their position to hurt the adults that they work with (look at the Hollywood abuse scandals). People shouldn’t abuse anybody that they work with, child or adult - but whether they will do so isn’t based on whether or not they have an attraction (most child molesters aren’t MAPs, and rapists in general aren’t inherently attracted to their victims or even to their victims’ sex/gender), it’s based on a myriad of risk factors and personality traits and so forth.

As long as posts are adequately tagged, anonymous, marked as NSFW, and so forth, the only issue that I have with people talking about kid crushes (provided they haven’t done anything to harm the kid - such as harassment, leering, assault, etc) is that it leads to stuff like this. Plus people screenshot it and then post it untagged on a discourse blog, everybody sees it despite efforts by the original poster to keep it away from anybody who could be triggered… and then you get “ERMAGHERD THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT KIDS!!! THAT THEY FIND HOT!!! THEY’RE!!! TALKING!!! ABOUT!!! KIDS!!!” and I’m like… Yeah??? They find kids hot??? That’s why they’re MAPs, my dude??? I mean like, anything that I can think of that would be Too Far™ would also be too far with adults - be respectful about how you talk about other people publicly, obviously.

If you had a friend with violent thoughts, and occasionally they said things like “I really wanted to punch this guy the other day.” (speaking casually, not describing having had intent to do so) would you start calling them “skeevy”, “dangerous”, “sketchy”? It’s human to want to get things off your chest. It’s okay to not want to hear that - to block certain tags, or to ask people to not talk to you about it. But I can’t find myself able to tell people that their thoughts don’t make them evil, that they can accept and love themselves, and then force them to lock those thoughts inside because they’re too “evil” to be shared. It’s contradictory and potentially detrimental to that person.

James Casbolt/Michael Prince via James Rink #ufo #racist #conspiracy #psycho #sexist #homophobia supersoldiertalk.com

Note i don’t necessary adopt James Casbolt/Michael Prince’s belief system towards Women, Jews, and Black peoples but I feel he brings up some important points which makes this worthwhile to share.

Axioms of the Forth Reich

There exist five root biological forms in the universe from which all life-forms spring. All life in the universe originates from these five or is a combination of the five. The five are as follows-

1: Human
2: Canine/dog
3: Bird
4: Feline/cat
5: Reptile

The human form is the original form in the universe with the highest survival dynamics. In a competition of survival of the fittest the human form can be said to be the ‘strongest’.

Through physical tests conducted at facilities OP/OW ( Off Planet/Off World ) the canine form has the second highest survival dynamics behind the human form, with bird form behind canine, feline behind bird and reptile at the bottom of the chain with the lowest survival dynamics.

The bipedal reptile form was originally human. The bipedal reptile form is currently evolving back towards the human form.

Composite Human Aryan Evolution

The original form in the universe was a single white skinned human male. This life-form existed before all others. All life-forms spring from this original form.

Bipedal reptiles were genetically engineered by this human male. They were his first creation. Because of this an intimate relationship exists between human and reptile. More so than any other biological life-form in the universe.

At this point the original man created white skinned human females afterwards and the human race began.

The human race started as a combined white race. However it gradually lowered its survival dynamics by falling into subhuman races within the white race with different skin colours.

This occurred through human interbreeding with the animal races. I.E the black race was created through the following process-

The Luciferian Wars

The so called Luciferian wars in galactic prehistory caused the factioning of the original white human race into two sides. Every man and woman had to choose a side in the war. One group decided to wait and see the outcome of this war and then side with the winning faction. For their cowardness a long chain of events occurred that ended up with them being stranded on an unpleasantly hot planet covered in thick jungle.

Every male ended up dying through a jungle contagion. The females went insane and ended up doing what they always do when no human males are in their environment to stabilize them. I.E they started having sex with the animal that most resembles man. In this case the monkeys and gorillas of the jungle planet.

The black race was thus created through this interbreeding and black skinned humans have been having problems ever since. The black innately hates himself and his own skin colour because of this.

There is no reason for the white Aryan to hate the black. The black is simply a subhuman second class citizen with lower survival dynamics.

The black will simply evolve back towards a white skinned human as the human race puts itself back together again and geographical, genetic and weather conditions improve.
<…>
The Solution

We can indentify the two main enemies of the Fourth Reich and a paradise of existence as two main forces working against the plan-

1: The intelligent bipedal reptile who is fighting against evolving towards becoming a white skinned human form. Most reptiles are currently surrendering to the Fourth Reich.

2: The Jew- working alongside the first.

The Fourth Reich have currently taken over every government on the planet and all military and police forces have been indoctrinated with the Axioms of the Forth Reich released here for the first time in history for public perusal.

Enemies of said government are now as follows-

Homosexuals- The reptile species who goes against the survival dynamics of the human race engages in the practice of homosexuality. This life-form is a mixture of male and female as it has lost distinction and survival boundaries within this group.

Homosexuality is being promoted in society as an attack on the original male form and the propagation of the white race. Military prison camps are currently set up for homosexuals to engage in relearning.

Pedophiles- The reptile species who goes against the survival dynamics of the human race engages in the practice of pedophilia as it has lost distinction and survival boundaries within this group. They engage in a process of age regression when reaching advanced years and see the young as adults.

White Aryan woman engaging in practices against the human survival dynamics-

White Aryan woman must learn to become submissive to the Aryan male once again. The second form must learn to be submissive to the form that created it for harmony to take place.

Feminism and equality must once again be erased. Larger numbers of woman exist in the world than the superior male. After population reduction has taken place, polygamy will be reinstated as was done for German SS officers in World War 2. All surviving white males will control a community and act as Warlord for that community. Each Warlord will take multiple wives and begin to repopulate their designated areas with white offspring.

All surviving subhuman races and individuals OP/OW will be involved in colonies that will experience accelearted evolution towards the perfect Aryan human form.

All surviving dark skinned subhuman races will become white skinned humans. All bi-pedal alien forms whether they are canine, bird, feline or reptile will become white skinned humans. All canine, bird, feline or reptile life-forms will return to their natural state in the OP/OW colonies and will walk on all fours, fly or slither on their bellies.

bvw #fundie freerepublic.com

[Audience members at GOP debate boo gay soldier.]

Incorrect on many levels.

One they booing his homosexuality. Two they booed is defiant public defense of immorality. Three they booed his questionable commitment to duty, for by his appearance and question he brought shame upon all.

Despite the sick fads of current society much of morality is still an absolute. Homosexuality is wrong.

The audience would have likewise booed a UN Soldier defending sex with children that was done so that those children could get food.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

San Fransicko!

"And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel." —1st King 14:24

God created Adam and Eve; NOT Adam and Steve! The Bible calls homosexuality (referred to as "sodomy" in the Old Testament) an "abomination," i.e., hatred for a sin coupled with disgust. Homosexuality is not only sinful, it is horribly disgusting in the eyes of God. Leviticus 20:13 warns... "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." This is what the Bible, God's Word, teaches!

Woe unto America!!! Gays can now legally marry in the state of California. Sick! California has certainly lived up to it's reputation as "the granola state" (i.e., the land of fruits and nuts). Whether it be false cults, financial scams, sexual immorality, or weirdoes—California seems to produce a steady supply of them. It is no secret that San Francisco has a high concentration of homosexuals. San Francisco is a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah...

I cant help but think immediately of California when I read the following Scripture...

Song Of Solomon 6:11, “I went down into the garden of nuts to see the fruits of the valley, and to see whether the vine flourished, and the pomegranates budded.”

Can you imagine a city so wicked that careers are provided for people simply because they're homosexual, while no such provisions exist for born-again Christians? This is evil. There was a time in America when an employer would hire someone who was a Christian, because they knew they were hiring a trustworthy employee. Nowadays, taxpayers are forced to support homosexuals, regardless of their personal character or skills. This is wrong. Homosexuals are demented and immoral people. Fifty years ago in America, psychologists considered homosexuality a disease!

The homosexual agenda has infested American culture, corrupting our nation. From the Food Network to Home and Garden TV, homosexuals are being featured to maintain political correctness. The tragic result is that society is being desensitized to the evils of homosexuality. Gay-marriage is rebellion and sin against God. No one is born gay, because God doesn't make mistakes.

John C. Wright #fundie scifiwright.com

My stepsister’s father was homosexual who abandoned her at the age of seven to go live with his homosexual lover, a worthless boy. Never once in my hearing did I hear any criticism of him for this decision. I saw not the least hint of disapproval or discrimination or revulsion. No one called him a pervert, even though he surely knew his sex drive was misaligned, and drove him where he did not want to go.

He committed suicide.

I am not a mind reader, and I do not know what is in his heart, but I suspect that his pursuit of a lifestyle all the lying-ass jerks on the Left kept telling him was a good and worthy lifestyle was what killed him.

Let me be clear: I say people like you kept telling him that it was society’s fault that he was unhappy, because everyone hated him. People like you kept telling him if he just tried a little harder to follower his sexually abnormal desires, the desires would become normal, and satisfy him with happiness.

People like you lied and lied and lied, and so people like you killed him.

And for what? So you could play a little game of moral superiority with yourself, and tell yourself that your inability to distinguish between male and female, right and wrong, healthy and sickness, life and death, was a sign of your broadmindedness.

You boast that you cannot see the difference. You cannot discriminate. You cannot make judgments. You cannot face facts. You cannot think.

Some boast. You should be ashamed.

Faith Facts #fundie faithfacts.org

When the subject of Gay Marriage comes up, how are Christians doing at communicating the harm to society with the secular world? Do we have logical reasons to present without being perceived as being "Bible-thumping"?

Here are 20 reasons which may help communicate to our secular friends that Gay Marriage is not only a moral issue for Christians, but a societal ill. All but a few of these reasons are secular rather than religious:

1. The whole fabric of gay rights disappears with this fact: There is no scientific evidence that people are born gay, and much evidence exists that proves the opposite. People leave the homosexual lifestyle and desire all the time. (See http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights#born.)

2. Marriage is the fundamental building block of all human civilization, and has been across cultural and religious lines for 5000+ years. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society. Society as a whole, not merely any given set of spouses, benefits from marriage. This is because traditional marriage helps to channel procreative love into a stable institution that provides for the orderly bearing and rearing of the next generation.

3. Contrary to the liberal and libertarian viewpoint, marriage is not merely an institution for the convenience of adults. It is about the rights of children. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. Every child has the right to a mom and a dad whenever possible. Numerous studies show that children do best with two biological parents. Here is just one study: Two Biological Parents.

4. Marriage benefits everyone because separating the bearing and rearing of children from marriage burdens innocent bystanders: not just children, but the whole community. History shows that no society long survives after a change that hurts the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.

5. Law cannot be divorced from reality—from nature. The two sexes are complementary, not undifferentiated. This is a fact of nature, thus given by God. No government has the right to alter what is true by nature. (See America’s Declaration of Independence.)

6. Redefining marriage would diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and BIOLOGICAL children, and for men and women to marry before having children.

7. The results of redefining marriage—parenting by single parents, divorced parents, remarried parents, cohabiting couples, and fragmented families of any kind—are demonstrably worse for children. According to the best available sociological evidence, children fare best on virtually every examined indicator when reared by their wedded biological parents. Studies that control for other factors, including poverty and even genetics, suggest that children reared in intact homes do best on educational achievement, emotional health, familial and sexual development, and delinquency and incarceration. In short, marriage unites a man and a woman holistically—emotionally and bodily, in acts of conjugal love and in the children such love brings forth—for the whole of life.

8. Studies show domestic violence is three times higher among homosexual partnerships, compared to heterosexual marriages. A large portion of murders, assaults, other crimes and various harms to children occur along with, or as a consequence of, domestic violence. Half of pedophilia attacks are homosexual, for example. Normalizing homosexual marriage also encourages non-marital homosexual activity, and thus the social pathologies associated with it.

9. Promiscuity is rampant among homosexuals, including those who are married. Various studies indicate that gays average somewhere between 10 and 110 different sex partners per year. The New York Times, among many other sources, reported the finding that exclusivity was not the norm among gay partners: “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations. ‘Openness’ and ‘flexibility’ of gay relationships are euphemisms for sexual infidelity.” One study showed that only 4.5% of homosexual males said they were faithful to their current partner, compared to 85% of heterosexual married women and 75.5% of heterosexual married men. Promiscuity is a destabilizing influence on society.

10. The confusion resulting from further delinking childbearing from marriage would force the state to intervene more often in family life and expand welfare programs. If marriage has no form and serves no social purpose, how will society protect the needs of children—the prime victim of our non-marital sexual culture—without government growing more intrusive and more expensive? Without healthy marriages, the community often must step in to provide (more or less directly) for their well-being and upbringing. Thus, by encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. (Libertarians, do you see the importance of this? If you want the state to be less intrusive, get off the gay marriage idea!)

11. Promoting marriage does not ban any type of relationship: Adults are free to make choices about their relationships, and they do not need government sanction or license to do so. People are free to have contracts with each other. All Americans have the freedom to live as they choose, but no one has a right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

12. Law is a teacher. Just as many people, even some Christians, thought that slavery was okay when it was legal, will think that gay marriage is OK when it is legal.

13. Gay marriage is undeniably a step into other deviances. What will result are such things as plural marriages and polygamy. These things could not logically be turned back, and will initiate a further plunge of societal stability.

14. Only a small percentage of gays who are given the right to marry do so anyway (4% by one study). This proves that the gay marriage movement is not about marriage, but about affirmation.

15. Anal intercourse leads to numerous pathologies, obviously because the parts do not fit! Among items in a long list of problems listed by researcher and physician James Holsinger are these: enteric diseases (infections from a variety of viruses and bacteria including a very high incidence of amoebiasis, giardiasis, and hepatitis, etc.), trauma (fecal incontinence, anal fissure, rectosigmoid tears, chemical sinusitis, etc.), sexually transmitted diseases (AIDS, gonorrhea, simplex infections, genital warts, scabies, etc.). Anal cancer is only one of other medical problems higher in gay men that heterosexual men, especially monogamous heterosexual men. Society at large pays for these diseases. (Speaking to “Christian Libertarians,” unlike certain activities that also contribute to national health problems, such as obesity, homosexuality is morally wrong. Poor eating habits are not a moral issue; gluttony is not a sin.)

16. The ravages of the gay lifestyle are severe upon the gay community itself but also for society at large. The best available evidence shows that those practicing homosexual behavior have a 20% to 30% shorter life span. A much higher rate of alcoholism, drug abuse, sexually transmitted disease, domestic violence, child molestation and more occur in homosexual populations. (See http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights#ravages.)

17. It is okay to discriminate. We discriminate all the time in our rules and laws. It is illegal to marry your parent. It is illegal to be a pedophile or a sociopath, no matter how strong the innate tendency might be.

