Similar posts

Dennis Lopez #fundie dennislopez.com

I recently watched a video posted by a YouTuber by the username of “Truth96130,” that is basically telling people Hell is not real and that it is a lie of the Devil that works for his benefit. Yes, seriously, Truth96130 really believes this. In the video a renowned and once respected Pastor by the name of “Carlton Pearson” claimed that God told him Hell is not real. I watched the entire video and gave it the complete chance to convince me that his claim was true. What it did convince me of is what the Bible had already warned me about, thanks to Jesus. I will demonstrate to you, the reader, with Bible verses that you can go look up yourself (not my philosophy), and the words of Jesus himself, how this claim is a full-fledged doctrine of demons.
“Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons.” (NLT, 1 Timothy 4:1)

This verse by itself should be sufficient evidence for anyone to see that the “Hell doesn’t exist claim” is a trick of the devil to deceive those who are not strong with the Holy Spirit. The Bible warns us of false doctrines, false Prophets, and false Messiah’s. Did Pastor Carlton test the spirits? Did he pray on it and ask God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit for confirmation? I don’t think so, and neither did Truth96130. The devil is known for offering people things (sinful things) for instant gratification and happiness. God on the other hand is always patient and long-suffering, doing things at the right place and time. There is usually a lesson learned through a journey before you receive something from the Lord.
“Dear friends, do not believe everyone who claims to speak by the Spirit. You must test them to see if the spirit they have comes from God. For there are many false prophets in the world.” (NLT, 1 John 4:1)

Then you have Jesus telling you himself about hell, are the words of Jesus not sufficient? Truth96130 gave no credit to what Jesus said, and said that Jesus spoke in parables which are not historical events. So only the historical things that Jesus spoke about have value and not parables? Are you kidding me? Jesus was teaching lessons about Heaven and Hell, why would it need to be something that happened? Besides, hypothetically it was happening, people were going to Heaven and Hell after death.
It’s these type of people who cherry pick and choose what is convenient to fit their lifestyles, so that they can continue to do what they know is sinful and not feel convicted of it. They are only tricking themselves, but the worst part is they are trying to take others with them! (See Figure 1)
“So ignore them. They are blind guides leading the blind, and if one blind person guides another, they will both fall into a ditch.” (NLT, Matthew 15:14)

I refuse to let that happen, God ordered us to be the salt & light of the world.
“You are the salt of the earth. But what good is salt if it has lost its flavor? Can you make it salty again? It will be thrown out and trampled underfoot as worthless. “You are the light of the world—like a city on a hilltop that cannot be hidden. No one lights a lamp and then puts it under a basket. Instead, a lamp is placed on a stand, where it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your good deeds shine out for all to see, so that everyone will praise your heavenly Father.” (NLT, Matthew 5:13-16)

Here is another lesson about Heaven and Hell from Jesus Christ our Lord and savior.
“Jesus also told them other parables. He said, “The Kingdom of Heaven can be illustrated by the story of a king who prepared a great wedding feast for his son. When the banquet was ready, he sent his servants to notify those who were invited. But they all refused to come! “So he sent other servants to tell them, ‘The feast has been prepared. The bulls and fattened cattle have been killed, and everything is ready. Come to the banquet!’ But the guests he had invited ignored them and went their own way, one to his farm, another to his business. Others seized his messengers and insulted them and killed them. “The king was furious, and he sent out his army to destroy the murderers and burn their town. And he said to his servants, ‘the wedding feast is ready, and the guests I invited aren’t worthy of the honor. Now go out to the street corners and invite everyone you see.’ So the servants brought in everyone they could find, good and bad alike, and the banquet hall was filled with guests. “But when the king came in to meet the guests, he noticed a man who wasn’t wearing the proper clothes for a wedding. ‘Friend,’ he asked, ‘how is it that you are here without wedding clothes?’ But the man had no reply. Then the king said to his aides, ‘Bind his hands and feet and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ “For many are called, but few are chosen.” (NLT, Matthew 22:1-14)

Straight from the mouth of Jesus! This teaching illustrates how God sends his messengers and prophets to invite us to be saved, and to accept his Son, Jesus. We are constantly being invited to Heaven. The Bible is always referring to us (The Church) as the body of Christ and the bride of Christ, which is why this parable is about a wedding banquet for the King’s Son. The King being (God), the Son being (Jesus), the servants being (The Angels, Prophets, and Messengers), and the banquet representing (Heaven). I will let you guess who the invitees are.
Pay attention to the keywords, the servants were sent to notify “those who were invited.” This means not everyone is invited, so where do the uninvited go? I’m pretty sure they go to Hell. Let’s not forget “For many are called, but few are chosen,” that pretty much proves that some are chosen and some are not; meaning, some will go to Heaven and some will not.
Let’s continue on, the initially invited (The Israelites) rejected Jesus as the Messiah, some (The Pharisees) went as far as to kill him. From the beginning of the Bible all the way up to revelations, everyone that God has sent to warn humanity (His Prophets & Messengers) has been murdered or rejected all the way up to Jesus Christ and beyond. That covers the portion of parable talking about the invitees rejecting the invitation and some going as far as to murder the servants. Well, what about the King sending an army to destroy and burn their town?
I am glad you asked, throughout the Bible God turns his back on his people (The Israelites) when they reject him and rebel against him by doing such things as worshiping idols, breaking the commandments, and basically breaking their covenant with him. God removes his protection from them and even goes as far as to send other nations to attack them, as he did with King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. (The destruction and burning of the town also represents the end times in revelations). Of course, he was merciful and gave his people ample time to turn away from their sins and repent.
Moving on, the king sending his servants to invite everyone good and bad represents how the sacrificial death of Jesus enables everyone to be able to go to Heaven, without having to perfectly follow the Law of Moses. God knew we wouldn’t be able to do it. The Law of Moses was nothing more than just a long-term lesson to show us that even when facing the penalty of death and similar penalties, we would still break the law. He basically showed us that Humanity cannot govern itself without the help of God. We would need more than Laws, we would need a change of heart, and we would need the Holy Spirit.
Finally, the man not properly dressed illustrates how those that accept Jesus Christ (The Invitation), but continue to live in constant Sin, can lose their salvation. Just because you accept Christ does not mean you are guaranteed to go to Heaven, it’s only the start of your salvation. The Bible doesn’t say to run the race and fight the good fight for nothing. Now, Outer darkness, weeping, gnashing of the teeth, does that sound like Heaven to you? I think Jesus was speaking in a gentle fashion instead of being blunt and giving it to us straight; however, there is scripture which is not so nice, and for a good reason.
“And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life.” (NLT, Matthew 25:46)

Eternal means nonstop, no breaks, forever, everlasting. Some people try to claim it’s just the second death, meaning you don’t get eternal life, but clearly the scriptures say different. You get eternal life, but it’s not the type of eternal life anyone would ever want. This is why God designed this life to be experienced in time. Things in time begin and end. This teaches us what eternity is. That is how just and fair God is.
“They will be punished with eternal destruction, forever separated from the Lord and from his glorious power.” (NLT, 2 Thessalonians 1:9)