18. Gay marriage and religious freedom are incompatible because it will marginalize those who affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The First Amendment is at stake! This is already evident in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., among other locations. After Massachusetts redefined marriage to include same-sex relationships, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to discontinue its adoption services rather than place children with same-sex couples against its principles. Massachusetts public schools began teaching grade-school students about same-sex marriage, defending their decision because they are “committed to teaching about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.” A Massachusetts appellate court ruled that parents have no right to exempt their children from these classes. Businesses that refuse to accept gay marriage as a legitimate institution will be penalized. It is a certainty that the church will at some point, be unable to preach the full council of God. It will be considered hate speech to speak of traditional marriage as right. Churches will begin losing their tax exempt status. Individuals who speak out against gay marriage will be penalized. This is only the tip of the iceberg. (Speaking again to "Christian Libertarians” who are OK with gay marriage: Do you see the issue here? This is important! Legalizing gay marriage nationally will lead to an assault on religion.)

19. Homosexual practioners cost more than they contribute via disproportionate diseases and disasters such as HIV, hepatitis, herpes, mental illness, substance abuse, suicide, assault, etc. The Center for Disease Control estimates that each HIV infection ALONE generates $700,000 in direct and indirect costs. (Source: Family Research Report, April 2014)

20. Homosexual activity and marriage robs our future by: having fewer children, poorly socializing the children they raise, commit about half of all child molestations recorded in the news. (Source: Family Research Report, April 2014)

The question is asked, why shouldn't two people who love each other be allowed to get married? ANSWER: Marriage is not about love. In many countries around the world, marriages are arranged. Marriage is about the rights of children and thus is about supporting the next generation. Anything that weakens the institution of marriage is an injustice to children and a travesty to the culture.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

It's Not That Hard To Figure Out

Any child knows that the bathroom sign to the left means men wear pants and women wear dresses. What if both signs has pants? You wouldn't know which bathroom to enter. The simple fact of the matter is that if both signs showed figures wearing pants that it would cause CONFUSION. American society today is confused on the sexes because men and women dress, think and behave alike. Satan deliberately is trying to confuse the genders, causing children to question whether they are straight or queer, male or female, normal or a freak.

No one is born homosexual because God doesn't make mistakes. It's the same ole bogus coat-hanger-abortion-in-the-alley scenario, grasping for extreme situations to justify the norm. The truth is that people, whether righteous or wicked, do the things they do because that's what they wanted to do, and then they look for excuses to rationalize the decisions they just made.

It's not a mere coincidence that homosexuality is on the rise in the United States, following decades of rampant sexual immorality, after decades of legalized murderous abortion, which all started in the 1960's with demonic women's liberation which taught women to rebel against male authority, strip naked in public, become whores and abandon all sense of loyalty to family, commitment in marriage and fear of a holy God that punishes sin. Romans 1:24-32 warns that homosexuality is a morally reprehensible evil that always brings the judgment of God. Don't be the Devil's fool by disobeying the Bible.

It all follows the 501c3 licensing of churches, which has prohibited preachers from taking a stand against the criminals which have hi-jacked our country's federal government. God cannot be licensed! Today's churches have been bought off, spiritually castrated, and are following the Devil into perdition. Thank God for the handful of pastors who are still on-fire-for-God, preaching against sin because they are walking with a righteous God.

The world errantly thinks that God-fearing preaches simply preach against the things they don't like; but they fail to see the holiness of God which we know in the Spirit, which the ungodly world doesn't want. I don't preach against sin because it's just my opinion, or because that's how I was raised, or because it's my particular religion; but rather, because I have seen a holy God, and the more I walk (abide) with Him in His Word, and because the Spirit of Christ lives (abides) in me, the more I am compelled to live for Him. My entire website is not rooted solely in my hatred of sin; but rather, in my personal relationship with a righteous God which produces a hatred for sin.

The satanic Southern Baptist Convention, which comprises 37% of the satanic Freemason religion, are slowly embracing the homosexual agenda for the sake of maintaining church membership. I wouldn't give you a dime for the hellish Southern Baptist Cult. What a pathetic joke! Homosexuality is a wicked sin.

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Homosexuals are sick people, spiritually and mentally and physically sick. Homosexuality is not normal, not acceptable and should be illegal, as is taught in God's holy Word. Homosexuality is synonymous with every form of wickedness, particular idolatry. God's curse is upon America for our nation's tolerance of wickedness, our nation's love for filthy television, and our nation's shameful apostasy in churches today. Woe unto America!

I guarantee you that women who approve of abortion (i.e., murder) also see no problem with women wearing pants. It's more than coincidence in a nation where most women scoff and laugh at the notion of women dressing modestly, that 53,000,000 of those same women have murdered their own children through abortion.

Satan's Crowd Knows What's Wrong With Pants On Women

If you don't want to listen to the Bible, then maybe you'll listen to a secular singer as proof from the unsaved world why pants on women are sin. The following lyrics are from the worldly Hip Hip artist, Chingy, from his 2006 album Hoodstar; the song title is Dem Jeans:

Chingy - Dem Jeans Lyrics:

[JD]
How the he** did you get all of that in dem jeans
How da how da he** did you get all of that in dem jeans
'cause your waist so little and your a** it like wo
'cause your waist so little and your a** it like wo

[Chingy]
...
Back it up a bit
Yeah that's it
'cause I can see your thong
Caramel skin tone...

Let me help you with dem jeans
Baby lay down

[Chorus]
Da** Girl
How'd you get all that in
Dem Jeans
Dem Jeans
How'd you get all that in Dem
Da** Girl
How'd you get all that
(Is you talkin to me?)
Yeah you
I bet you had to jump up and down
Just to put 'em on
Bet you had to wiggle it around
Just to put 'em on
Bet you had to lay back on the bed
Just to zip 'em up
Am I right?
(You right)
Baby that's what's up

[JD]
Now Now Now
When walkin' girl
And you make it swirl
Its hard for me not to look ...

[ Lyrics found on http://www.metrolyrics.com ]

Hope you ain't up in here with your man ma
I love it when you wiggle it Shake it
Drop it and do your little dance ma
True Religion, 7's...

When you walk away it make me wanna rub it...

[Chorus]
Da** Girl
How'd you get all that in
Dem Jeans
Dem Jeans
How'd you get all that in Dem...

I bet you had to jump up and down
Just to put 'em on
Bet you had to wiggle it around
Just to put 'em on
Bet you had to lay back on the bed
Just to zip 'em up
Am I right?
(You right)
Baby that's whets up

[Chingy]
I don't mean to be rude but I like
The way you move
Got your boy in the mood...

let it show it,
like them curves
make that thing talk when you walk
I'm slurring ma words...

man you working wit a lot.
Only a rebellious woman, who deliberately disobeys the Word of God, would wear pants. It is clear from these unsaved singers why women should not wear pants. Pants on women are adulterous in nature, and cause men to lust and sin. Jesus made this clear in Matthew 5:28, "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Women who wear pants deliberately cause men to lust, and commit the sin of adultery. It is this spirit of fornication which has caused tens-of-millions of unwanted pregnancies in the United States, and 48,000,000 abortions in America. Rock-n-Roll, Big Band, and the roaring 20's are much to blame. Along with these swingy types of music came dancing, one of the biggest sins of all. Billy Sunday was right to preach against dancing, and by the way... ALL dancing is dirty dancing unless it's between a husband and wife in the privacy of their home.

“But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” —Jesus Christ, Matthew 5:28

The average person today scoffs at the idea that Rock-n-Roll, Satanism, and immoral sex go hand-in-hand, but they certainly do. When Rock-n-Roll came to America, so did pants on women become mainstream. Naturally, feminism, witchcraft, abortion, and homosexuality came as well. Rock-n-Roll is straight from the pits of Hell. ALL rock-n-roll women wear pants. Sexual immorality is a driving theme in rock. Listen to quotes from the rockers themselves...

"Sex is where its at in music... and I like it." (Johnny Bristol)

"I’ve always thought that the main ingredients in rock are sex, really good stage shows and really sassy music, Sex and sass, I think that’s where it’s at." (Debbie Harry, lead singer with Blondie)

"I'm in rock music for the sex and narcotics." (Glenn Frey of 'The Eagles')

"Rock 'n' roll is 99% sex." (John Oates)

"Everyone takes it for granted that rock and roll is synonymous with sex."
(Chris Stein, lead guitarist with 'Blondie.')

"Rock music is sex. The beat matches the body rhythms."
(Frank Zappa, superstar of 'Mothers of Invention' fame.)

What more evidence do you need? You are accountable to God ladies for the way you dress, the men you cause to lust, and the sins/crimes they commit as a result.

It is no coincidence that Hollywood has been putting nudity in their films as much as possible since the 1930's. Even in the 1966 film titled, “THE BIBLE: IN THE BEGINNING,” a 19-year-old Swedish woman (played by Ulla Bergryd) appears totally butt naked, showing everything. She plays Eve in the film. The film was accepted by the churches simply because it was produced as a religious film.

In the 1995 movie “Joseph,” starring Ben Kingsley as Potiphar, the breast teat of Joseph's wife Asenath (played by Valeria Cavalli) is plainly visible as she leaves the bathing tub; and the breast teats of the woman who plays Potiphar's wife (played by Lesley Ann Warren) are clearly visible through her transparent clothing. These are so-called Christian films produced by the cesspool of iniquity of Hollywood. Godless, Christ-rejecting, pedophile, Jews own and control Hollywood, and God's judgment is upon them all. It is this evil group of perverts who have shaped America's moral standards since the 1930's, and look at the mess were in today! If you're not angry, you're watching too much television!

Lakercom #fundie foru.ms

The universe was created by God about six thousand years ago according to the geneologies of the Holy Bible, the infallible Word of God.

I like to to tell people, "the earth is about 5,767 years old".

God obviously created the earth with the appearance of age i.e. Adam and Eve were created as adults with the ability to speak a language and do farming. Adam and Eve also had the abilty to procreate (have children). god does creative miracles today so it is no reach to believe he did the same thingsix thousand years ago, but obviously on a grander scale.

Science cannot conclusively determine the "age of the earth" as defined by natural means (evolution). I have heard some people, usually young impressionable students say, "evolution is a proven fact - science proves the law of evolution". This is not possible because evolution can only use historical science to estimate ages and origins. Operation science cannot be used to prove evolution. Operational science is the kind of science done in laboratories where things can be demonstrated and/or repeated.

Historical science confirms the eye witmness account of creation provided by the Bible i.e. God is the eye witness to his own creation and he communicated the history of it to scribes and prophets of old. This should not be unreasonable even for a traditional Chirstian to understand. Shortly after his descendants were making musical instruments and doing metalurgy.

I challenge the participants of the this forum who are convinced of evolution to give one example of evolution. If they cannot do that tell me how you can believe in a very old earth without sin and death before Adam.

Lookismisreal #sexist reddit.com

Society view femoids as the benevolent creatures of light that can do no wrong. They think that cum dumpsters are nothing but angels that should be compensated and put in a godlike pedestals because they happen to be born with a vagina. But society is wrong. Bitches are nothing but natural born psycho(paths). They are pure and utter evil, who have no thoughts or feelings and should be seen as the malevolent creatures they truly are.
Here are the reasons why:

Femoids pretend to be victims whenever they want so they can get their way. Femoids accuse men of false ra(pe) allegations only to get them convicted for a lifetime. Femoids are hypocritical creatures that say one thing only to do the complete opposite. Femoids are pathological liars who never say the truth; which is why you can't believe anything that comes out of their mouths.

Femoids are masters manipulators who will exploit innocent souls to get what they want. Femoids treat a large percentage of the population (ugly men) as subhuman. Femoid are racists who solely reject men due their race. Femoids are hypergamous sluts who reject men of their own footing for genetically superior males. Femoid love shaming/rejecting men due to things that they have no control of (example: looks, height, cawk size, and etc).

Femoids will reject a man because he is a virigin. Femoids are not capable of loving or caring towards men, unless the man is Chad/Tyrone/Chang. Femoids are serial killers who end the life's of thousands and thousands of unborn children. Femoids are child abusers who put their children in hormone therapy in a very young age.

Femoids take away attention from males oriented mental illnesses such as depression only to make it about themselves. Femoids condemn countless of men to suuicide and feel nothing about it. Femoids are all unloyal and untrustworthy cunts who will cheat no matter how good they appear to be. Femoids are gold-digging whores who marry men solely due to money only to divorce them and take half of their shit. Femoids are deceptive cunts who show a facade of false emotions to a man only to lead him on and use him to get what they wants.

Femoids take joy in bullying, shaming, mocking ugly men whenever they can. Femoid appear to show that they are creatures of emotion and compassion, but only in an attempt of virtue signalling so they can show the world how kind they are. Femoids only want a small part of the population to reproduce. Femoid not only take part in degenerate acts, but encourage others to do the same, which leads to the destruction of society. Femoids say that they care about Incels but won't provide them with sex.

Ray Rooney Jr #fundie afa.net

What I find perverse about homosexuality is the insistence from the gay community that I should know about their sexual proclivities. Normal people understand that sex is an extremely intimate and therefore private act. I would find it troubling, if not disgusting, for anyone to talk publicly about what kind of sex they like to practice. Normal people do not want to broadcast to the world the details of their sex lives. There is something wrong with those who want complete strangers to know who they like to have sex with.

Medical statistics tell me homosexuality is unhealthy. My Christian faith teaches me it is unrighteous. Common sense tells me it is unfruitful and unnatural. But none of that is why I am fed up with the gay community. I’m just sick of hearing about how one group of people demand that everyone in the world accept who they want to have sex with!

…

I wonder if all the stories making the news today about bakers and florists being forced to cater to homosexuals would be stories but for people announcing who they like to have sex with? I mean, did the offended customers come in and ask for a wedding cake or flowers for their wedding and were denied service because they looked like homosexuals? Or did the customer come in and announce their sexual preference and then demand service? I suspect the latter.

I believe homosexuality is wrong. Just like I believe adultery and sex outside of marriage is wrong. But even though I believe I have good reasons for opposing homosexuality as a normative lifestyle based on science, medicine, and faith, that is not why I strongly oppose it. I believe anyone who insists everyone know what they do in their bedroom and with whom is perverse. Normal people do not define themselves solely on the basis of who they are sexually attracted to.

Order #fundie tomocarroll.wordpress.com

I have found an indication that the Spartans were one of worst feminist civilizations of earth, an impious assertion that I am terrified to put here, so I warn you that it is extremely offensive to any good man who follow natural law and not the evil human laws:

“Most important, rather than being married off at the age of 12 or 13, Spartan law forbade the marriage of a girl until she was in her late teens or early 20s. The reasons for delaying marriage were to ensure the birth of healthy children, but the effect was to spare Spartan women the hazards and lasting health damage associated with pregnancy among adolescents.”

If this is true it is horrifying and a crime, a violation of the natural law, which requires marriage and pregnancy as soon the girl reaches puberty (you see, like romans and other greeks, at 12 or 13, like 99% of SANE humanity before feminism). Also note that reasons are junk science, because adolescent pregnancy is really healthy, even more young, more healthy is to the girl and the baby, so spartans mens like their modern counterparts are a fine example of female-dominated pricks.

“There is some evidence in ancient sources that the Spartans practiced polyandry. Herodotus says that the bigamy of Anaxandridas II was un-Spartan, along with plural marriage, older men seem to have allowed younger, more fit men, to impregnate their wives”

WTF, so spartan men are not allowed to bang young teen girls and marry multiple women, but women are allowed to bang with multiple and more young men, and spartan men support this insanity! like our modern feminist utopia!

“Spartan women seem to have married relatively late relative to their counterparts elsewhere in Greece. While Athenian girls might have expected to marry for the first time around the age of fourteen, Spartan girls might have waited until they were between eighteen and twenty, and probably married men who were around the age of 25.”

Exactly like this sick modern feminist society!! In short Sparta was a feminist state where women dominated fisically strong but mentally weak men who only live to die at war to defend ungrateful old women and practiced a Nazi eugenics progam who includes kill unwanted children (feminism again), and they were also a democracy, the worst form of government ever created. Did you know that in the SS, marriages were not allowed if there was a difference in age? What I said, effeminate pricks. These societies do not deserve worship, deserve contempt.

BattleCry Newsletter #fundie chick.com

Recent pictures of the moon’s surface have evolutionists scrambling for an explanation. High-resolution images by a lunar orbiter since 2009 show over 200 new craters on the surface. “Not only does this study invalidate the idea that craters only form over long eras, but the research suggests that these regular impacts could completely alter the surface of the moon within a timescale of thousands—not millions—of years,” wrote Garrett Haley on Christiannews.net.

Evidence like this continues to pile up against the “theory” of evolution, proving that the teaching of evolution is the result of bad science, not good science. True science inspects the evidence and proposes a theory and goes to look for more supporting evidence. Bad science assumes something is true and fakes the evidence to try to prove it. As the evidence piles up it continues to contradict the false assumption.

When Darwin first proposed the “theory” of evolution, men who had rejected God were desperate to find a “natural” explanation for where we came from. They were delighted and set out to find proof of the theory. When they found none, they began to fake it. They “discovered” Piltdown man, who was concocted from a human brain case with an orangutan’s lower jaw, with filed teeth and a filled cavity. They glued moths to tree trunks for pictures that were debunked after they were used in millions of text books. They assembled “Lucy” from bones, that some believe could belong to monkeys, scattered over a mile apart.

So, who is evolutionist’s creator? Time! When asked how the complexity of a functioning eyeball could evolve, their only answer is “millions of years.” Yet, even their physicists admit that everything in the universe is falling apart, not getting more organized.

This kind of bad science is behind much of Satan’s lies. Evidence that homosexuals are “born that way” is non existent but many have bought the lie. Bad science is also behind the effort to find other worlds inhabited by aliens who may have found the solution to the world’s ills.

God says that the solution to man’s problem is a change of heart, not some fix by alien beings from another, more advanced world. Bad science is also behind the effort to alter the DNA to make a super race of people who never get sick or die. Again, bad science is being used by godless men to sell a delusion (lie) to those who reject God.1

The Apostle Paul warned Timothy to avoid “profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:” It is amazing that Paul’s description is a perfect fit for false science such as evolution.2

Evolution and those who support it are indeed, profane. Webster says, “profane” is “characterized by irreverence or contempt for God.” Most evolutionists have chosen to believe that man came from primordial soup instead of being created by God. Some try to shoehorn God into the process but have to deny the first chapters in Genesis to do it.

Bad science is also obviously in “opposition” to God when it works so hard to find another origin of the universe.

Good science, on the other hand, has given us ways to use God’s creation to build the most prosperous nation in history. That prosperity has funded missionary efforts taking the gospel to all nations. Now the lies of evolution, Marxism, humanism, globalism and false religions have created world-wide chaos. Jesus said that the end would come after the gospel had been preached to all nations.3 But we are supposed to keep winning the lost by exposing Satan’s lies until the last minute. The best way to find those open to the gospel in any crowd is wide seeding of gospel tracts.

1. 2 Thes. 2:11-12 KJV
2. 1 Tim. 6:20-21 KJV
3. Matt. 24:14 KJV

Eivind Berge #fundie blogger.com

I also remember very clearly my own prepubescent sexual desires, which started further back than I can remember since my very earliest memories consist of lusting after girls and women around age four. If there is such a thing as childhood sexual innocence, it only pertains to knowledge rather than desires. I would call it ignorance, and it's not something worth idealizing. For example, as a prepubescent boy I was too ignorant to know that there was nothing wrong with the angle of my erect penis (I thought it pointed too high to fit in a vagina and was supposed to stand 90 degrees out), but I sure as hell knew I wanted to fuck women, and I *know* I would have benefited from actually doing so instead of the masturbation I was confined to. Criminalizing representations that "sexualize children," then, becomes a desperate attempt to suppress facts -- facts which most people must know deep down since they lived through it. Feminists use the police state to enforce a lie, which is very naive and would be comical if the consequences weren't so ghastly.

Eivind Berge #fundie blogger.com

I also remember very clearly my own prepubescent sexual desires, which started further back than I can remember since my very earliest memories consist of lusting after girls and women around age four. If there is such a thing as childhood sexual innocence, it only pertains to knowledge rather than desires. I would call it ignorance, and it's not something worth idealizing. For example, as a prepubescent boy I was too ignorant to know that there was nothing wrong with the angle of my erect penis (I thought it pointed too high to fit in a vagina and was supposed to stand 90 degrees out), but I sure as hell knew I wanted to fuck women, and I *know* I would have benefited from actually doing so instead of the masturbation I was confined to. Criminalizing representations that "sexualize children," then, becomes a desperate attempt to suppress facts -- facts which most people must know deep down since they lived through it. Feminists use the police state to enforce a lie, which is very naive and would be comical if the consequences weren't so ghastly.

momonkey #fundie city-data.com

It`s the same-sex marriage crowd that wants to pretend the sexes of individuals in a sexual relationship are incidental and irrelevant.

This is not the case as the sex part of a sexual relationship is a biological function that requires one penis and one vagina.

It is no coincidence that our marriage laws reflect that same one penis and one vagina requirement.

When marriage laws were written, no consideration was given to any relationships except the sort that lead to the creation of biologically related family units.

The states wanted to make sure married individuals used their respective penises ands vaginas responsibly.

The laws associated with marriage require the man`s penis only be inserted into his wife`s vagina and the woman have no other penises except her husband`s inserted into her vagina.

This was done so that the family created by normal sex between a man and a woman would have a legal identity and the innocent parties within the family would be protected from an unfaithful marriage partner.

Now comes the same-sex marriage crowd claiming they have been left out of something that was never intended for any partnerships except those involving one man and one woman.

Yes, you have been left out because there is no reason to include you in something that doesn`t in any way pertain to you.

Nelis #fundie scienceblogs.com

Also, just because you went to church doesnt make you a CHRISTian, just like standing in McD's doens make you a hamburger. You can go to sunday school as much as you want but if you are not open to the Word, you will not receive it. You say that Christianity brainwashes you from an early age, actually its the world that brainwashes you from an early age to make you believe there is no God. Being a Christian goes agains the flow of the way the word thinks.

Margaret Luna #fundie patheos.com

Wow, Satan has really made it more possible with these sites to collect even more souls. Do you think that brainwashing society with thoughts that have been twisted in to the bible makes your sexual perversion ok? You better best believe that I'm against your evil disgusting lies that try to let you off the hook, you are feeding and spewing this sewage and trying to compare what we eat and sexual perversion at being at the same level of sin. People can eat what God has intended for us to eat and may live many more years but the difference between the old testament is that note in the new Jesus now has died for our sins that would've taken us to hell we there we were sorry for our sins or not. Now we havea chance to repent from all, any of those sins and receive salvation and be forgiven. It doesn't mean that you can sin and you'll be forgiven if u keep sinning. You must be sorry for your sin and refrain from ever doing it again. And speaking about there being billions of people note breeding and that Adam and end were meant for the beginning only, that's your Satan putting false thoughts into people's minds, no matter how many people have bred it's not up to man to say that being a homosexual is OK now because of it. Anyone, from cheating spouses, molesters, rapists etc who've had sexual desires and couldn't control themselves are all guilty of this major sin. Trying to label people as homophobics only because they are doing rite by God by keeping good morals is an other way of Satan working on people's weak minds to feel guilty for not being progay. I love people no matter how lost they may be, it's not my job to judge nor is it gay people's jobs to try and change people's minds about what they believe in from the bible. It's like trying to push for molesters, pedophiles etc rights. Have self control from your sexual perversion, it's wrong, never do it again. And you'll be forgiven only because Jesus died on the cross for these reasons. When that day when the second coming of Jesus Christ arrives and your facing heaven or hell will you be this certain to hang on to those false fleshy beliefs still? You better study the bible more and quit stating your own thoughts in between. The devil is desperately trying to gain as many souls as possible in these last days we are living in, the blood moon signs, blood waters, all the predictions of many more from the bible have been showing to be true, the enemy is working harder on people's emotions, their weaknesses in every way to try and become ruler of the earth that God intended to be a peaceful garden for us to live in prefect harmony. When you see gay people they promote sex, it's not something we need in heaven or hell. Think about it. It's another test here on earth. The same goes for the greedy who'd rather spend $100. On a dinner while ignoring the hungry people outside. The people who feel that having riches isn't greed, but turninga blind eye to the man who's seeking shelter underneath a tree. You can't take materialistic riches to heaven or hell, and you won't have sex either. Our life's here on earth is short compared to eternity either in heaven or hell. There are people who've been shown where their actions here on earth will take them, if you are brave enough, then check out their stories, you'll find that each story is similar, but from different parts of the world have been experienced. Spiritlessons.com

LiterallyASoyboy #sexist incels.co

RE: [RageFuel] Straight from the whore's mouth: applying for sex is like applying for a job

Tbh it goes both ways, I wouldn't really want to commit to someone who thinks less of me for being a virgin. That's another thing, once you reach a certain age, probably mid twenties at the latest, you'd have to create a lie (which would be found out eventually) to even have any chance at ascension. I already feel like I have to put on some theatrical performance with irl interactions, the last thing I want to do is construct some completely false image of myself just to be given a chance. At the end of the day I don't really care what people think anymore...or no that's not entirely true, what I mean is that I don't care about trying to meet bullshit 2020 standards, nor do I care about failing to meet them. Combine that with me finding all of this fake bullshit exhausting, well it's just one more reason why I have no realistic path toward ascension which I'd even be willing to take. None of this matters though, because I'm not even attractive enough for it to matter, just lol.

Obviously not all ITcucks think this way, but I find that their attitude towards 'the dating market' is somewhat schizophrenic: on one level they will flat out deny that such a thing as a 'dating market' exists - usually when an incel brings up the possibility of market intervention to ensure more equitable outcomes, and on the other hand they'll invoke job application analogies and various other 'labour market' comparisons. Very curious.

There is a sweet irony that most ITcucks who would identify as leftists, or at least social democrats on matters of income redistribution become the most brutal social darwinist neoliberals when it comes to the dating market: adapt or DIE!

Except you wouldn't need to wonder why, it's obvious that I'm a subhuman loser.

"You have no right to judge a woman's preferences in a man period!"

“There’s also the very valid preference of not wanting to have to train a man all the way to her level. You want a partner on equal terms (we all want equality in our relationships, right??), not having to waste precious time and effort on some novice guy who might not get it right away.

Yet they all rant on about how not all women are shallow whores then say shit like this about virginity being a "massive red flag" and you can't judge anyone for being shallow.... Yeah sure. Maybe it's just the fact that women are shallow and that's why you're so testy about them being called out about.

If that's how she sees it, then why even have a relationship with anyone? Just fuck a different TInder Chad every week/month. I genuinely can't even imagine the mindset where someone would feel worse about their boyfriend/husband for having less past partners than themselves. Then the bit about wasting time, as in already viewing the relationship as disposable. Maybe I'd simply have to be a woman to fully grasp it.

But what am I even saying? I already know that what I want isn't something that actually exists, all that women want is just hedonism. What a joke. I'm so divorced from other people that it's actually kinda comical.

SiniXster the Dread #racist godlikeproductions.com

Any soldier deployed to the Middle East knows what the adult male population does to their young men. The young men are not allowed to have beards until they've been sodomized enough and reach a certain age that they're no longer desirable to the fag pedo adults. Only then are they allowed to grow their beards and become the rapists themselves.

WesTexan #fundie christiannews.net

It's certainly not rocket science! James White invited a Satanist to sit in among a Christian congregation to do what? Islam is a violent, evil invention of a pedophile. There is no common ground. It is exactly the same as if Mr. White had invited Satan to come in, sit down and have a friendly conversation. Mr. White is deceived. May God have mercy on him.

Anonymous Gossiper #conspiracy givemegossip.com

I Need Your Thoughts: What is This New Agenda REALLY About?

Last night on the world news there was a segment about how new tires being sold to the public can be up to a decade old...right off the shelf.

Now our government wants to make everyone register their new tires. They say that they are concerned about the publics' health and safety, which raises an immediate red flag (with me). Since when have they cared about the publics' health OR safety??

So I was wondering about just what the true Agenda is.
Are new tires going to, or do they already, have a little satellite pack on the inside of the tire with its own code...so that when people speak out against the Elite "they" just send a message to that device and BOOM....your tire blows out and you wreck, possibly being killed? I know that this may seem far-fetched, but let's face it, the Elite spend more time trying to figure out new ways to kill us than they do trying to help and protect us.

You know, the simple solution to this problem is to make the tire dealers take inventory of their stock, have them periodically check the dates of their tires to see when they were made (which is on every tire), and if these tires reach a certain age without being sold, then send them back to be recycled. Hell, isn't this why we have "sell by" dates on our food products? So why not just do the same with these new tires?? Right out of the factory have each tire stamped with a sell-by date. This would be so much easier, but instead the government wants US to register our new tires.

I smell a rat, but I can't quite figure out what this rat's up to. This is why I would like to hear from others.

Nathan "Leucosticte" Larson #sexist incelocalypse.ru

In the past, one might have argued, "You shouldn't have sex with your daughter because it would be better for her to marry someone closer to her own age, who has a different set of genetics and can therefore produce better kids."

This argument always did have the problem that some girls just happen to prefer older men. But whatever.

The problem now is, the typical girl is not going to get married at 13 like in the old days, but will instead become a slut. She'll get fucked by some Chad who will dump her, and then she'll end up getting fucked by lots of other guys, and have a kid outside of wedlock by one of them. If she ever does get married, the marriage will probably fail.

It isn't just trashy girls who are like this; middle-class girls are the same way. Not only that, but even if she does have a seemingly "successful" marriage (i.e. she and her hubby don't split up), she'll still probably only have like one kid -- not enough to sustain the family line. Plus she'll probably cheat on her husband.

Rather than let all that happen, it's probably better, if you have a daughter, to have a quasi-marital relationship with her, starting when she's at a young age. One may as well be the one to pop her cherry and repeatedly get her pregnant while she's still in her teens. That will be good for her kids, too, because they'll have the benefit of having lots of siblings to play with. Plus they can go hang out with their grandfather whenever they want, because he'll be the same man as their father, who lives with them in the same home.