If there is no Hell, how can sinners be punished in eternal destruction or separated from the Lord? Where will they go if they can’t go into Heaven?
“Throwing the wicked into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (NLT, Matthew 13:50)

“If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It’s better to enter eternal life with only one hand than to go into the unquenchable fires of hell with two hands.” (NLT, Mark 9:43)

“But there were also false prophets in Israel, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will cleverly teach destructive heresies and even deny the Master who bought them. In this way, they will bring sudden destruction on themselves. Many will follow their evil teaching and shameful immorality. And because of these teachers, the way of truth will be slandered. In their greed they will make up clever lies to get hold of your money. But God condemned them long ago, and their destruction will not be delayed. For God did not spare even the angels who sinned. He threw them into hell, in gloomy pits of darkness, where they are being held until the Day of Judgment.” (NLT, 2 Peter 2:1-4)

That last verse is just blatantly clear that we will all pay for our sins, and that Hell exist, period! It is true that you can pay for your sins on Earth, but only to a certain extent. God knows that we will not be ultimately perfect without sin,
“Not a single person on earth is always good and never sins.” (NLT, Ecclesiastes 7:20)

“As the Scriptures say, “No one is righteous–not even one.” (NLT, Romans 3:10)

But this does not give you the green light to do whatever you want to. God’s mercy, grace, and forgiveness are determined and given accordingly. God knows when you are trying not to sin, compared to when you really don’t care and are trying to fall through the cracks. We should strive to have as little sin as possible, remember God knows what is in our hearts. He can see if your desire is not to sin, but you fall to it not by deliberate will, but by the evil we all inherited from Adam & Eve, there is a difference.

The devil knows this, which is why he uses clever lies to deceive people. Of course he will tell us that our sins are forgiven through Christ, so it doesn’t matter what we do once we accept Jesus, and OH’ yeah by the way, Hell doesn’t exist. That is not what the true Word of God tells us. The “There is no Hell” claim is a doctrine of demons, there is no doubt about it. If Hell isn’t real then why did Jesus go down to Hell for three days to console the spirits that were imprisoned there?

“Christ suffered for our sins once for all time. He never sinned, but he died for sinners to bring you safely home to God. He suffered physical death, but he was raised to life in the Spirit. So he went and preached to the spirits in prison, those who disobeyed God long ago when God waited patiently while Noah was building his boat. Only eight people were saved from drowning in that terrible flood.” (NLT, 1 Peter 3:18-20)

Truth96130 claimed that I am confusing the time of this verse. The verse above clearly states that Jesus went to preach to the spirits in prison (Hell) that disobeyed God during the time of Noah, basically all the people who died in the great flood; which by the way, is historically recorded in every culture around the world. If there is no Hell and I am confusing this verse, which I am obviously not, then why didn’t these same spirits go directly to Heaven? Why does the Bible say they are in prison? Why doesn’t the Bible simply say, “Jesus swung by the Prison (Hell) to bail these Spirits out?” Now let’s say there is no Hell, why are these Spirits in prison? What is this prison?
If you go back to (NLT, 2 Peter 2:1-4) which I mentioned earlier, you will see “For God did not spare even the angels who sinned. He threw them into hell, in gloomy pits of darkness, where they are being held until the Day of Judgment.” Key sentence “where they are being held,” doesn’t that coincide perfectly with the spirits in prison! You know, prison, jail, being held captive, I don’t know about you, but it sure makes sense to me. This is the perfect example of scripture backing up scripture. As the saying goes “the writing is on the wall,” and let’s not forget about the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. (See Figure 2)
And his soul went to the place of the dead. There, in torment, he saw Abraham in the far distance with Lazarus at his side. (NLT, Luke 16:23)

When I mentioned this to Truth96130 his response was, “well that’s just a parable, and it’s not a historical event.” That statement does not in no way, shape, or form prove that Hell is not real, in fact it diverts from the fact that Jesus used a parable to teach a lesson about Hell. Keyword, “lesson,” Let’s look at the definition of the word parable.

Parable –
A short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.
A statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like.
Well there you go, a parable is designed to teach a lesson of truth. Just because it’s not a historical event does not mean it is not true. I recommend reading the entire chapter of Luke 16. All words out of the mouth of Jesus, let me remind you. Over and over again in the Bible Hell is spoken about, illustrated, and re-cautioned to those that would believe, keyword believe. The Devil would love for people to not believe in Hell, that way people would just live how they feel and do what they want without having to worry about the repercussions.
Finally, Pastor Carlton and Truth96130 argue that God is love and he wouldn’t do these things to us. I mean how could an all loving merciful God send his people to eternal torture, right? Well once again, directly from Bible verses and not my philosophy, I will show you how God is justified in everything he does. He is the genuine holder of truth, he sets the standards, and he uses fair scales, weights, and balances. We would like to believe we know more than God, we would like to believe our ways are just, we would like to believe we can replace his laws with our own, but the truth is God is the Creator and we are the created. God set the laws of the universe, not us. Who are we but mere mortals.
“For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.” (NLT, Isaiah 55:9)

Do we really expect to have the same mental capacity as the entity that created us and the Universe? Seriously? If that were the case then why would we even need God at all? We would be just like him, which is the exact claim the devil made before he was found with sin and casted out of Heaven. The devil claimed he would be like the most high.
“I will climb to the highest heavens and be like the Most High.” (NLT, Isaiah 14:14)

The created cannot expect to comprehend and know as the creator.
“How foolish can you be? He is the Potter, and he is certainly greater than you, the clay! Should the created thing say of the one who made it, “He didn’t make me”? Does a jar ever say, “The potter who made me is stupid”?” (NLT, Isaiah 29:16)

Furthermore, as I tried to understand why God would send people to Hell for not meeting his qualifications, I learned some important truths. God has a standard, the one and only true balance of justice, and he will not break it for anyone. He will not be a hypocrite and break his word. Anyone who breaks the law is subject to the consequences, even the Angels.
Example of Truth: Anyone that is truly honest with pure integrity would understand that it is justified for their child to go to prison for murdering someone. Only hypocrites and people without standards would argue different.

People that go to Hell choose to go to Hell. People that go to Heaven choose to go to Heaven. (See Figure 3) God did not make us robots, he gave us self-awareness. I ask the reader, what has more value? A living being that was programmed to be righteous, or one that wasn’t but chose to be and now is? (Causality) There is a reason for everything, which is not just a “saying.” You might not agree with the reason, but who are we to tell God what is and is not fair. I am 100% sure if Jesus Christ disobeyed God, God would have sent him to Hell too.

Another misconception is that it doesn’t bother God to send people to Hell. That is a lie of the devil. The same way it hurts parents to discipline their children with the rod, it devastates our Father to sentence us (his children) to Hell. God does not enjoy this which is why he sacrificed his only Son.
“For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.” (NLT, John 3:16)

“The Lord isn’t really being slow about his promise, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent.” (NLT, 2 Peter 3:9)

There is no excuse, we are warned and given a lifetime to get it right.
Then comes the question? We’ll if God is all loving and merciful then why does he let such suffering happen on Earth? That one is easy. There is suffering on Earth because we have free will to do what we want to, and some of us want to continue to do evil things. Some of us want to follow the devil instead of God. Some of us love sin more than we love our creator.
“And the judgment is based on this fact: God’s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil.” (NLT, John 3:19)

People judge God and they never even get to know him. We’ll what about the good people who have bad things happen to them? Why doesn’t God protect them? First of all, what good people? We are all born evil.
“For I was born a sinner–yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.” (NLT, Psalm 51:5)

We inherited evil from Adam & Eve. We have to be taught to be good. We have the knowledge of good and evil, but without the help of God we will always favor evil. We are self-serving and self-gratifying.
“For they loved human praise more than the praise of God.” (NLT, John 12:43)

Also, remember we are not just facing people with free will that choose to be evil. We are facing our adversary the devil, and we are also facing spiritual battles in the unseen world around us.
“We know that we are children of God and that the world around us is under the control of the evil one.” (NLT, 1 John 5:19)

“Stay alert! Watch out for your great enemy, the devil. He prowls around like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour.” (NLT 1 Peter 5:8)

“For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.” (NLT, Ephesians 6:12)

And that my brother’s and sister’s is why there is pain and suffering in the world. Jesus made it very clear that we will suffer in this world, so why not suffer for him instead? Why not suffer to make it to the pearly gates?
“And all nations will hate you because you are my followers. But everyone who endures to the end will be saved.” (NLT, Matthew 10:22)

“Students are not greater than their teacher, and slaves are not greater than their master. Students are to be like their teacher, and slaves are to be like their master. And since I, the master of the household, have been called the prince of demons, the members of my household will be called by even worse names! (NLT, Matthew 10:24-25)

“Yes, and everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.” (NLT, 2 Timothy 3:12)

Jesus did not promise life without problems once you start following him. He tells no lies and gives it to us straight. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not about infinite happiness in this life, but it is about trials and tribulations leading to infinite happiness in the afterlife. Jesus never said we had to be perfect, nor does the Bible. The Bible tells us to turn away from Evil, stride to change; and most importantly, to ask God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit to help us do it. We are incapable of doing it on our own. So make no mistake of misunderstanding that only perfect people make it to Heaven, which is another lie of the devil. Name one person in the Bible, besides Jesus, that didn’t sin. You can’t do it. Do not try to earn your salvation, instead embrace it. Salvation is a gift from God, it is meant to be received and maintained.
“Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it.” (NLT, Ephesians 2:9)

Believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who sacrificed himself on the cross so that we can be forgiven for our sins, become reborn and move forward from there, and know that hell is a real place. Fear the Lord of Heaven’s armies and respect who he is.
“Fear of the LORD is the foundation of true knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.” (NLT, Proverbs 1:7)

“Fear of the LORD is the foundation of wisdom. Knowledge of the Holy One results in good judgment.” (NLT, Proverbs 9:10)

God can take our mistakes and help us correct them, he can help anyone, anywhere, anytime get back on the course he designed for them. It is never too late to turn to God through Jesus Christ. Simply lift your hands up to God and repeat “Jesus I repent of my sins and I accept you as my Lord and savior, Amen.” Then seek the kingdom first, read the Bible, continue to pray, and always talk to Jesus looking for guidance and answers, and remember we have the Holy Spirit to help us through it all.

“But when the Father sends the Advocate as my representative–that is, the Holy Spirit–he will teach you everything and will remind you of everything I have told you.” (NLT, John 14:26)

“Seek the Kingdom of God above all else, and live righteously, and he will give you everything you need.” (NLT, Matthew 6:33)

I encourage all my readers to fact check me, go look for yourself and make sure that I am not misleading you. Make sure that I am speaking from the lessons of the word of God and not from my own philosophy. Make sure that I am not twisting the word of God. I also invite my readers to comment and share your opinions down below in the comment section. May the Lord of Heaven’s Armies Bless you all!

I am currently reading and quoting from the New Living Translation version of the Bible.

John Ramirez #fundie search.stillsmallvoicetriage.org

John Ramirez, Escape from Hell Ex-Satanist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is this place?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happens in this place?

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

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

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

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

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

Oh yeah, of course they're watching us.

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

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

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

(driving)Very demonic place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Squeakybro #fundie christianforums.net

The one big problem with the rational mind(reasoning out things) is that they assume that they know the truth about everything already. So they start out in their thinking with the assumption that they can know. But what does the Word of God say: unless you become as a little child, you will by no means enter the kingdom of God. And a little child just believes everything you tell them. Well that is what the Word of God says, just believe what the Word tells you. In reality the Word is saying believe it first and then God will open your understanding. But the rational mind says dont believe nothing until you have good reason behind it. This is the difference between accepting it on faith, and reasoning it out according to mans wisdom. The Word accually says to first repent then believe in the gospel. It doesnt say reason it out until it says what you want it to. To many have a pre-conceived idea planted by some man before they open the bible. Then they search to find something that supports their already pre-conceived idea.

John Simpson #fundie quora.com

The Bible makes it clear that it is not lack of evidence that keeps people from believing in God. The evidence is available for all to see but most people do not bother to investigate the evidence.

The reasons people do not believe in God are many, but they can be broken down into two basic categories: pride and ignorance.

1. Pride Keeps People From Believing In God

The sin of pride keeps people from believing in God. Humanity does not want to admit that there is something or someone greater than human beings in the universe. People want to be the master of their own fate, captain of their own salvation. The Bible speaks of the pride of man.

These six things the Lord hates, yes, seven are an abomination to him: a proud look (Proverbs 6:16,17).

Pride is the first sin mentioned in a list of things that God hates. It was the sin of pride that caused Lucifer to rebel against God and be cast out of heaven. It was pride that caused Cain to bring an offering of his own works to the Lord instead of the one God had commanded. From the beginning of time, pride has kept people from coming to God.

Jesus' Warning About Pride

James warned about the foolishness of pride:

Come now, you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, spend a year there, buy and sell, and make a profit;' whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away. Instead you ought to say, if the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that (James 4:13-15).

Though people may boast that they do not need God the fact is that they cannot exist without Him. People make plans as though they will live forever, but as James reminds us no one is guaranteed that he will be alive tomorrow.

2. Ignorance Keeps People From Believing In God

Another reason the Bible gives for lack of trust in God is ignorance. Jesus pointed out that "not knowing" is a source of error when it comes to believing in God.

You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God (Matthew 22:29).

The two things that characterize unbelief are ignorance of both the Scripture and the power of God. People do not know what the Bible says because they have not taken the time to carefully study it.

Furthermore, they do not understand the nature and greatness of God's power.