The only problem is, the mother may get in the way of this plan. What you have to do, then, is maybe wait till the kid reaches a certain age where she's no longer breastfeeding, and then bump off the mom. Maybe tell your kid's mom, "Honey, let's go on a romantic getaway, just the two of us" and take her on a vacation to an exotic Caribbean island, where you will teach her how to scuba dive through a 17th-century shipwreck. Unfortunately, a tragic accident will befall her in which her scuba gear gets tangled up and she becomes trapped in the wreckage. You, of course, were running out of oxygen yourself and had to surface, leaving her there. By the time you returned to try to rescue her, she was already dead.

With the mother (who was probably starting to get kinda old and wrinkly anyway) out of the picture, you can then become the sole parent of your daughter, and molest her at will. It'll be the same scenario as in the novel Lolita. Hopefully, though, you'll get to her when she's young enough that you won't have to deal with some interloper like Quimby.

darcymayberry #fundie youtube.com

One more post from darcymayberry (from the same thread)

Sorry, but as a hearty Christian, I care a whole lot about where you're putting your genitals. I just want so badly for you to put your penis inside of a virginal vagina. Let's face it: penis does not belong in the anus, as that is an EXIT! Penis belongs inside of a vagina, however, since that is an ENTRANCE! Blood, urine and menstrual fluid does not EXIT through the vagina! If you've ever heard otherwise, then you're being duped by the Homosexual Agenda.

Muldah #fundie answers.yahoo.com

[What's so wrong with bikinis?]

I wonder just how many rapes and child molestations by old men who cannot get a woman otherwise were caused by scantily clad women. Now that would be an interesting study.

This society is sick, sick, sick. We cause people to sin and then put them in jail when they do it.

Sick!

Freesu-San #fundie deviantart.com


Okay, I've said it before, and I'll say it again (this time I'll just elaborate): its only God that defines marriage; not you, not humans, not the government, not some activists, just God alone.

And before you say stuff like "Then polygamy is okay", or "But love is love!", or whatever excuse you're about to come up with, let me just get some stuff straight here, especially on some certain issues:


Polygamy
Okay, some of you may think that there are people in the Bible that practice polygamy (well, there were). But the big question is this: is polygamy acceptable? The answer is no.

Can a man love more than one wife? Certainly not.

A man cannot love more than one wife, neither should a woman love more than one husband. (1 Corinthians 7:1-2). The Scriptures tells us that "each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband." This sinful practice can be classified as a combination of fornication and adultery.

In countries such as Brazil and Netherlands that have legalized it, it has created a whole deal of chaos in those families, and the rest of the people.

Polygamous marriages, (or known to some countries as "group marriages"), can put a whole household into so much unrest and ruins, and it will have a negative impact on children living in polygamous families.

Having said that, polygamy is also classified as greed, because they will even take other men's wives, which before God is wrong. God created marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, Adam and Eve, not one man and multiple wives, not even Adam and multiple Eves.

Now I mentioned it, during Issac's time, people were seeing polygamy as a norm (which before God its not). But Issac married only one wife, and that's Rebekah. He loved her dearly, and he was loyal to her that he did not take another wife for any reason whatsoever.

Joseph, the 11th son of Jacob did not take many wives himself; he only married one woman, and had two sons with her.

Some of you reading this may think that the Bible condones polygamy. Wrong. And in case you didn't know, it's actually Islam that allows that practice, not Christianity. And with that being said, God's Word never for once approves it. The Bible also says "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold." (Deuteronomy 17:17). Even the New Testament makes it clear that men are ought to have one wife, for example, when speaking about the role of the elders it says "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach" (1 Timothy 3:2).
Bear in mind that phrase "the husband of one wife"; not two, not three, not four, not even 100, but one wife. That just tells you that polygamy is clearly unacceptable.

To all Christians reading this, and to all who are looking forward to be married someday, stick to one husband/wife.

Arranged marriage

Regardless of what you think, human beings are not Matchmakers. Okay? Unfortunately this thing is happening across the globe, more especially among rich people and Muslims. Some will even sell their daughters as child brides, which is totally wrong. Some will even kidnap young girls to forcefully marry them. That is why you even see human trafficking here, where they sell girls as child brides, forcing them to marry at such a young age. Its repulsive. Its wrong. Its downright immoral.

I mean, seriously, why can't they understand that God is the real Matchmaker? They just end up taking it into their own hands, and that never ends well. At all.

I mean, during Issac time, he wanted to marry but none of the ladies living there are even eligible because they all worship pagan gods. So God used Abraham's servant Eliezar, to bring the right wife for Issac.

God has His own way of bringing the right husband/wife for you, if you simply leave the matter to God's hands!

Same-sex "marriage"

A very widely debated topic, still going on today. And believe it or not, same-sex "marriage" is and will always be a sin. In fact, when it comes to homosexuality itself, the Bible does clearly forbids it. In countries such as Spain and Argentina that have allowed this practice, it has created a great deal of damage, to the point it even destroyed many families, and it is a very grave injustice to equality. Even in Netherlands, there has been a significant fall in the marriage rate since the day marriage was redefined. In France, there have been continuous large scale protests against this practice, even after the law was passed. In this century we live in, homosexuality is considered normal by many people. Whenever it is mentioned, it is not uncommon to hear someone ask "What's wrong with two people of the same gender falling in love? Isn't it normal?" The answers to these questions can be found in none other than the Bible.

In the modernized world we live in, people (especially Christians) are labelled as "homophobes" for not agreeing with homosexuality or anything related to it such as same-sex 'marriage', which is just foolish mentality.

The world considers what God clearly tells is unnatural to be natural (Romans 1:26-27). Some may argue that God's law forbidding homosexuality was only for the Old Covenant which God made between Himself and the Israelites. However, a quick search of the Scriptures will show that the New Testament has more verses condemning homosexuality than the Old Testament does.

Jesus himself gave God's definition of marriage in Mark 10:6-9, when he was speaking about marriage and grounds of divorce. He said that in the beginning 'God made them male and female.' He also said that "a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

Plus, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Geez man.

Recent polls also show that children are better off with a married mother and father than same-sex couples.

The worst part about that is that some of todays churches are even accepting it as a norm. No. Its shouldn't be that way. Its not good, its not Biblical, its not Godly, its not right.

Please read the journal for more information: fcu777.deviantart.com/journal/…

Transgender "marriage"

Possibly one of the rarely debated issues, transgender 'marriage' is as worse as same-sex 'marriage'. It will affect everybody in a really drastic way. When men liberalizes sin, and when sin demands rights and acceptance, that very nation will crumble down, and will eventually lead people to Hell. This practice is not genetically based, and it is not simply a psychological disorder that "have to live with"; it is rebellion against God's plan.

God created marriage solely between one man and one woman, but in today's world, they disregard the Truth and not only promote same-sex 'marriage', but also promote laws that involves a transgender person who was born a male to marry a man, and a transgender person born a female to marry a woman.

The most basic to our understanding of sex is that God created two (and only two) genders: male and female, as He created Adam as a man, and Eve as a woman. (Genesis 1:27). There is no room for error in God's creation, and no one is born with the "wrong body." as the transsexual activists so claim.

They may think they are right all the time, but God will weigh their hearts (Proverbs 21:2). And the Scriptures clearly warned of such pride:

"For the wicked boasts of the desires of his soul, and the one greedy for gain curses and renounces the Lord. In the pride of his face the wicked does not seek him; all his thoughts are, "There is no God." ~ Psalms 10:3-4

"For the sin of their mouths, the words of their lips, let them be trapped in their pride. For the cursing and lies that they utter" ~ Psalms 59:12

"For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world." ~ 1 John 2:16

And also the Bible says that He resists the proud and give grace to the humble (Proverbs 3:34). Some people (even the LGBT activists, and so-called Christians) may argue "But what's wrong with pride?!", when pride, unfortunately is what Satan uses to lead more people to Hell. It is no wonder that many are too comfortable in sin that they are very hardened against The Word of God.

A man should stay as a man, and a woman should stay as a woman, is that too hard to ask?

See this for more information: fcu777.deviantart.com/journal/…

....

What marriage is
When you hear the word marriage, its earliest use of that very English word dates back to the 13th century. However, it's more valuable than we can ever think. Having said so, there is more to marriage than just "love and romance". Unfortunately, many seem to deny that.

Who created marriage in the first place? God did. In the book of Genesis, highlights God's plan for marriage as it says:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." ~ Genesis 1:27-28
First of all, marriage, is not something that just happened recently in the century we live in. In fact the first marriage took place right in the beginning, when Adam and Eve are joined together as husband and wife (Genesis 3:21-24).

After he created Adam and all the animals, God said “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” . So He put Adam to sleep, “and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” (Genesis 2:21,22)

When a man and a woman get married they commit themselves to spending their lives in a new relationship. It is a partnership of love, made richer and deeper through sex. Like many people, Christians regard it as the best context for nurturing children. It is also seen as the best (many Christians would say the only) setting for sex.

In any marriage ceremony the bride and groom must confirm that they want to marry each other, and after the opportunity has been given publicly for anyone present to prevent the marriage if there is a legal reason, the couple join hands and make promises. They exchange rings, which are worn as a reminder of these promises for the duration of their married life.

Marriage is more than a man a woman joined together, it is a beautiful gift from God, a marital devotion solely between one man and one woman as God created it to be. And to add to it, marriage is meant to be for life, and not some cheap contract for people to use and dump. Jesus gave a solid warning concerning divorce, when He said, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." (Mark 10:11-12). Simple as that. Having said this, in marriage there should be room for reconciliation, else how can that marriage even stand?

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." ~ 1 Corinthians 7:10-11

There are aspects that can either build or crumble down a marriage: fcu777.deviantart.com/journal/…

A spiritual aspect on marriage

Now, there is more to marriage than the earthly one itself. Having said this, if you look at the issue in a spiritual aspect, it actually reflects our relationship between us the Church, the children of God for that matter and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who is the head of the Church, the body of Christ to be precise. The earthly marriage has this high symbolism that most of us unfortunately are not even aware of or chose to overlook .

If you look at Isaiah 54:5 where it says "For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called." And also the Bible says that the husband is the head of the wife "even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior." And that as wives submit to their husbands, so do we as Christians submit ourselves to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and His will (Ephesians 5:23,24,32).

This is something we as Christians really need to keep in mind.

....

In Conclusion

Marriage is a very beautiful union that God has created. In fact, the government did NOT create marriage, God did. Marriage is more than just about love and romance between two people, it is a holy marital devotion between a man and a woman, the way God designed it. And before you ask, in as much as marriage is important, and it is a beautiful union defined by God as between one man and one woman, we are actually given a choice whether to marry or not. I mean 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 says "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." That just shows you that marriage is not by force. All in all, marriage is and always will be between one man and one woman.

Chrisnava567 #fundie reddit.com

(HOCD stands for Homosexual OCD and is a very REAL disorder. This fundie thinks that there's no such thing as HOCD.)

At one point, the American Psychiatric Association once declared homosexuality a mental disorder. They would try and cure if our homosexuality. Hocd sounds just like that.

In fact, I don't trust anything the DSM says. The people who say they got hocd think there is something inherently wrong with homosexuality.

I am sick of people doing this kind of stuff. There is no such thing as hocd. These people are homophobic homosexuals. Period.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

I was listening to the radio station of a local independent Baptist church today. They kept singing, “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, I love you Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, I love you Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.” It made me nauseous, sick in my heart to hear their lukewarm hypocrisy! The reason why is because the church officially uses two Bibles: the Easy-To-Read Version (ERV) and the King James Bible (KJB). (By the way, the King James is not a “version,” it is God's inspired and preserved incorruptible words.) The church published a dual Bible several years ago, featuring the two Bibles, one corruptible and the other incorruptible. They use the corruptible word to interpret the incorruptible word. TALK ABOUT MESSED UP AND CONFUSING!!!

I actually heard the church's neo-evangelical associate pastor throw it in my face, that because of my fundamental beliefs it was adversely affecting my social life. He's right, and rotten to say what he did, but I love him in Christ anyhow! Truth has few friends these days! Since when should we make our decisions where to stand for God on the basis of social acceptance? Id rather have no friends, than to sinfully compromise as a sorry neo-evangelical rascal, pulling on the same rope as the Devil. You see, neo-evangelicals don't want to suffer reproach for Christ. They don't want to be outside the gate with Jesus! That's why they won't take a stand against Satan's counterfeit Bible versions. That's why Bob Jones University won't stand. That's why Moody Ministries won't stand. That's why neo-evangelical independent Baptist churches won't stand. And may I say, such bad churches are “fundamental” in name only. Genuine independent fundamental Baptist churches (in English-speaking nations at least) are KING JAMES BIBLE ONLY!!! And they expose the Devil's corrupt Alexandrian Bible revisions, based upon the heretical work of reprobates Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort.

It makes God spit neo-evangelicals out of His mouth when they sing, “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, I love you Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, I love you Jesus, Jesus, Jesus,” while using, tolerating and promoting Satanic Bible revisions that belittle the only begotten Son of God!!!

Anonymous Coward #fundie godlikeproductions.com

How disgusting. They need to make all porn illegal. Probably shutting down the internet would benefit everyone also especially with everyone's records online.

Maybe they should promote righteous values and learning about our righteous God. It's not rocket science but you'll hear most of the male population complaining about their "right" to view evil shit whenever restricting porn.

Roger Marks #fundie christiannews.net

Sexual orientation doesn't determine one's qualifications to be a parent.

All the research I have done clearly indicates that ones sexual orientation has a very clear indication about the qualification for being a parent.

The research shows that a child does best when raise by a male and a female, preferable their own parents.

A series of videos made interviewing children raised by homosexuals when they had reached the age of 21 and they not needing their parents present showed quite clearly that being raised by homosexuals was as they said "hell."

A progamme I saw on TV and backed up by other research showed that most homosexual couples have sex on the side with other men.

Research shows that per head of population there is more violence amongst homosexual couples than amongst heterosexual ones.

Research shows that the average length of homosexual relationships is two years.

In every case of homosexuals wanting to adopt children, the major factor was the homosexuals wanting to be made happy by the child.

All of these facts combined shows that homosexual parenting is not fair on the children and should be avoided.

CertifiedRabbi #racist reddit.com

I honestly don't really see the point of trying to win over non-White people. I mean, our goals are unapologetically pro-White. Ultimately, our goals are to reclaim our societies and prevent non-Whites from flooding into them again in the future. Why on Earth would non-White people support those goals when keeping the White race cucked serves their racial interests?

If you think that we can convince non-Whites to come to some kind of mutually beneficial agreement where we both go our own ways and trade with each other, then you're simply wrong and dangerously naive. They want access to our societies, and they'll beat the shit of us if we try to stop them.