Humanity Is Deliberately Ignorant Of God

The Bible says that humanity is deliberately ignorant of God.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of humankind, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18).

Paul wrote:

There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God (Romans 3:10,11).

These verses teach that people are not seeking after God but are actually running away from Him. They are suppressing, or "holding down," God's truth in unrighteousness. They are ignorant of God because they want to be ignorant.

Summary

There are many reasons people do not believe in God but it is not because of lack of evidence. People do not believe because of pride or an ignorance of God's Word and His power. Those who are ignorant of God want to be ignorant. They do not want to know Him.

David Chase Taylor #god-complex truthernews.wordpress.com

[Ok, this is long, but this entire piece left me in hysterics.]

GERMANY, Undisclosed Location —After months of deliberation and with great trepidation, I begrudgingly announce that I am the so-called Messiah. I do not reveal this for fame or gain but rather out of self-preservation for it’s far less likely that the Geneva-based CIA will assassinate me prior to the end of the Maya Calendar in 2017 once I announce that I am the Messiah.

The last thing the CIA wants to do is martyr the whistle-blower journalist who exposed CIA Headquarters beneath Lake Geneva right after he declares he is the so-called ‘Chosen One’ (i.e., the Messiah). It is imperative to note that I am not holy or a saint by any means. Like Jesus before me, I am just a man. I just decided to speak truth to power and the rest is history.

Although the decision to become a peace activist was mine and mine alone, the following evidence suggests that my role as the Messiah was predetermined long before I ever set foot on planet Earth. Regardless, I am actively trying to save humanity from extinction and that’s all that really matters.

KEY VOCABULARY:

a) MESSIAH
The term ‘Messiah’ was likely derived from the words ‘Miss’ and ‘Eye’ for the Messiah, who will ultimately be responsible for saving the World, destroying the Greco-Roman Empire (see below) and snuffing out the 13 Bloodlines of Man would somehow be ‘missed’ by the ‘All Seeing Eye’ of the C-‘EYE’-A (i.e., Central Intelligence Agency). That is to say that despite knowing what year he was born in and exactly what he looked like, the Messiah would inexplicably be overlooked by the CIA before it was too late, hence the name.

b) ANTI-CHRIST
It is imperative to note that the Messiah is the Anti-Christ to the Greco-Roman Empire while the Anti-Christ is the Messiah or Savior to the Greco-Roman Empire. Therefore, the Anti-Christ and the Messiah are two different terms for the same person. That being said, since the Greco-Roman Empire knew that the Messiah would come to save the World at the end of the Age, they created the Anti-Christ-known as Barack Hussein Obama who was spawned to be the Savior of the Greco-Romans by in essence being a de-facto World dictator who oversees the genocide of hunanity under the guise of a global biological pandemic. However, as correctly prophesized, Obama was ultimately destroyed (i.e., removed from power) by the Messiah.

c) SAVIOR
The terms ‘Messiah’ and ‘Savior’ have become synonymous namely due to the story of Jesus Christ depicted within the Holy Bible. Although the Biblical narrative states that Jesus came to save mankind from ‘sin’, the real Messiah came to save the human race from extinction which is currently planned under the guise of a global biological pandemic.

d) JESUS
Although Jesus Christ allegedly existed 2,000+ years ago, he holds the title of Messiah and has been deemed the ‘Savior’ of mankind. The reality is that mankind didn’t need a Savior back then like they do now. Therefore, the story of Jesus depicted in the Holy Bible is the story of the future Messiah which has now been identified as David Chase Taylor. Aside from all the physical traits and similarities, the trials and tribulations suffered by Jesus are reflected in the life of David Chase Taylor. That is to say that the persecution allegedly suffered by Jesus has been inflicted upon Taylor tenfold who has been subjected to unspeakable tortures and persecution over the last 7-years in his quest to save humanity from extinction.

1. YEAR OF BIRTH
Theosophists believed that the Maitreya (i.e., the Messiah) would physically manifest on Earth sometime in the 21st century, becoming the Messiah expected for generations in virtually all major religions. Esoteric artist and author Benjamin Creme stated that the Maitreya (i.e., the Messiah) communicated to him that he had decided to return to Earth prior to the year 2025. Creme later stated that the Maitreya materialized in a physical body early in 1977. In other words, the Messiah was born in 1977 and is therefore roughly 40-years of age. Although Shia Muslims believe that “[The Messiah] will not come in an odd year” such as 1977, the Islamic calendar is odd when the Gregorian calendar is even (i.e., the year of 2017 equates to the year 1438 within the Islamic calendar). Therefore, the odd year of 1977 equates to the even year of 1398 within the Islamic calendar. According to the account of the Messiah by the Mahdi, “…he [the Messiah] is forty years old”. David Chase Taylor was born in Fredrikstad, Norway on April 15, 1977, and is currently 40-years of age.

2. DAY OF BIRTH
The date of April 15, 2014, is known in esoteric astronomy as ‘Day Zero’ for it marks the first Blood Moon in a tetrad of Blood Moons which officially marks the beginning of the end of the so-called Maya Calendar in 2017. David Chase Taylor was born exactly 37-years prior on April 15, 1977, and is currently the only author, futurist, journalist and philosopher in the World who has correctly identified and prophesied the end of the Maya Calendar in 2017, the start of the Apocalypse. Taylor’s cat Nike, which doubles as his Guardian Angel, is coincidentally also born on April 15th. Lastly, the official symbol of Earth is a ‘+’ symbol superimposed upon an ‘O’ symbol (see above photo) which numerically equates to “4/15” as in April 15th (i.e., Day Zero). The number ‘4’ was formerly a ‘+’ symbol within the Roman Score (i.e., the original alphabet) while the ‘O’ symbol is the 15th letter within the English alphabet. The Earth symbol doubles as crosshairs for April 15th is when the Greco-Roman Empire and her Babylonian System become targeted for extinction which is evidently why Taylor and his cat were born on this historic date.

3. NAME OF DAVID
In Judaism, the Messiah is depicted as a human leader, physically descended from the paternal Davidic line through King David and King Solomon. That is to say, despite being touted as a divine being sent from Heaven, the Messiah is a mere human. The Messiah is referred to in Judaism as Messiah ben David, meaning “Messiah, son of David”. The early Church believed that the life of David foreshadowed the life of Christ in that: a) both were born in Bethlehem, b) David was a shepherd while Jesus Christ was known as the Good Shepherd, c) David chose five stones to slay Goliath while Jesus suffered five Holy wounds, d) David became King and Jesus started his ministry at age 30, and e) many of the Davidic Psalms are typical of the future Messiah. In the Holy Bible, verse Luke 2:4 states that “And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David), while Luke 2:11 states that, “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord”. In short, the city, lineage and name of David is intimately associated with the Savior and Messiah—Jesus Christ. David Chase Taylor was officially named ‘David’ by his parents in Fredrikstad, Norway on April 15, 1977.

4. LIVES IN GERMANY
In a March 11, 2015, op-ed published by the Israel National News, Chen Ben-Eliyahu called on Israel to nuke Germany “when the Messiah comes“. Ben-Eliyahu stated that Israel must reverse the Final Solution, claiming that, “Twenty, thirty atomic bombs on Berlin, Munich, Hamburg, Nuremberg, Cologne, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Dresden, Dortmund and so on to assure the job gets done. And the land will be quiet for a thousand years”. The Messiah, David Chase Taylor, moved from Switzerland to Germany on February 8, 2017, and has exposed the plot by the Geneva-based CIA to stage a nuclear holocaust in Germany in order to assassinate him and trigger World Wat III as depicted in the latest Truther.org report from August 1, 2017, entitled ‘Germany’ Impending Nuclear Holocaust‘. Needless to say, Ben-Eliyahu is an intelligence operative who is privy to the CIA’s plot to: a) assassinate the Messiah Taylor once after he moves to Germany, and b) destroy Europe and the World for that matter prior to the end of the Maya Calendar in 2017.

5. SAVIOR OF THE WORLD
Due to roughly 50,000 timely Truther.org terror alerts and investigative reports, David Chase Taylor has been able to effectively thwart scores of bio-chemical attacks, nuclear terror attacks and World War III which were planned by the Geneva-based CIA under the guise an Obama dictatorship. The term ‘Savior‘ is defined as “one that saves from danger or destruction” which is exactly what Taylor has done, starting with the foiled Super Bowl XLV nuclear terror plot on February 6, 2011, as foretold by his first book entitled ‘The Nuclear Bible‘ (2011). In short, the CIA plans to wipe out humanity in the aftermath of nuclear terror attacks via a global biologic pandemic which Taylor exposed in his second book entitled ‘The Bio-Terror Bible‘ (2012). Because Taylor blew the whistle on CIA Headquarters beneath Lake Geneva in Switzerland, virtually none of the plots or wars he has identified and exposed come to fruition. That’s because the Swiss CIA is deathly afraid of being exposed on a global level if and when the Truther.org reports go viral post-attack.

6. ANSWERING THE CALL AT 30
The Holy Bible states in Luke 3:23 that “…Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli“. In short, Biblical scholars agree that age 30 is the when Jesus officially began his ministry. David Chase Taylor coincidentally also answered his calling at the age of 30, founding Truther.org in San Diego, California on November 11, 2007.

7. DEFEATING ANTI-CHRIST OBAMA
In Islamic eschatology, Jesus (i.e., the Messiah) will return to Earth at the End of Times along with the Mahdi and defeat al-Masih ad-Dajjal, otherwise known as “False Messiah” or the “Antichrist”. In the Truther.org report entitled ‘Obama 666‘ (2016), David Chase Taylor revealed that Barack Hussein Obama is in fact the Anti-Christ as depicted in the Holy Bible. With the swearing-in of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States on January 20, 2017, the Anti-Christ Obama was effectively defeated and removed from power. Although the CIA is desperately trying to stage an Obama military coup d’état to resurrect the fallen Anti-Christ as depicted in the Truther.org report entitled “10 Reason Why an Obama Military Coup is Imminent“, it will not come to fruition so long as Taylor is alive.

8. VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL LOOKS
Based off countless depictions and renditions of Jesus Christ from the Middle Ages to present day, the man known as Jesus Christ of Nazareth looks virtually identical to the Messiah, David Chase Taylor. Exactly how people knew what the Messiah would look like is not yet know, but those who dabble in magic and witchcraft may have had dreams or visions of what the future Messiah would look like. Due to the use of hallucinogenic drugs such as acid, magic mushrooms and peyote, people can be granted a look into the future which may be the case in respect to the future looks of the Messiah.

9. BLUE EYES
Due to David Chase Taylor’s Germanic and Irish ancestry, he has blue eyes. The notion that the Messiah will have blue eyes is found within ancient literature and foreshadowed in scores of films and paintings. In ‘The Archko Volume‘, which contains official court documents from the days of Jesus, it claims that Jesus had blue eyes and golden hair. In the chapter entitled “Gamaliel’s Interview”, it states the following in respect to the appearance of concerning Jesus (Yeshua): “I asked him to describe this person to me, so that I might know him if I should meet him. He said: ‘If you ever meet him [Yeshua] you will know him. While he is nothing but a man, there is something about him that distinguishes him from every other man..His eyes are large and a soft blue, and rather dull and heavy….’. Nicephorus Callistus introduced his description of Christ (MPG, cxlv. 748) with the words, “as we have received it from the ancients”, and was impressed with Jesus Christ’s ‘sea-blue eyes shading into brown‘. A report by Pontius Pilate to the Roman Senate concerning the description of Jesus allegedly contains a description of Jesus with ‘piercing eyes of a grayish-blue‘. Exactly how these people knew that the Messiah would have blue eyes is not yet known, but those who dabble in magic and witchcraft may have had dreams or visions of what the future Messiah would look like. Due to the use of hallucinogenic drugs such as acid, magic mushrooms and peyote, people can be granted a look into the future which may be the case in respect to the future eye color of the Messiah.

0. LONG BLONDISH-BROWN HAIR WITH RED TINT
The notion that the Messiah will have long blondish-brown hair with a tint of red is found within ancient literature and foreshadowed in scores of films and paintings. Due to David Chase Taylor’s Germanic and Irish ancestry, he coincidentally has long blondish-brown hair with a tint of red. A hadith in Abu Dawud (37:4310) states that the Messiah will be reddish dusky complexion. Based on this account, the Messiah will have dark reddish hair and tan skin. The Islamic tradition states that the Mahdi (i.e., the Messiah) will have flat cheeks and straight hair which Taylor coincidentally has. The description of Jesus found in the Letter of Lentullus states that “his hair of (the color of) the chestnut, full ripe, plain to His ears, whence downwards it is more orient and curling and wavering about His shoulders”. Nicephorus Callistus introduced his description of Christ (MPG, cxlv. 748) with the words, “as we have received it from the ancients”, and was impressed with Jesus Christ’s ‘brown beard of moderate length, and the long hair”. In ‘The Archko Volume‘, which contains official court documents from the days of Jesus, it claims that Jesus had blue eyes and golden hair. (i.e., blondish hair). Exactly how these people knew that the Messiah would have blondish-brown hair with a tint of red is not yet known, but those who dabble in magic and witchcraft may have had dreams or visions of what the future Messiah would look like. Due to the use of hallucinogenic drugs such as acid, magic mushrooms and peyote, people can be granted a look into the future which may be the case in respect to the future hair color of the Messiah.