We always create better societies than they do, and so their standards of living will be severely harmed if we force them to live in their own societies away from us. That's why they're always going to be trying to break into our societies, and so it's our responsibility to push them out against their will.

They're not going to shake our hands and go "Okay. You guys got your society and we have ours. That sounds fair to me!" Any attempt to prevent them from piggybacking off of our success will be violently resisted. I mean, would you want to live in fucking Africa?

There's no way in fuck that blacks are ever going to respect our desire to maintain our own societies for ourselves, or agree to set up their own independent nations. Some of the more radical black nationalists might say that they want to escape supposed White oppression and live in an all-black society, but judge them by their actions. They're always trying to force their way into "White supremacist" institutions and benefit from our tax dollars.
99.99% of black nationalists are frauds, and the other 0.01% don't know enough about race realism to realize that blacks literally aren't genetically capable of creating advanced societies. They don't really want a black ethnostate because they know that it will suck because literally all black nations suck. What they really want is more gibs from us, and for us to completely bend over for them. They might want their own black enclaves, but at the same time they want us to keep giving them more free handouts rather than pursuing a goal of true independence and black self-reliance.

To the black mindset, liberation isn't the ability to escape Whiteness and gain their independence so that they're free to organically reach their full racial potential by erecting their own societies without outside influence. Liberation is unfettered access to Whiteness where they're free to marry our women, live in our neighborhoods, attend our schools, work at our businesses, and receive massive amounts of handouts from us. It's a fundamentally different mindset from we White nationalists where we genuinely want full independence from other races.
That's why you should only focus on red-pilling other Whites. They're the only people that really matter in this struggle for White independence from non-Whites. Once we've won over a majority of White people, then it won't matter what non-White people think about our desires to keep them the fuck away from us. They'll simply be forced to leave whether they like it or not.

And try to think about it this way: do you think that it's up to you or me whether or not Japan has a right to remain Japanese? Fuck no. The Japanese don't give a fuck what we think about their immigration policies because it's their country, not ours. We as White people need to have the same mindset. Who cares what non-Whites think about our desire to prevent them from living in our societies? It's not fucking up to them. If we have to seek permission from non-Whites over whether or not it's okay to maintain our own societies for ourselves, then we've already lost the war.

President “Turkmenbashi” Saparmurat Niyazov #psycho #crackpot #wingnut #fundie web.archive.org

My Dear Türkmen Nation!

You are the meaning of my life and source of my strength. I wish you a healthy and long life. Our Türkmen ancestors were courageous people and they began to educate their children before they came to life. The Türkmen child reached maturity and bravery, and then has a national education and worldview. For that reason, bodily health, intellectual stability, and integrity, and good manners were the special characteristics of the Türkmen.

In our times, the Türkmen should take care in his eating and drinking to preserve his health and endurance. He should not eat greedily. In order to keep his health, strength and productivity, the Türkmen should remember Allah Almighty’s order: “Eat and drink but do not waste,” and behave according to this order.

The real Türkmen should be careful about the clothes he wears and the way he dresses should be reasonable. His appearance should be pleasing since Allah is beautiful and the Türkmen should be appropriate for His love.

The Türkmens before us continued to read and learn new sciences even though they had reached the highest levels in the sciences. They lived with the accumulated knowledge that had passed from generation to generation and passed it on to the current generation. They thought that the learning of the sciences would end if they made any break in this endeavour.

Today’s Türkmens, you will be seen as scientists if you keep reading. If you lose your learning, then you will become illiterates. Every citizen of Türkmenistan should have a knowledge of science. This would be the result of brave souls, poetic perceptions, sensitive heart, and spiritual richness. To read and to learn is to have a deeper knowledge of life. When one reads, new ideas and anxieties emerge in the mind. Thus, to read and to learn is to appreciate Allah Amighty. Intellectuals and scientists have special place in my world and I show them great respect.

Fritz Chery #fundie biblereasons.com

Many believers wonder can Christians have anal sex? First, let’s find out what sodomy means. Webster definition- anal sex with someone.

While it is true Christian couples don’t have a sex limit on what they can and can’t do in regard to sex positions and oral sex. Sex is the male’s penis into a female’s vagina. Anal sex is penis to anus, which is sodomy. You might say how about if it’s between husband and wife, but God didn’t intend men to put their penis inside an anus period.

[...]

Sodomy is anal sex! Its name comes from Sodom and Gomorrah where God destroyed the city because of the homosexuality that was going on there. The anus was not designed for sex, neither is it safe to practice. Even though the Bible doesn’t discuss anal sex between a married couple, from what the Bible does tell us you can see that God intended penis to go inside vagina not anus. Married couples shouldn’t be having anal sex. We must not take away God’s natural way of doing things.

Christopher Jethro #fundie godrevelations.com

My spiritual journey started off as one on a path of darkness and deception to a path of light and truth. The Lord has not only delivered from the demonic bondage of an occult past and heretical theology, but has also allowed me to experience Him in life-changing beautiful ways I never imagined were possible.

I remember first learning about God when I was in Kindergarten when I had asked my mother where the world came from and was told that many people believe that God created the world. I pondered on that thought for an entire day and felt confident that seemed logical. I was curious about where God came from, what God was like, and why He seemed so silent, but the theological answers to those questions were beyond the capacity of a child.

I was somewhat intrigued about God for a brief time, but what started as a positive spiritual course quickly went far into the completely opposite direction. I don’t remember how it all started, but I quickly came under a very dark influence and was completely intrigued by the idea of Satan being my father. Indeed, I became a child-Satanist. I truly believed and so verbally confessed that Satan was my true father and that I was a son of Satan. I would, in fact, often pray to demons to enter me to give me power. I was obsessed with the idea of having power, being feared, and controlling others, and believed I could obtain that by from demons.

I asked the demons in, and they came in. I became filled with terrible profanity and developed sexual and demonic obsessions. I spent large portions of my time daydreaming about perverse sexual fantasies (such that you would never imagine a child could have) and also constant fantasies regarding all the power of Satan awaiting me. At times, the demons in me would manifest. During those moments, they would fill me a demonic hatred for a person which would sometimes result in a burst of violence. For instance, in the third grade when I got mad at another child, I grabbed him by the throat and completely lifted him off the ground – his feet were dangling as I choked him with a single hand and his classmates beat on me to let him go. This is not possible in the natural for a child to have such strength to lift another child off of the ground completely with one hand. Just before it happened, I felt the surge of a demon giving me demonic strength and filling me with incredible hatred.

In addition to demonic strength, Satan gave me two other occult abilities. There was a particular instance at a restaurant where I conjured up a flame. My brothers kept teasing me when I explained what I was doing, but after several minutes of internal focus that flame shot up in the air. This was at a large family gathering – everyone saw it and was completely shocked. To this day, this event has been brought up again and again by my family members who saw it.

The other occult ability was the ability to speak in a demonic tongue. Almost every day, usually for 20 minutes, I would pace back and forth as I prayed in a demonic tongue. Absolutely no one had told me what “tongues” were – I had never heard the concept in any religion. I didn’t even fully understand it myself, but the ability to do so was given to me, and I was strangely compelled to pray in this demonic tongue daily. The words of this language sounded dark and twisted, and as I prayed in this demonic tongue, it filled me with a dark spiritual energy.

I never showed them to anybody, but I often drew pictures of evil demons and of people being tormented in Hell in terribly morbid ways. Rarely, I would also receive dreams from a demon. These were no ordinary dreams, nor any self-imagined nightmare, for they had a very strong unholy spiritual presence to them. In the same way people can receive dreams from God, the devil can give people dreams as well. These dreams would try to pull me deeper into the occult by planting some sort of dark desire inside of me. Usually these dreams were about the choice between being a vampire or a shapeshifter, but also a strong pull to commit a particular sin. (This may be very hard to believe for those ignorant of the occult realm, but real Satanists when they reach a certain rank, choose between becoming a vampire or a shapeshifter. These “fictional” concepts in the movies actually take their inspiration from the occult. While these are not entirely like their portrayal in the movies, high-ranking Satanists do have the extreme demonic power to become those things. Just as angels and demons can take on different forms, so too, when can they so possess a person’s body can use those same demonic powers to change the occultist’s body. Satan often pressed upon me which choice I would make if I kept on the path of Satanism.)

As a Satanist, I didn’t hate God, I simply rarely thought about Him – He seemed like a very distant figure. When I did think about God, I was filled with strong jealousy. Yes, sadly, I very jealously wanted to be God. I didn’t understand the Trinitarian view of Christ’s Deity, and so when I imagined Jesus, I imagined him as a weak man without real power and wanted nothing to do with Him.

I did not share this with anyone for a long time, but I had also developed homosexual attractions at this young age and actually engaged in homosexual practices. But since I was still incredibly lustful towards women, “bisexual” would be the correct term for my sexual orientation. I was not delivered of these gay tendencies until much later on, which I will get to later.

(...)

The next pinnacle spiritual event in my life that took place was a very unpleasant, yet completely necessary, event to deliver me from my dark past. As I explained earlier in my testimony, I was once a Satanist that invited many demons into my soul, to the point of having demonic abilities. But where had all of those demons gone? Due to my old Baptist background, I was always under the impression that Christians could not have demons. In fact, I feel embarrassed when I look back on the moments when I once assured other Christians that it’s impossible for believers to have demons. I know that may sound logical, but it’s actually not true. There are no Scriptures at all that state this, but since the Bible is not explicitly clear on the issue, many have just assumed it is not possible – an erroneous assumption indeed. The reasoning is that ‘light and darkness can’t mix, therefore the Holy Spirit and demons couldn’t possibly both live in the same body’. Despite this reasoning, the Bible doesn’t actually say that, and I was soon about to experientially discover this assumption was false.

I had come to realize that the many demons I invited in my soul had never really left me. It was not as though they just magically disappeared when I first received Christ in my heart. The reason I never felt them leave was because they never had left. Scripturally, demons have never left a person without being cast out. I wished it were not true, but I could absolutely feel evil spirits inside of me. They were basically in hiding for a long time, but at different times in the strong presence of God is when I could feel them surface because God’s presence had made them uncomfortable, squirmy, and/or angry. What I once wanted inside of me for power, I now desperately wanted out. In short, my pastor met with me regularly over a period of several weeks to lead me into renunciation prayers regarding my occult and sinful past, followed by commanding any demons associated with those things to leave.

Being something completely outside my control, demons would manifest as they came out. This experience was very unpleasant, to say the least. When the demons were commanded to come out, they would often manifest and fight for control for a brief moment. I was helplessly unable to stop them from manifesting – they would make me fall to the ground and shake my body, and they came out in very loud eerie screams and shrieks, sometimes deep growling as well. Although unpleasant and even a scary, I could feel the force of evil leaving me. The light of Christ was freeing me from my dark past.

Each deliverance session was different. (Among evangelical Christians, the word “deliverance” is used instead of “exorcism” to distinguish it from Catholic methods for casting out demons.) Many demons were easy to cast out, but some of them were stubborn. To be honest, I was very scared during some of these sessions. The experience of feeling demons inside you, manifesting your body without your control, and feeling them fight to stay inside of you is a very terrible experience, to say the least. It was common that afterwards I would feel extremely exhausted. This was probably the hardest thing I had went through in my Christian walk at that time. I had invited so many demons into me several years ago, and one by one they were now coming out.

Many people have asked me what I felt like afterwards. It’s difficult to describe, but it was basically like a spiritual “heaviness” that was always there now being permanently removed. Each demon that came out was like taking off a jacket I had worn for such a long time unknowingly. I felt “light”, free, cleansed, and spiritually rejuvenated. Additionally, many things I had dealt with all these years left me because they were caused by those demons. I used to have strange perverse dreams, random very difficult struggles with hate, and various health problems that all left after I was delivered from the demons. I didn’t realize just how much of my strange health problems were actually caused by demons. For example, I used to have strange experiences of feeling some sort of incredibly heavy weight of tiredness and brain fog pressed upon me that was very mentally oppressive – it was sort of like having the worst imaginable jet lag in the world. That went away of course when the demon that would cause it was rebuked.

Demons do in fact cause people to struggle with strong sinful drives and health problems until they are cast out. I thought these things were normal struggles of mine, but realized they were actually due to the demons all along. Although a terrible thing to go through, it was necessary, and consequently I experienced a freedom I never knew was possible. When all was said and done, I continued my spiritual journey in the Lord.

The Thomas Carlyle Club for Young Reactionaries (Students Against a Democratic Society) #fundie radishmag.wordpress.com

[From the article The Way of Men - Formatting in original]

Bro! The Carlyle Club is hogging the remote, refusing to ask for directions, and generally manning up for some guy talk on masculinity. (No girls allowed.)

[...]

Jack Donovan is an anti-feminist, anti-modernist, anti-populist anarcho-fascist who “moonlights as an advocate for the resurgence of tribalism and manly virtue.” And what is “manly virtue”? The Way of Men is Donovan’s answer:

For decades, people have been talking about a “crisis” of masculinity. Our leaders have created a world in spite of men, a world that refuses to accept who men are and doesn’t care what they want. Our world asks men to change “for the better,” but offers men less of value to them than their fathers and grandfathers had. The voices who speak for the future say that men must abandon their old way and find a new way. But what is that way and where does it lead?
As I came to understand The Way of Men, I became more concerned about where men are today, and where they are headed. I wondered if there was a way for men to follow their own way into a future that belongs to men.
That’s the path of this book. My answers may not be the kind of answers you want to hear, but they are the only answers that satisfied my inquiry.

Ultimately, it boils down to this:

Relieved of moral pretense and stripped of folk costumes, the raw masculinity that all men know in their gut has to do with being good at being a man within a small, embattled gang of men struggling to survive.

The Way of Men is the way of that gang.


[...]

Evola’s thought can be considered one of the most radically and consistently antiegalitarian, antiliberal, antidemocratic, and antipopular systems in the twentieth century.
Franco Ferraresi

(He says that like it’s a bad thing!)

The Sicilian Baron Julius Evola (1898–1974) was one of the most influential reactionary philosophers of the 20th century. Evola’s core trilogy comprises
[LIST=1]
[*][I]Revolt Against the Modern World: Politics, Religion, and Social Order in the Kali Yuga[/I] in 1934 (PDF here),
[*][I]Men among the Ruins: Postwar Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist[/I] in 1953 (PDF here, audio book here), and
[*][I]Ride the Tiger: A Survival Manual for the Aristocrats of the Soul[/I] in 1961 (PDF here).
[/LIST]
(Would that every writer had the Baron Evola’s gift for subtitling.)
Most relevant to the Way of Men, Donovan’s way of the gang, is the Baron Evola’s conception of the Männerbund, introduced in Men among the Ruins, Chapter 2.

According to an old view, the State derives from the family: the same principle responsible for shaping the family and the gens, having been integrated and extended, allegedly gave rise to the State. Whether or not this is the case, it is possible, from a logical point of view, to trace the origins of the State to a naturalistic plane only by committing an initial mistake: to assume that in ancient civilized areas, and especially those populated by Indo-European civilizations, the family was a unity of a purely physical type, and that the sacred, together with a well-articulated hierarchical social system, did not play a decisive role in it. […] But if the family is thought of in naturalistic terms, or in the terms in which it presents itself today, the generating principle of the properly political communities must be traced to a context that is very different from the one typical of the family: it must be traced to the plane of the so-called Männerbünde.

Männerbund (plural Männerbünde): German. Literally band of men. An all-male warrior band or gang.

Among several primitive societies, the individual, up to a certain age, being regarded as a merely natural being, was entrusted to the family and to maternal tutelage, since everything related to the maternal, physical aspect of existence fell under the maternal-feminine aegis.

We’re a generation of men raised by women.

[...]

“What would happen,” Jack Donovan asks in Chapter 11, “if men got spoiled, gave up and gave in to women completely? How would that society operate?” Well, we already know, because we’re living in it. Welcome to the Bonobo Masturbation Society.

[...]

Our society has almost no tolerance for unsanctioned physical violence. Children are expelled from school for fighting, and something as historically common as a weaponless, drunken brawl can land men in court or in jail.

A recent headline in Silver Spring, Maryland: ‘Boy, 6, suspended over finger gun’ (UPI). Not worth a headline in Silver Spring: ‘Lawless mobs periodically loot convenience stores’ (Unamusement Park).

[...]

Recall how Jack Donovan had to bring us outside civilized society to find “the raw masculinity that all men know in their gut.” He invites us to imagine ourselves as “part of a small human group fighting to stay alive. … You could be our primal ancestors, you could be pioneers, you could be stranded in some remote location, you could be survivors of a nuclear holocaust or the zombie apocalypse.

Whether you believe we’re living at Fukuyama’s End of History or restarting history from Evola’s Kali Yuga, — whether we’re Jack Donovan’s mindless, masturbating bonobos or Tyler Durden’s pissed-off “middle children of history,” — surely it bears consideration that one of the most popular shows on television depicts a zombie apocalypse and mankind’s forced return to that prehistoric condition of “raw masculinity,” “relieved of moral pretense and stripped of folk costumes.”

Ask yourself: why would the Last Man watch The Walking Dead? Not to mention Dawn of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead, Land of the Dead, Left 4 Dead, 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later, World War Z, Resident Evil, the Zombie Research Society, ‘5 Scientific Reasons a Zombie Apocalypse Could Actually Happen’ ([I]Cracked[/I]), ‘10 Essentials for Surviving the Zombie Apocalypse: A Practical Guide’ ([I]The Huffington Post[/I]), ‘Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse’ (the CDC, for God’s sake), ‘Montana TV Station Warns Of Attacking Zombies’ (NPR), ‘“Canada will never be a safe haven for zombies,” Foreign Minister John Baird tells House of Commons’ ([I]National Post[/I]), ‘Zombie apocalypse cancelled by Quebec government’ (CBC), and of course the Walking Dead zombie swimsuit calendar.

BODYSHEENdotcom #fundie youtube.com

Humans have desires. Wait, to keep it a bit simpler, I'll use men. Men desire various things, not all shared, and not all clearly understood how such desires come about. Some desire feet, legs, pantyhose, SPANDEX, lips, balloons, tongues, boobs, diapers, bondage, condoms, fingernails, underage children, vagina's and yes, penis (etc...). The point is, homosexuality is a developed fetish lumped in with the rest. If a guy didn't have a penis, there would be a cease and desist on MOST homosexuality

novanleon #fundie reddit.com

@oxford_karma

I agree totally with you. Moral relativism is ridiculous. There comes a point where you have to draw a line and say somethings are good and somethings are bad. Having sex with 10 year old girls is wrong no matter where you are (I can't believe that I actually have to argue the point). People, keep an open mind, but don't let your brain fall out.

Are you Atheist? Are you rational? On what grounds do you make your moral claims? Intellectually speaking, what's the difference between having sex with someone who is 18, 16, 14, 12 or 10 years old? Why is one 100% morally acceptable while another is 100% morally objectionable? Why is the magic line drawn at 18 and not 16? Why 16 and not 14? Et cetera.

If your basis for moral judgement is zeitgeist, then you've given away the argument.


@oxford_karma

first, I can't believe that I'm being asked to justify my belief that child rape is wrong, but if you really want to do this, I will take the break. Physical: a ten year old is not physically mature enough to sustain a sexual relationship. Duh. Maturity: a ten year old is not emotionally or mentally mature enough to be "married," you dumb-fuck. This includes brain development. Sociologically: a society like this treats women as property, not people. This has a negative effect on human rights (which I guess is too "western" for your silly ass) and promotes victimization and oppession on a wide scale. If that is too abstract for your brain, then we can play this as a consumer problem where market forces are effected by widespread disenfranchisement. Could you imagine her bachelorette party? Fucking barbie themed for age appropriateness. Oh, and I love the "are you atheist" opening. Very self-righteous of you

You completely missed the point of my questions. Anyone can say that X is wrong, but why? In our culture we view marriage to a 10 year old as rape, but in their culture it's normal. Why is our moral perspective superior? Likewise, many in their culture may argue that abortion is murder and to let a murderer keep his life is unjust. Why is our morality superior in this case?

In order to claim our culture's moral values are superior you'd better have a strong, objective standard of morality to measure things by. Morality is either relative or absolute. If it's absolute, how and why? If it's relative, you've already lost the argument for your culture's moral superiority.

People have been giving their sons and daughters in marriage at that age for thousands of years. Any perceived negative consequences that you have are unique to modern Western culture. Your entire concept of marriage is different than theirs. There's a high probability that this girls mother, grandmother, sisters, cousins and female companions all had similar marriages. To them, it's normal. It's just the way things are. You're projecting your own Western values onto them and judging them when you have absolutely no idea what it's like to be born and raised in such a culture.

@cool_drank

Do you think a 10 year old has the same mental capacity as an 18 year old? What does being an atheist have to do with moral claims?

If you're religious then your basis for moral claims is religious belief. If you're a rational atheist then you have to be able to support your claims with reason.

So why is a 18 year old suddenly capable of a healthy marital relationship when a 16/14/12/10 year old isn't? What is an acceptable age to you? Where do you draw the line? Given our society's rampant divorce and generally screwed up relationships, what exactly are the mental requirements of a healthy marital relationship? What makes you think our culture has it right? Given that their culture has been doing this for thousands of years, where is the evidence proving your position?

@cool_drank

If you're religious then your basis for moral claims is religious belief. If you're a rational atheist then you have to be able to support your claims with reason.

So why is a 18 year old suddenly capable of a healthy marital relationship when a 16/14/12/10 year old isn't? What is an acceptable age to you? Where do you draw the line? Given our society's rampant divorce and generally screwed up relationships, what exactly are the mental requirements of a healthy marital relationship? What makes you think our culture has it right? Given that their culture has been doing this for thousands of years, where is the evidence proving your position?


Your reaction is a purely emotional one. I'm just illustrating the hypocrisy in taking a moral stance on this issue without being able to back it up.

Morality is either absolute or relative. If it's relative, then you have no argument. If it's absolute, then you need to explain how and why. Religious people claim morality is absolute and back it up with a "higher power" or some other foundational principle. I'm trying to get you to explain what foundational principle your "absolute morality" is based on.

Also, you still haven't answered any of my questions. At what age does this introduction to "rational thought" occur?

In Jewish culture going back thousands of years, you were an adult when you reached the age of 12, and betrothals and marriages at this age weren't unusual. Up to nearly a hundred years ago, most Western countries set the age of consent between 10-13 years old. In modern Spain the age of consent is 13. In several countries in Europe and most of South America sets the age of consent at 14. In several countries, including North Korea set it at 15. The most common age of consent for most countries is 16. In the USA it varies between 16 and 18 depending on the state. Some countries set the age of consent at puberty instead of a specific age.

Which countries would you accuse of supporting pedophilia? Why are your moral values superior to that of millions, if not billions, of people around the world? I'm just looking for you to provide some underlying foundational principle for your (rather bold) position that doesn't depend on feigning shock and painting me (or anyone else) as a pedophile supporter.

Leroybraun #fundie news.yahoo.com

(In reference to the recent suicide of Tyler Clementi)

Learning moment: if what you're doing is so shameful that you might consider suicide if seen doing it then DON"T DO IT! The vast majority of society considers homosexuality to be a sickness, regardless of what the media would like us to believe.

Sriram #fundie religionethics.co.uk


Hi everyone,

1. First of all....I know people usually tend to take extreme emotional stands rather than a balanced stand. So..the first and immediate argument seems to be to accuse a person of bigotry and hatred of homosexuals. That is wrong. I have no hatred of homosexuals and do not believe that they are sinners or whatever. I believe in letting them live their lives.

2. The comparison of homosexuality with left handedness is moronic at best. Is left handedness abnormal...yes... of course it is! But it is of no consequence and no one gives a damn if someone writes with his left hand instead of the right.

Similarly,is homosexuality abnormal...yes..of course it is! Problem is that it also has serious consequences. Ever heard of survival instinct, procreation instinct and survival of the species?! ::)

If more and more people become left handed nothing will happen. But if more and more people become homosexuals...the human race will be eliminated. So..would the lot of you please stop making such inane comparisons! Thanks!

So...now you know why homosexuality is abnormal. It goes against basic survival and propagation of the species. Should I repeat that?!

3. This is where the research to find reasons for homosexuality becomes relevant. Nobody does any research to find out why a person is heterosexual, by the way!! That is normal and that's the way nature has made us evolve.

If research establishes (as it seems to be doing) that epigenetics is the reason for homosexuality and they do find some treatment...it should be welcomed.....and those who choose to get the treatment should be freely allowed to.

Why the lot of you are hollering on about parents abusing their children is really beyond me!! Shocking! Propagation of the species is a fundamental instinct and parents have a right to expect that their children will procreate and take good care of the offspring.

4. Why all this is such an emotional issue is also beyond me. You people here claim to be very scientific minded (though most of you hardly know any real science, let me add).... but nothing of it is seen here. Everyone is going on and on about it as though it is a battle for dominance. LOL!

Its like some brainwashed or programmed response from most people. Almost the same words, the same examples, the same arguments, the same anger, the same accusations. Like some cult members! Some psychologists really need to do some research on this strange phenomenon.....seriously!

5. I also think perhaps atheism and homosexuality are somehow linked. I know religious people could also be homosexuals and atheists could also be heterosexuals... but someone really needs to check the connection. Maybe its the same genes/epigenes that are responsible for both.

Or maybe given the rigid Christian theology...homosexuals prefer to become atheists. That is also possible.

1488 #racist fstdt.com

"Is it French, who spent a hundred years at war with the British?"

Yes, it is. Just like Scottish and English cultures are really similar despite them waging wars for centuries. Before what was at least 18th century you'd usually go to war with those close to you. Your idea that some two cultures aren't white because they used to wage wars just shows how ignorant and stupid you are.

"German who tried to erase and supplant the culture of both?"

Germany never tried to erase and supplant any of these cultures. It fought wars with them but never wanted to completely erase them, just like it didn't erase the French in 1940-1944 but simply garrisoned parts of the country.

"Is it American despite being a country of immigrants who took multiple structural cues from the Natives they pushed into a corner? "

Yes, it used to be and still is given that the first settlers and most migrants before 1965 were white. Organization and administration of the US was never based on the model of Indian societies which never even reached the cultural level needed to create states.

"Is it just any country where a significant chunk of the population is white?"

Where the native population is white. Just significant chunks isn't enough.

"Or is it just any country that has prosperity that you want to claim for your own and shoo away anyone who thinks that if they work hard enough they could have the same?"

How would that even work? If a black country where prosperous who in their right mind would claim that the population is somehow white?

"Because you know what I hear every time somebody goes on about "white" culture? I hear you saying "GIBSMEDAT" because you can't amount to anything without riding on everyone else's shoulders and coat-tails."

Thanks for revealing how you really see white people, who created progress and technology for the rest of the world. You're self-hating pathetic moron who should be wiped out from this planet.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

There is Hope for Atheists!

When I read some of the atheist blogs, Facebook posts, and news articles that display a sheer hatred against Christians (really, it’s a hatred against God), it can seem, humanly speaking, hopeless to try to reach these secularists with the truth of God’s Word and the salvation message it presents.

And yet, we can be encouraged to read of the incredible conversion of Saul (who severely persecuted Christians) in Acts 9 and realize that God’s Word can penetrate even the most hardened heart. Indeed: “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).

As I read many of the comments by atheists (blasphemous and vitriolic as some of them are), I also understand that they have been indoctrinated in evolutionary ideas. Most of them have probably never really heard a clear, logical defense of the Christian faith that would answer many of their skeptical questions. It’s important to remember that God’s Word commands us to “sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).

At the same time, it’s vital that we never divorce any arguments/defense we could present to atheists from the powerful Word of God: “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).

When I read some of the atheist blogs, Facebook posts, and news articles that display a sheer hatred against Christians (really, it’s a hatred against God), it can seem, humanly speaking, hopeless to try to reach these secularists with the truth of God’s Word and the salvation message it presents.

And yet, we can be encouraged to read of the incredible conversion of Saul (who severely persecuted Christians) in Acts 9 and realize that God’s Word can penetrate even the most hardened heart. Indeed: “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).

As I read many of the comments by atheists (blasphemous and vitriolic as some of them are), I also understand that they have been indoctrinated in evolutionary ideas. Most of them have probably never really heard a clear, logical defense of the Christian faith that would answer many of their skeptical questions. It’s important to remember that God’s Word commands us to “sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15).

At the same time, it’s vital that we never divorce any arguments/defense we could present to atheists from the powerful Word of God: “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).

WE DO OUR BEST TO DEFEND THE CHRISTIAN FAITH USING APOLOGETICS AGAINST THE SECULAR ATTACKS OF OUR DAY.
At Answers in Genesis, through our resources, conferences, and other outreaches, we do our best to defend the Christian faith using apologetics against the secular attacks of our day. But in doing so, we need to also point people to the truth of God’s Word and challenge them concerning the saving gospel. We use apologetics to answer questions and direct people to God’s Word and its message of salvation.

There’s no greater thrill in this ministry than to hear how God has used what has been taught by AiG to touch someone’s life—for eternity. Last week, I was introduced to one of our new volunteers, Donna, who is helping sew some of the costumes for the figures that will be placed inside our full-size Ark. She had responded to my Facebook post asking for seamstresses.

I discovered that she became a Christian in 1993 after attending one of my seminars (called “Back to Genesis” with the Institute for Creation Research ministry) at Cedarville University in Ohio. The Bible-upholding seminar was such an eye-opener to her about the reliability of the Bible that she became a Christian.

We asked if she would share her testimony.

"Ken:

The Lord opened up this atheistic evolutionist’s eyes decades ago, through exposure to Ken’s ministry.

I was a die-hard evolutionist, completely convinced that the fossil finds in Olduvai Gorge supported the “evidence” that we evolved from less-complicated, early hominid creatures, like the so-called “Lucy".