11. LARGE FOREHEAD
Similar to the countless depictions of Jesus Christ, David Chase Taylor has a large and flat forehead behind which lies his pineal gland (i.e., the Third Eye). Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri, the Messenger of Allah, stated that “The Mahdi is of my lineage, with a high forehead and a long, thin, curved nose”. A report by Pontius Pilate to the Roman Senate concerning the description of Jesus allegedly contains a description of Jesus with “an open and serene forehead“. Exactly how these people knew that the Messiah would have a large forehead is not yet known, but those who dabble in magic and witchcraft may have had dreams or visions of what the future Messiah would look like. Due to the use of hallucinogenic drugs such as acid, magic mushrooms and peyote, people can be granted a look into the future which may be the case in respect to the future size of the Messiah’s forehead.

12. ABDOMINAL SCAR
The Holy Bible states in John 19:34 that “But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water”. Said spear is often refered to as the Holy Lance. Therefore, in theory, the Messiah should have a scar in roughly the same place at Jesus. Around 2005, David Chase Taylor had surgery to remove a benign plexiform nuerofibroma tumor from his left abdominal wall, resulting in a scar which is located just below the rib cage (see above photo). Consequently, both Jesus and Taylor have a scar in the exact same place, both courtesy of a metallic blade. Exactly how the authors of the Bible knew that the Messiah would have a scar on his abdominal wall is not yet know, but those who dabble in magic and witchcraft may have had dreams or visions of what the future Messiah would look like. Due to the use of hallucinogenic drugs such as acid, magic mushrooms and peyote, people can be granted a look into the future which may be the case in respect to the future scar on the Messiah’s stomach.

13. BLACK MOLE ON CHEEK
According to At-Tarabani, the Messiah will be of Caucasian descent with a mole on his left cheek. According to the account of the Messiah by the Mahdi, “His face is like a colorful, glittering star, upon his right cheek there is a black mole and he is forty years old”. The Mahdi also states that “…upon his face is a mole and upon his shoulder is the Sign of the Prophet, praise and peace be upon him”. David Chase Taylor has a black mole on his left cheek bone (see above photo). Exactly how these people knew that the Messiah would have a black mole on his cheek is not yet know, but those who dabble in magic and witchcraft may have had dreams or visions of what the future Messiah would look like. Due to the use of hallucinogenic drugs such as acid, magic mushrooms and peyote, people can be granted a look into the future which may be the case in respect to the black mole on the cheek of the Messiah.

14. MEDIUM HEIGHT
A hadith in Abu Dawud (37:4310) states that the Messiah will be a man of medium height and reddish dusky complexion. Based on this account, the Messiah will be around 5’10 (177 centimeters) in height with dark reddish hair and tan skin. David Chase Taylor is 5’11.5 tall which is universally considered to be medium height. Exactly how these people knew the future height of the Messiah is not yet know, but those who dabble in magic and witchcraft may have had dreams or visions of what the future Messiah would look like. Due to the use of hallucinogenic drugs such as acid, magic mushrooms and peyote, people can be granted a look into the future which may be the case in respect to the future height of the Messiah.

15. BEARD
Islamic Shia traditions states that the Mahdi will be “a young man of medium stature with a handsome face and beard”. Nicephorus Callistus introduced his description of Christ (MPG, cxlv. 748) with the words, “as we have received it from the ancients”, and was impressed with Jesus Christ’s ‘brown beard of moderate length”. According to At-Tarabani’s account of the Messiah, “His beard is thick, his eyes naturally masquerade, his teeth are radiant”. The description of Jesus found in the Letter of Lentullus states that “His beard thickish, in color like His hair“. David Chase Taylor coincidentally happens to have a brown beard of medium length. Exactly how these people knew that the Messiah would have a beard is not yet know, but those who dabble in magic and witchcraft may have had dreams or visions of what the future Messiah would look like. Due to the use of hallucinogenic drugs such as acid, magic mushrooms and peyote, people can be granted a look into the future which may be the case in respect to the length and color of the Messiah’s beard.

16. THE FAKE FACE OF JESUS
The notion that David Chase Taylor is the Messiah was confirmed, albeit in a de facto manner, on January 23, 2015, when Popular Mechanics published a propaganda report which stated that forensic science now confirms that Jesus looks nothing like the way he has been depicted for the last thousand years in countless paintings and sculptures. In other words, if a man who looks exactly like Jesus Christ appears on Earth, pay no attention. As someone once said, “You can tell a lot about your enemy by what they are afraid of”. Naturally, the CIA is petrified that news of Taylor being the Messiah will go viral and have therefore have taken counter measures to try and discredit any such future claims.

17. THE LOST WHITE BROTHER PAHANA
According to At-Tarabani, the Messiah will be of Caucasian descent. In the Hopi tradition, the true Pahana (or Bahana) is the Lost White Brother of the Hopi who will return again when the wicked are destroyed to usher in a new age of peace, the Fifth World. This prophecy will transpire after the Apocalypse in 2017, as revealed by David Chase Taylor. White Feather, a Hopi of the ancient Bear Clan, stated that “My people await Pahana, the lost White Brother, as do all our brothers in the land. He will not be like the white men we know now, who are cruel and greedy…He will bring with him the symbols, and the missing piece of that sacred tablet now kept by the elders, given to him when he left, that shall identify him as our True White Brother…Pahana will return. He shall bring with him the dawn of the Fifth World. He shall plant the seeds of his wisdom in their hearts. Even now the seeds are being planted. These shall smooth the way to the Emergence into the Fifth World”. Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri, the Messenger of Allah, stated that “The Mahdi is of my lineage, with a high forehead and a long, thin, curved nose”. According to Harvard University anthropologist William Howells, clinical traits of the Caucasian race include “straight faces” and “narrow noses”. These accounts suggest that the Messiah is white or of Caucasian descent, just like David Chase Taylor.

19. HOLES IN HANDS & FEET
The Holy Bible states in John 20:25 that “The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” Similar to how Jesus Christ suffered holes in his hands and body courtesy of nails hammered by Roman soldiers, David Chase Taylor suffered severe blisters on his hands and feet over an 18-month period which ruptured, leaving scores of nail-like holes. The contagious non-permanent skin ailment was premetitatively given to him by a female CIA operative named Geraldine in Basel Switzerland on September 21, 2017. Said holes have resulted in permanent scaring. Due to walking thousands of miles (see below), Taylor incurred massive blisters on his feet which were unable to heal before new blistered occurred, resulting in large wounds or holes in his feet.

18. CROWN OF THORNS
The Holy Bible states in John 19:1-2 that “Pilate then took Jesus and scourged Him. And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on His head, and put a purple robe on Him”. Similar to how Jesus Christ was forced to wear a crown of thorns upon his head which caused his scalp to bleed, David Chase Taylor has been forced to endure a scalp ailment since 2011 due to being inside behind a computer for roughly 10-15 hours a day, everyday, for almost 7-years straight. Said ailment causes severe itching and pimple-like cysts which rupture and bleed upon scratching.