To keep a long story short: I attended a Creation Seminar at Cedarville College [now Cedarville University], sat in rapt attention as Ken Ham told me “the rest of the story,” and I realized that all of the fossil finds I believed supported evolution were, in all cases, misinterpreted. I was blown away! So, learning the truth about evolution preceded my realizing that God was real (after all!) and that the Bible was His Word. I became a creationist before I became a believer in Christ.

I was raised and educated Roman Catholic. My parents took all seven of us to church every Sunday. And for all that religiosity, we never spoke of Jesus at home.

After twelve years of Catholic schools, and being taught that Noah's Ark, for example, was just an allegorical way to relay the story that “if you come on board with belief in God, he'll keep you through the storm,” that there probably was no actual Noah's Ark, and probably no actual Adam and Eve, it was easy to throw out the Bible as any believable “Word of God.”

I became a non-Christian. I used to say, “How can I believe a book that's been copied over and over and over, translated in so many different versions, when it probably doesn't even look like the original, like a Xerox copy of a Xerox copy of a Xerox copy?” It was easy to walk away from what little faith I'd been taught.

But then being exposed to creation science ministries, I had to look honestly at what I'd come to believe about God. I can't name a specific date that I came to saving knowledge of what Christ had done for me—it was more of a season. I was that thick headed. It took a while for it all to unfold.

Today, I am feasting on apologetics, Christian music, and the inerrant Word of God. I never thought the Bible could make so much sense. Christ has loved and protected me through my years of doubt, even though I never deserved it. I know where I came from, and I know exactly where I’m going. I am free of the fears and superstitions of religion, because I have a deep, personal relationship with the most awesome Creator of the Universe!

By the way, my twin daughters are both graduates of Cedarville, and one is a pastor's wife!

I am so honored to be doing any little thing to make the presentation at the Ark Encounter come alive, and look forward to many more days helping with the sewing effort."


Thank you, Donna. What a wonderful account!
We were able to find some information on the 1993 seminar that she attended at Cedarville University; Cedarville is a university that has a close affiliation with AiG today. See a photo of me (with dark hair) on page 4 of Torch, summer 1993.

In explaining how we conduct apologetics evangelism at AiG, I like to use the account of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11). When Jesus came to the tomb of Lazarus, He told people to roll the stone away. Now, Jesus could have moved the stone with one command—but what people could do for themselves, He asked them to do. Then what people couldn’t do, He did with a command—His Word. He raised Lazarus from the dead.

At AiG, we know that non-Christians are really walking dead people “who were dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1). Only God’s Word can raise the dead. So when we are witnessing to “dead” people, we do the best we can to give answers (1 Peter 3:15) to defend the faith, and in so doing, point them to the Word of God that saves! God is the One who opens people’s hearts (including atheists) and “who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6).

Yes, God’s Word reaches even the most hardened heart. There is hope for every atheist, for the Lord “is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). And “blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3).

If the Lord has used AiG, including our Creation Museum, in your life to bring you to salvation, would you please let me know? Thank you.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

Homosexuals can't defend themselves within an intellectual argument, because it is so obvious and blatant that they are WRONG. So instead they spread misinformation and false allegations of ignorance and hatred. Since when is standing for morality hatred? Is it hatred to stand against racial discrimination? No, of course not! Is it hatred to stand against voter fraud? No, of course not! So why should homosexuals be allowed to hurt children and society? Teaching children that it's ok for two boys to fall in love, get married and have sex is harmful to them in every way. Homosexuality is a sick practice.

Homosexuality is dangerous. I heard a surgeon talk about a man whose gay lover shoved a dildo into his rectum and punctured his intestines. The doctor said it took them one month to remove all the fecal contamination from his intestines before they could even do the surgery to repair his damaged intestines. And those idiots at GLSEN are teaching teens how to FIST-SEX each other in public schools. Isn't that sad and tragic? These freaks are teaching this garbage to kids!!! Homosexuality is not normal. By very nature of the wicked practice of homosexuality requires the use of bizarre sex toys, implements, and weird sexual behavior. They are freaks, kooks and weirdoes. The state of Mississippi outlaws the sale of sex toys, because they still believe in good old-fashioned marriage. Once upon a time people used to be normal. Nowadays there's all sorts of enhancement drugs, implements, toys, breast implants, machines, et cetera.

A man in the Navy told me about a female Navy officer who was lonely without her husband. She ordered a plastic blow-up doll and the box broke open for several people to see. She was embarrassed to say the least. Now they've removed the prohibition for the military to have sex with animals in the NDAA bills that President Obama signed December 31, 2011. This world has gone insane!!!

Jack Hyles #fundie #pratt #wingut #god-complex jesus-is-savior.com

It is surprising how few parents know what is going on in the public school system. Apathy is killing America, especially apathy on the part of God's people.

I have in my hand tonight a book, John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men. This book is a best-seller. John Steinbeck was the winner of the Nobel Prize. This book was at one time required reading at a school in this area. Now at the school where some of my children go, they made it required reading but backed out because there was so much complaint about it, of which complainants I was one! I will not read this language; I will let you guess what the words are. I want to read to you some statements from this book, required reading not in a college but for freshmen in high school. Will all you high school freshmen stand up, please? Now, this book was required reading in a high school -- at least one, maybe more -- for boys and girls this age. Thank you.

Here we go. On page 33 I read:

"Don't let him pull you in -- but -- if the b#### (son of a female dog) socks you -- let 'im have it."

Page 35:

"Listen to me, you crazy b###### (an illegitimate child)," he said fiercely. "Don't you even take a look at that b#### (a female dog)."

Now one reason I am preaching on this is that a lot of you parents are so lazy that you don't check on it. Tonight I am going to cram it down your throats. You are going to know what your children are reading.

Page 39:

Carlson said thoughtfully, "Well, looka here, Slim. I been thinkin'. That dog of Candy's is so g## d### old he can't hardly walk. Stinks llke h###, too."

Page 48:

Candy went on, "Either you guys got a slug of whiskey? I gotta gut ache."

That kind of stuff is not vulgar but it sure goes against my refinement. There is a word for gut which decent people use -- it is called stomach. And you people who think you are educated and refined, listen, when you use that, you are nothing but a heathen with a degree. Not only do you not know how to use decent language; you are not even cultured. Now that book is required in some high schools.

Page 48 again:

"Gotta bad gut ache," said Candy. "Them g## d### turnips give it to me."

Not only is it vulgar talk, but that is not even good English.

Don't get mad yet. We haven't begun. I see a lot of folks frowning already. You may have a stroke before we are through.

Page 59:

Whit stood up. "I guess maybe I'd like to see this," he said.

"Curley's just spoilin' or he wouldn't start for Slim. An' Curley's handy, g## d### handy."

Page 61:

George sighed. "You give me a good w#### house (place where prostitutes do their business) every time," he said. "A guy can go in an' get drunk and get ever'thing outa his system all at once."

Page 83:

Candy rubbed his cheek angrily. "You g## d### right we're gonna do it .... "

"Yeah?" said Crooks. "An' where's George now? In town in a w#### house."

Page 95:

"This here g## d### little son-of-a-##### (female dog) wasn't nothing to George."

Page 107:

"That big son-of-a-##### (female dog) done it."

"I'll kill the big son-of--a-####### (illegitimate child) myself. I'll shoot 'im in the guts."

Now you hear me, and you hear me well. If you would cram this filthy, rotten, stinking trash down the innocent minds of these little boys and girls who stood up awhile ago, you ought to be in the penitentiary. You ought to be in jail. And, by the way, there was a day in this country when you would have been!

Now this book is required reading. My boy was supposed to read this book, but there were so many complaints about it -- mostly by our people -- that they took this book out and put another one in. It had a lot of these vulgar words and they still DAMN the name of God all the way through it. And when I told the committee, "My boy is not going to read it," the committee said, "Now let's talk about it."

I said, "Talk about it all you want to, but my boy is not going to read it."

"Well," they said, "we will reach an agreement."

I said, "Yes, and I can tell you now what the agreement is going to be: my boy is not going to read the book."

They said, "Well, you find worse things than that on the restroom walls."

I said, "Yes, and when you make the restroom walls required reading, I will come back up here."

The simple truth is, there is too much good literature that has been taught through the years in America to let such trash as this be crammed down the minds of our tender freshmen boys and girls.

The book, Caine Mutiny, is not as bad as this one I have quoted but it condemns the name of God all the way through. I heard a teacher say that she thought Caine Mutiny ought to be read, that there was nothing wrong with freshmen children reading Caine Mutiny. You think this is bad; you ought to read Baldwin's book that some of our kids are having to read. It contains the most vulgar four-letter words you ever saw written on a sidewalk. But they said to me, "Now Rev. Hyles, Caine Mutiny is the language of a sailor. That is the way sailors talk." I know a lot of sailors who do not have to use dirty words to talk!

Now you had better check and see what your children are being required to read. There has been a deterioration in our school system in the last five years that you would not believe. And in the next five years when these demonstrators and long-haired beatniks get out of college and are teaching our children, it will double the deterioration we have seen in the last five years. And that is only the beginning.

One of our students in our church overheard two teachers talking recently in school. One said, "If we are going to get something real vulgar in next year, we had better get something a little less vulgar in this year. And if we can get a certain book in this year, next year we will wriggle in the real vulgar ones." And that is only the beginning.

Julie Earth Angel Walker Longhill #fundie manataka.org


Imagine you are a child growing up in a prominent white family on a plantation in colonial America. One day you go into town with your parents and they say "we need to buy us some slaves ". At the auction block, dark-skinned people are lined up with metal collars around their necks and shackles on their hands and feet.

Some have been transported in large cages; their humiliation and hopelessness are palpable. Imagine that your young heart is broken when you witness these atrocities. Something inside you screams "This is not right!". Your family and society however, act as if this is normal. You soon learn the underlying message "conform or be destroyed ". It must have been very lonely for those people who grew up with human slavery, (knowing in their hearts that it was wrong).

Imagine you are a child growing up in an average family in modern America.

One day you go into town with your parents and they say "we need to buy us a pet". You enter what is called a "pet store", where all kinds of animals ( in cages and aquariums) are for sale. One of the clerks slips a metal choke collar on a puppy, hands the leash to a young couple, and they walk out. You feel the humiliation and hopelessness of the captive animals. Imagine that your young heart is broken when you witness these atrocities. Something inside you screams " THIS IS NOT RIGHT "! Your family and society however, act as if this is normal. You soon learn the underlying message "conform or be destroyed". It is very lonely for those people who grow up with animal slavery, (knowing in their hearts that it is wrong).

I grew up in the suburbs of America in the 1960's and '70's. We were taught that humans have a right to keep some animals captive, and we call these "pets". Our family owned many pets over the years: cats, dogs, mice, horses, turtles, fish, birds, hamsters, and even a raccoon. Most of these animals were kept in cages except for the dogs, cats, and horses. I truly loved our pets and a part of me felt their loneliness on some deep level even though I could not put it into words.

I remember when we bought our collie puppy and first brought her home. I stayed beside her many nights as she cried and cried. Only recently have I fully realized that she was taken away from her mother and siblings, and forced to live with our family. I secretly celebrated when she slipped out of her collar and got free, which happened a lot. I remember pony rides for children. I loved having the chance to be around them, but the ponies were sad and bored. As a teenager I went to a fancy horse show where they pranced around doing tricks for their riders. At the end of the show they let the horses run free in the rink for ten minutes. They were so alive and happy; it was my favorite part!

I had a pet cat (who had been rescued as a kitten) when I was a young adult. She was sometimes my only friend and companion. Like many Americans, I was a wounded and isolated soul needing compassion and love, but finding it hard to connect with other people. I began to heal, and my self-awareness increased along with the awareness of society's wounds. I allowed myself to feel, and in "feeling" my compassion for other Beings grew. When my cat was young, I had her spayed and de-clawed. Much later I began to grieve this decision; feeling terrible for taking away her ability to defend herself and to climb trees I asked my cat for forgiveness as I shed many tears. Through my process of personal growth I discovered a connection between repression of our emotions and how we treat and interact with people and animals. Two weeks after my cat died of old age I had a dream; her Spirit was free and she was climbing a tree!

It has taken many years for me to openly question and confront the common American practice of owning animals as "pets". I too have been brainwashed by this culture, like so many others. When I am honest, my heart has been telling me all along that "something is wrong, very wrong!" Animals' basic rights are being violated daily by millions of Americans, and it is perfectly legal and condoned.

We hold them prisoners, and call them "pets". We separate them from their own species, families, and from the Earth, to provide companionship and entertainment for our children. Cats, dogs, and horses are now routinely sterilized which causes them to be more docile (and easier to tame). Many animals, (as pets), are treated like property; they are bought and sold, bred for pet shows, their wings are clipped, their tails are docked, they are chained up and exploited. We cause great suffering to other creatures, and in the end we suffer too.

But there is hope. Human slavery was once legal , condoned, and widely practiced in America. A few brave individuals spoke out against this injustice and a war was fought over this moral issue. The ideal of "liberty and justice for all" prevailed, and we are a better people and country because of it.

It is time NOW to expand this ideal of "liberty and justice" to include All Our Relations. As we release our hearts from the shackles of human repression, we are free to liberate animals from human oppression.

Together we can live in harmony again on Mother Earth, respecting the natural ways as the Creator intended.

knajjd11 #sexist #psycho archive.is

How is this bad anatomy? It's like working out in that the repetitive motion of thrusting in and out makes the labia come out and "grow" by pulling it repeatedly. It's like those stretching exercises that can possibly make you grow a small amount.

@lokichilde

How is this bad anatomy? It's like working out in that the repetitive motion of thrusting in and out makes the labia come out and "grow" by pulling it repeatedly. It's like those stretching exercises that can possibly make you grow a small amount. I've never touched a woman and don't know how the human body works.
FTFY

I have touched one, funnily enough. I'm incel because I've never had someone want to have sex with me, but I have stuck my penis into a vagina.

‌@knajjd11IsARapist

I have stuck my penis into a vagina
I think you mean rape, fuckface.

I have already replied to these allegations in a previous comment. "I haven't overpowered anyone and it wasn't rape, either, unless you're the "omg i drank so much by my own volution but it was rape!!!" SJW types.


‌@knajjd11IsARapist

Also, there's a huge difference between stupid drunk sex and I-put-my-dick-inside-an-unconscious-broad sex. You are a rapist. An unpunished rapist.


Have I forced someone to drink? Have I spiked someone's drink? No. Men are predators by nature and it's, quite frankly, mostly your fault if you get piss drunk and pass out.

‌@bigblackkitty

Men are predators by nature and it's, quite frankly, mostly your fault if you get piss drunk and pass out.
what the fuck


Reproduction is objectively the point of living. You can't expect someone to let such an opportunity to slide.

(Submitter’s note: This exchange happened in 2017. Knajjd11 would go on to become one of the mods of incels.co.)