20. LASHES OF THE WHIP
The Holy Bible states in John 19:1 that “Pilate then took Jesus and scourged Him”. Similar to how Jesus Christ was forced to endure countless lashes of the whip courtesy of Roman soldiers, Taylor has had to deal with countless back spasms, neck spasms and shoulder pain for years due to: a) lack of proper exercise, b) carrying a heavy suitcase and bags everyday for years on end, c) logging tens-of-thousands of hours behind a computer, d) being forced to sleep in a different bed virtually ever night since 2014, and e) being forced to sleep on the streets since March of 2017. Similar to the lash of a whip, muscle spasms shoot down the entire body, causing it to cringe and convulse in pain.

21. BETRAYAL
The Holy Bible states in Luke 22 that Jesus Christ was betrayed by Judas. David Chase Taylor has been betrayed by members of his family, former girlfriends, friends and colleagues, many of which are currently working with the CIA, FBI and/or the Swiss FIS to frame Taylor for various crimes he did not commit, or to have him forcefully institutionalized for alleged mental illness. Although the betrayals are too many to list, Taylor’s two sisters, Jessica and Susanna, have repeatedly tried to have him committed to a mental asylum. Taylor’s former Swiss-Italian friend named Jerry Lavorgna, who ironically vouched for Taylor when he applied for political asylum in Switzerland on July 17, 2015, actually lured Taylor to a house outside of Basel where he was slated to be murdered. To be fair, Lavorgna thought Taylor would be institutionalized which is why he wrote a letter to the Swiss government on September 8, 2016, claiming that Taylor was clinically insane. In short, Taylor has been betrayed for years on end by virtually everyone he has previously known or met in Europe which speaks volumes about the current ethical and moral state of humanity.

22. HOMELESS TRAVELER
Because the story of Jesus Christ is in essence the story of the coming Messiah, the coincidences between the story of Jesus and that of David Chase Taylor are eerily similar. Similar to Jesus, Taylor has been homeless in Europe since 2014. In Arabic, the word al-Masi? is the name for the Messiah which literally means “the anointed”, “the traveler”, or the “one who cures by caressing”. In other words, Jesus moved around a lot. Needless to say, the reason for the Messiah’s travels is that he is desperately trying to avoid assassination by the Roman Empire which he is trying to destroy, never staying in one location for too long. Taylor has been forced to travel across Germany and Switzerland since 2014, staying in over 1,000 different locations, mostly just for one night. Although only conjecture, the cumulative total distance incurred by Taylor during his travels is likely over 100,000 miles (160,000 kilometers).

23. DIVINE PROTECTION
Because the story of Jesus Christ is in essence the story of the coming Messiah, the official Greco-Roman narrative is that the Messiah is crucified by the Jews which is why the instrument of Jesus’ death is the Swiss cross for it’s a symbolic tribute to the Greco-Roman Empire’s future blood sacrifice of the Messiah by the Geneva-based CIA. Unlike Jesus however, Taylor had gone on to live way past the age of 33 as he continues to save the World under the divine protection of the Creator. Despite avoiding and foiling over 1,000 assassination and arrest plots, Taylor is still being hunted to this very day by the Swiss CIA. The term “Mahdi” literally means “guided by God” which implies that the Messiah is an individual who has been ordained and guided by God to usher in the Messianic Age. That being said, it is imperative to note that the Messiah is just a man who just happens to have a special relationship with God which any other Earthling can have if they so choose.

24. BEARING THE SWISS CROSS
Similar to how Jesus Christ was forced to carry his cross through the streets of Jerusalem, David Chase Taylor has been forced to carry his luggage and/or pull his shopping cart though Europe for almost 4-years now, never being allowed to store his belongings lest the CIA place drugs, explosives or weapons-related paraphernalia inside in order to frame him which they have repeatedly tried to do. Aside from the physical tribulations that Taylor has been forced to endure since 2011, Taylor has published roughly 50,000 Truther.org reports over the last 5-years in a desperate attempt to stave off World War III. Tasked with keeping the World safe, one mistake or miscalculation could result in millions being killed, an awesome responsibility to be sure. Taylor has also been forced to bear the cross, the Swiss Cross, whose CIA has been hunting him day and night since 2011. Similar to how Jesus Christ endured political persecution by Ponchos Pilot and the Roman State, David Chase Taylor has been persecuted beyond measure for years on end by repeatedly being denied: a) gainful employment, b) unemployment benefits, c) health care, d) dental care, e) housing, f) food, and g) shelter. Not only that, Taylor was denied his right under international law to an attorney and the right apply for political asylum in Switzerland. In short, after filling out an official political asylum application on July 17, 2015, the Swiss government decided his case within 24-hours without ever looking at one piece of evidence in Taylor’s case. The Swiss government stated that Taylor’s case did not warrant asylum because he already applied back in 2011 when he originally inquired about political asylum in Switzerland. If the evidence in Taylor’s case was ever submitted in a Swiss court of law, Switzerland would be legally forced to act, likely resulting in international scandal of epic proportions. Needless to say, that could not be allowed to happen under any circumstance.

25. EXPOSING THE EVILS OF BANKING
The Holy Bible states in John 2:15 that “And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables”. Like Jesus Christ before him, David Chase Taylor exposed the evils of the World banking system. In the Truther.org report entitled “10 Reasons Why Switzerland is Home of the CIA“, Taylor reveals that the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, Switzerland is the financial backbone of the CIA, secretly funding its nefarious operations around the World. Admittedly “the World’s oldest international financial organization”, the BIS funds 60 central banks (e.g., Bank of China, Bank of England, Federal Reserve Bank, etc.), which collectively make up 95% of the World’s GDP (gross domestic product). Although the BIS bills itself as an international organization of central banks which attempts “to foster international cooperation in those areas and to act as a bank for central banks“, it is solely responsible for orchestrating the World’s financial crises si

Stephanie Relfe #conspiracy metatech.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

———–

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

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

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


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


HOW I STOPPED MY SCREAMING NIGHTMARES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CERN-sanksrit2

CERN-sanskrit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

————–

Update – 6/17/15

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

We are also waking up with more energy.

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

Update – 1/4/16 –

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

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

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

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

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

——-

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

1) According to Japanese Legend,

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on a forum:

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

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

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

… I guess they meant demons…”

4) Alice in Wonderland.

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

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

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

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

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

mirror-mickey-mouse

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

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

5) Astral projection practitioners get stuck in mirrors.

Posted on a forum:

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

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

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

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

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

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

8) Jews cover up mirrors after death.

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

9) Demons seen in mirrors.

Comment on a forum:

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

10) Full length mirrors are too cheap.

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

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

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

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

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

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

————–

Final Comment

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

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

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

Mark McGee #fundie faithandselfdefense.com

What’s up with so many people ‘leaving the faith’? Why are they doing it?

First, we need to define two terms:

What does it mean to ‘leave’ something or someone?

What does it mean to leave ‘the faith?’

I understand walking away from a weak belief in something, but ‘leaving the faith?’ That’s hard to fathom for several reasons.

Leaving

Primary definitions for the word ‘leave’ include: ‘go away from; to go out of or away from, as a place; to depart from permanently; quit.’