Dr. Terry Batton #fundie rightwingwatch.org

At a public hearing today on a bill that would allow school districts to opt out of Common Core standards, a local Tea Party leader told Alabama state senators that Common Core promotes “acceptance of homosexuality, alternate lifestyles, radical feminism, abortion, illegal immigration and the redistribution of wealth” and that voting in favor of the curricula could potentially affect their fate in the Last Days.

In a video posted by YouTube user Mia Raven, Barbour County Tea Party leader Terry Batton takes to the floor at the state senate education committee hearing to rail against Common Core, which he called a “Trojan horse at the gate of our educational system.”

“We don’t want our children to be taught to be anti-Christian, anti-Catholic and anti-American,” he said. “We don’t want our children to lose their innocence, beginning in preschool or kindergarten, told that homosexuality is okay and should be experienced at an early age and that same-sex marriages are okay.”

He spent a good part of the speech attacking social justice doctrine. “Social justice teaches children that America is an unjust and oppressive society that should be changed,” he said. “Social justice materials typically include far-left proposals such as acceptance of homosexuality, alternate lifestyles, radical feminism, abortion, illegal immigration and the redistribution of wealth.”

“The curriculum and the producers thereof of Common Core are against the principles of faith, family and freedom, when you take in the social justice values aspect,” he went on. “Common Core, if allowed to go forward, will dilute and erode the power and influence of biblical principles in the hearts and minds of our precious children.”

Finally, he reminded the lawmakers that their vote on the bill might affect their chances at eternal salvation: “Do you want this on your record when you come to the End of Days, knowing the Master Teacher said, ‘As much as you’ve done to the little ones, you’ve done it unto me’?”

According to the Associated Press, Becky Gerritson of the Wetumpka Tea Party also spoke against Common Core at the hearing, in particular its inclusion of Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye.

Robinsegg #fundie christianforums.com

Also, there is evidence in Scripture (and elsewhere) that humans didn't always mature at such an early age. Even 150 years ago, girls reached puberty at an average age of 17, instead of the average age of 11 now. Therefore, the fact children reach adolescence earlier is a product of the Fall and of sin in the world, not Gods' will.

ally_oop #fundie answers.yahoo.com

I am against it because its just plain wrong, and that's all their is to it. Homosexuality is a sick perversion. In life you have to do what is right and proper. Having good morales is a step in the right direction. I really don't think you can look at this the way you want to or if you should even try. The way I see it, homosexuals are right there in the same category as sexual predators and other sexual criminals. Seems to me you are trying to take something that is very much wrong and rationalize it into being "ok". You can't do that if you have any humanity or decency in you. Gay marriage and homosexuality is wrong and always will be inspite of anything that supports it or tries to make it right.
Do you even know why people become gay. Its not because of genetics. Once you know that, then you will know that they can be brought back to normal, and that there is no reason why anyone would want to be that way. Being gay is wrong!

AnAverageJoe #racist stormfront.org

So you think we are crazy? READ THIS

So I was doing some reading not too long ago and decided this data may be useful. To anyone coming here believing we are crazy, racist, stupid, or just plain full of ****, please, read on. Read this post fully before you decide to reply calling me a racist or a hater. If you can't do this simple task, you are a hopeless libtard.


First off, let's talk briefly about our stance. Many here feel we as European descendants should have a land to ourselves. The Chinese have a land to themselves. The Japanese have a land to themselves. Even Africans have a land to themselves. What about us? There is not a single country on this planet where "white people" can be at peace without other races bothering them. Why is this? That's an advanced topic we would love to share but we don't want to waste our time telling it to someone who will ignore everything said. If you genuinely want to know, feel free to ask and someone will explain it further.

"But that's silly! First off there is only one race, the human race!" Wrong. Yes we all belong to the same species (this is debated). However we are not all alike or equal. There are essentially three groups (usually referred to as "races") within the human species. The Caucasoid (White Europeans basically), the Mongoloid (Asians basically), and the Negroid (Africans basically). Each has their own traits that are quite different from the others. It is well known but almost never said that the Negroids tend to have the lowest IQs (well below that of either Caucasoids or Mongoloids) while the Caucasoids and Mongoloids tend to have the highest (an average of only a few points difference between Mongoloids and Caucasoids). The Caucasoids also tend to be more creative than either the Mongoloid or Negroid. There is very specific physical characteristics between the "races". We are NOT all alike. This is a complex topic that we also would love to tell you about, but would rather not waste time with someone who will ignore everything said. If you genuinely want to know, feel free to ask and someone will explain it further.

"Among white Americans, the average IQ, as of a decade or so ago, was 103. Among Asian-Americans, it was 106. Among Latino Americans, it was 89. Among African-Americans, it was 85. Around the world, studies find the same general pattern: whites 100, East Asians 106, sub-Sarahan Africans 70. One IQ table shows 113 in Hong Kong, 110 in Japan, and 100 in Britain. White populations in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States score closer to one another than to the worldwide Negroid average. It's been that way for at least a century."

For the record, mine is 132 (I have taken several tests and the range is 130 to 145).

"Are Jews white?" Yes and no. They are a mixed breed (typically a mixture of Caucasoid and Negroid with some Mongoloid). Any Jew claiming to be white is (usually) a liar. The only white Jews are converts. Why bring this up? It will be covered later.

"Why are you always picking on black people?!" They are the worst of the human species and I can prove it. For one, all evidence suggests that the typical Negroid is pretty unintelligent. With an average IQ of around 80 to 85, their mental capacities are just not that good. If one takes time to observe the Negroid, they will find that the Negroid is rather aggressive and prone to violence. They also lack impulse control. These two traits lead to them being trouble for other races. Here's some stats:

The city of Irvine California is considered the safest large city in the USA as of 2014. With a violent crime rate of just 46 per 100,000, it is pretty dang safe. What is the racial makeup? White alone - 98,118 (42.7%), Asian alone - 92,820 (40.4%), Hispanic - 25,573 (11.1%), Negroid alone - 3,559 (1.5%). The city of Detroit Michigan is considered the most dangerous large city in the USA. With a violent crime rate of 2,072 per 100,000, it's a pretty dangerous city. What is the racial makeup? Negroid alone - 570,808 (81.4%), White alone - 57,252 (8.2%), Hispanic - 52,421 (7.5%), Asian alone - 7,569 (1.1%). Hmm. Interesting. Of course you can look at almost any big city in the USA and notice the SAME trend: The more Whites/Asians and less Negroids, the lower the violent crime rate. The more Negroids and less Whites/Asians, the higher the violent crime rate. It is clearly seen, can be clearly proven, and is repeatable. You can take any city of any size that is majority White, flood it with Negroids, and the violent crime rate will go up. Even if you take out the same number of whites as you put in Negroids. Negroids are not even safe from themselves. It is a fact that the majority of Negroids murdered are murdered by OTHER Negroids.

"Well, crime rate is proportionate to poverty! Race has nothing to do with it, just happens there are a lot of poverty stricken blacks in the USA because of discrimination!" Wrong. When one takes a close enough look at the data, there is more of a correlation between race and crime than poverty and crime. A poor white neighborhood is a lot safer than a poor Negroid neighborhood. As for discrimination, Negroids in the USA are given MORE opportunity than whites and yet they still fail horribly at life. Is it a coincidence or is it because they lack the mental capacity to do well with the opportunities they have? If you have ever worked as a manager, you will know exactly what I mean. You will know from experience that the typical Negroid lacks intelligence and motivation. They tend to be lazy, especially when out of the sight of the superiors. If they think they can get away with something, they will try to. No intelligent person can claim that Negroids are not given preferential treatment now days in the USA. Despite such, they have made no progress in life and generally mooch off others to some degree. Some of course take it all the way and live on government/charity handouts. Some actually try and find work but typically remain poor due to bad decisions due to lacking mental capacity. Have you ever had to give instructions to Negroids? If you have, you can tell how low their general mental capacity is. The purer the Negroid, the dumber and more violent they are.

"But white people commit violent crimes too!" Of course. All races have some representation in crime. I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is how much. The statistics and data doesn't lie. When you factor in their percentage of the population, Negroids commit the most crimes, the most violent crimes, the most rapes, the most property damage, so on and so forth. They are generally the bottom of the barrel. If you need further proof, just look at the riots that's been going on. A white cop shoots a Negroid they thought was armed but turned out they were unarmed. So a lot of the local Negroids go out and destroy their city/town. Loot, pillage, burn. However they fail to realize that Negroid cops shoot unarmed white people just as often as white cops shoots unarmed Negroids. White cops kill more white people than Negroids. You don't see us rampaging like angry gorillas and destroying our towns. Why? We aren't that violent or stupid.

Now maybe you have a little bit of an idea WHY we want a place to ourselves.

"Why did you let all these non-whites into white majority countries if you didn't want them there?" Well, we didn't. This is where the Jewish issue comes in. Anyone who takes a decent time to research the history/connections/heritage/genetics of those in high places will come to the conclusion our country and much of the world is run by Jews. The most treasonous laws ever passed had Jewish backers and was funded by Jewish money. Any treasonous law has Jewish ties. Almost all corruption can be traced back to a Jew. The Jews own all the media, they own all the television stations, they own all the radio, they own all the newspapers, they own the government (through bribes, blackmail, campaign funding, etc), they control what the majority sees. Why does it matter? The Jews have a mostly unspoken bond. Whether they are "practicing" Jews or not, they are all bound by blood (genetics) and they know it. A Jew will "scratch the back" of another Jew any chance they get. Openly they claim otherwise but the data doesn't lie. Spend any decent time researching and you will find a Jew connected to everything that is bad with the world today.

"You are beginning to sound like a Nazi! Aren't you ashamed that the Germans killed 6 million Jews?!" There is no solid evidence showing Hitler had any intention of killing ANY Jews, much less 6 million or any other figure. In fact, the Nazis severely punished other Nazis if they hurt captive Jews. Bet you never heard that one. As well, there is no evidence there were any homicidal gas chambers. In fact, the logistics of "gassing and cremating" six million Jews during the time Hitler reigned is impossible. Even modern cremation ovens can barely do 19 bodies a day (24 hours). Plus you have the issue with fuel (cremation takes a lot of fuel) and the remains left after cremation. Where did all those ashes go? "Nobody knows". The evidence does not support the claims for the Holocaust. Any intelligent and reasonable human being would consider evidence over rumor every time. Concerning the so called eye witnesses, any prosecutor will tell you that eyewitness testimony is some of the worst evidence. The mind loves to embellish and exaggerate memories. The mind is also not a perfect storage device. It may remember some basic things about an event but it almost never can remember details. Were there cremation ovens at the "camps"? Of course. People die. What do you do with the bodies of those who die? You can either bury them or cremate them. Cremation has advantages. In any group setting (such as labor camps), if you don't take care of the dead quickly, it can lead to issues for everyone in the group. The evidence supports that the camps were labor camps and typically had a range of pleasure activities for camp members to participate in. There were things like swimming pools, pianos, musical instruments, games, movies, so on and so forth. Bet the Jewish run media never told you about how many times Hitler tried to prevent war. Hitler tried numerous times to prevent war. The Jews pushed for it and pushed for it until they had it. Hitler of course made them regret it. Hitler could have won the war but he made some mistakes. That is not the point of this post though so you can look elsewhere for the data related to Hitler.

"If white people are so smart, why did they let the Jews outsmart them?" The Jews didn't outsmart our people. What they did do however is manipulate one of our weaknesses: compassion and kindness. Look at most Christians for example. Always giving to the poor, feeling pity for those less fortunate. These traits are common among our people. We also tend to be too trusting. We made the mistake of letting Jews reside among us because they looked similar to us and on the outside appeared nice. Little did we know how mean, sneaky, and manipulative they generally are. Are all Jews bad? Of course not, but most are. That is the main reason Jews even to this day screw us over. They use our weaknesses to manipulate us and they have nearly perfected how to brainwash us. This is why you should throw out your television (I did over a decade ago and it was one of the best decisions I've ever made).

"You seem to try to use logic, but what about all the Christians on your board?!" To each his own. We are not a unified body of "haters". Each of us has our own beliefs. I personally am not religious. Do I hate Christians? No. Could I ever be a Christian? Unlikely. I personally require proof and evidence and I just haven't found that in religion of any sort. Do I know what exists after death? Nope. Am I worried? Not really. Each of us is different but we are unified on some topics (such as wanting a territory of our own where we can live in peace among our own kind).

"What about homosexuals?" What about them? The evidence supports that homosexuals have a mental disorder. For a long time homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. However with time society lost their minds and began embracing people with serious and dangerous mental disorders. I will not delve into this too deeply here but being a homosexual puts you at a MUCH higher risk than the general public for dying at an early age. You as a homosexual have a MUCH higher risk of contracting an STD/STI. Statistics show as well that homosexuals are far more likely than heterosexuals to molest children. There are logical reasons to oppose the homosexual agenda. Are all homosexuals bad? Of course not. However I wouldn't want one living next door to me. The religious among us tend to point to their holy book when asked about homosexuals. I point to facts and statistics. Either way, homosexuality is a choice, is a mental disorder, and can be cured.

"Ok, so you don't like Jews, Negroids, or homosexuals, do you like anything?" Of course. We love our people and our heritage. Society (with the brainwashing from the Jew) is pressuring us to forget our heritage or even be ashamed of it. What is there to be ashamed of? If it weren't for our people, you all would still be living in huts/caves/tents. You wouldn't be typing on a computer because they wouldn't exist. You would be sweating like mad because there would be no air conditioning. You would be bored out of your mind as there would be no internet or even electricity. You would very likely live in a dangerous time with nothing better to do than try to survive. If it weren't for our ancestors, you would be living like the primitive tribes in Africa right now. Consider that next time you think about feeling ashamed about being white or the next time you try to make one of us feel ashamed. Our people brought civilization to the world. Wherever we are in high numbers, there is low crime, high civilization, and progress in the area of technology. Where we are low in numbers, there is rampant crime, no progress, and primitive tribal like gangs roaming around. I will never be ashamed of being white and I will never apologize.

2FollowHim #fundie answers.yahoo.com

Anal people. Anus is the word. Gay hides what it is. It is a very hurtful thing that breaks
blood vessels in the anus, makes the skin there incapable of absorbing liquid so
you get post anal drip.

It spreads diseases, and many want to commit suicide since it was a 'wrong turn'.

When and where are Christians 'so cruel'?

Generally what you call 'gays', and I call 'anals' are doing very well in the world.
It is extreme lust, and males have always wanted (often) to avoid females sexually
and go with other males.

The lust can multiply as chains of homosexuals can have sex with others and
not have the slightest caring for any of the people.


This is a great lie.

Homosexuals are weaker psychologically and this is why 'homophobic' can mean
even MENTIONING this. That's what I mean by 'weaker', the inability to hear
or consider any criticism even though it is backed up by all kinds of research.

To find what was said here, just google this. There is some on google,
and much on youtube, as there is much on youtube about EVERYTHING today.

The OLD and NEW testament condemn being homosexual.

It is not fine, and it is sick. This is why it is wrong.

Like all serious sins, it certain is addictive.