In each of these primary definitions we see the idea of leaving a place where we had been. If someone told you that they had ‘left’ Philadelphia this morning, you would understand them to mean that they had been in Philadelphia for some period of time before leaving the city to travel to another place. By definition, a person who ‘leaves’ something or somewhere has to have physically had something or been present somewhere before they would be able ‘leave’ that something or somewhere.

What people are claiming to be leaving in our context is both a something and a Someone. By definition they would be claiming to leave something they had been present in for some time and Someone they had known personally.
The Faith

Primary definitions for ‘the faith’ include: ‘complete trust or confidence in someone or something; belief in God or in a set of religious doctrines.”

The ‘faith’ that many people are claiming to ‘leave’ is known as the ‘Christian faith.’ That’s the complete trust or confidence in Jesus Christ and the claims He has made about Himself.

People who follow the ‘Christian faith’ are known as ‘disciples’ or ‘followers’ of Jesus Christ. Claiming to have been a member of the Christian ‘faith’ would imply they had joined according to membership guidelines determined by the Founder.
[...]
Given all that the New Testament teaches about what it means to be a true ‘follower’ of Jesus Christ, I need to ask a question: REALLY? True followers of Jesus Christ are ‘leaving the faith?’ People who have bowed their knee to the Lord Jesus Christ in true humility and repentance are ‘leaving the faith?’ People who have known the depth of God’s love and mercy for their soul and had full confidence in the truth of God’s Word are ‘leaving the faith?’ People who have seen the life-changing power of the Gospel in their own lives are ‘leaving the faith? People who have been involved in sharing the love of Jesus Christ with others and have seen the Holy Spirit change lives through the power of the Gospel of Christ are ‘leaving the faith?’ Really?
[...]
I seriously question how many of the people claiming to ‘leave the faith’ today were actually ‘in the faith.’ Most of the ‘former Christians’ I’ve talked to and those whose stories I’ve read, talk about Christianity in an ‘experiential’ way. I’ve heard stories about how they began attending churches or youth groups or campus groups because of friendships with people in those groups or because they were attracted to someone in a group. When relationships changed or when they were challenged about what they believed, they ‘left.’ Even more young people ‘leaving’ the faith grew up in churches and, like me, stop attending church during or after high school. Many, like me, were never really ‘in’ the faith, so their leaving the church doesn’t seem to apply to the meaning atheists and other non-Christians are giving to people leaving churches. Leaving a church or youth group is NOT the same thing as ‘leaving the faith.’

So, what do we do about this? I suggest we do everything we can to help people who claim to have ‘left’ the faith. Love them and offer to discuss their reasons for leaving with ‘truth and reason’ (Acts 26:25) 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).

We also need to do a better job of preparing children and teens in our churches to face the challenges from unbelievers they will meet during their lifetime. If a child trained in a martial arts class for 18 years, I would expect them to have a Black Belt and be able to defend themselves and others against personal attack. If they couldn’t, I would seriously question the teaching abilities of the instructors in that class. If a child trained in a church for 18 years, I would expect them to be a strong follower of Jesus Christ and be able to defend themselves and others against spiritual attack. If they couldn’t, I would seriously question the teaching abilities of the instructors in that church. Does that sound reasonable?

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.

Mark Jones #fundie markjones1388.esy.es

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We Need To Read Into A Bit Of History:

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

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

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

...

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

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

...

Little Bit:

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

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

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

In Closing:

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

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

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

All the best,
Mark

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.

Various commenters #sexist #wingnut reddit.com

(Aug415)

In case anyone was wondering what they teach in our schools today. Taught that men don’t experience sexism today.

image

A photo of a paper entitled “Web of unequal power relations”, defining various types of prejudice and who they target

In my sociology class, the professor (who was a woman of color) taught us that not only are women the only victims of sexism, but also that people of color are the only victims of racism. She got in front of the class and said that "black people cannot be racist, only white people can be racist because they have all the power".

I was the only white person in the class and I felt so attacked.

Honestly what is wrong with education these days

My school is around 65-70% Asian. I’ve seen white classmates be harassed because of their race, and there’s nothing they can do about it. If an Asian student calls a white student “the next school shooter”, everyone laughs, and if the white kid were to reply “shut up dog eater” or some other racial stereotype, they’d be sent to the principal’s office. White students also weren’t allowed to make any European cultural groups, because apparently that would be racist. So while there’s a Black Student Union, Latinos Unidos, and 3 separate Asian clubs, the Italian and German clubs were not allowed to be made. People also act like white people still hold the power at the school, despite the student union being 100% Asian, and the school staff being majority ‘people of color’.

I am Hispanic and I hate the fact that people says that "white" people can't suffer from racism, just because you are the majority doesn't means that people can't attack you just because you are white, I have seen how being white has become in a meme of offensive "jokes" and how easy it is to say "fuck white people" and "white people be like" (follows by something humiliating).

Hispanic isn’t a race, but I agree.

(furry8)

Imagine the influence of feminism in Canada which has rached to the extent that they have been given enough power to brainwash children from young to make men live inferior life than women. More boys will turn to white knights, resort to alcohol and drugs to supress their emotions because they are made to think how masculinity is a problem.

Then people say feminism represents minority group when in reality most of the people are not against their practises.

I think you have hit the nail on the head when you say it brainwashes men throughout their lives.

Historically beautiful women could enchant men and live a very privileged existence- she receives beneficial treatment from every interaction she has with men. (my ex girlfriend would always get a discount when her car was serviced etc)

This is why we see the very ugly women fighting so hard for feminism - they always wanted the benefits of being beautiful. This is why stealing men's work comes naturally to her. Due to western governments : Now even the ugly women can get beneficial treatment.

It clearly sucks to be a poor Canadian guy. But what I have also noticed - Beautiful women are losing out due to feminism! (rarely) some of them will complain about it. E.g. we see guys who won't stop when a woman's car has broken down since they have been shown to make false allegations.

Of course, the ugly women are ecstatic about feminism.... They are the only beneficiaries

(LawUntoChaos)

Wow straight white men are just the fucking worst aren't they?

They never have anyone discriminate against them for their gender, skin color, or sexual orientation LOL fucking losers.

arrested development theme plays

Ironic isn't it, this document is an example of discrimination against men but due to the magical patriarchy it somehow doesn't count because they are so advantaged in today's society. It's not like there's large swaths of boys being left behind in school or a whole host of male victims being ignored. No, that's just completely ridiculous...

No, every male is either holding the reigns of power in a patriarchal system who has only been gifted their power by the grace of society's gendered norms (not through their own merit), how dare they hold women and minorities back! Or... They're an incel, neck beard, and their suffering is somehow their fault. Why aren't they good enough for women?! Even though Patriarchy hurts men too but you better not talk about it because you're taking away from the actual oppressed groups. Who cares about a whole generation of disillusioned and demoralised children. Nah! What's important is people's personal values and who we decide is worthy of empathy based on...

My own morally righteous assumption and a belief structure (where like everyone else, I'm making it up as I go along) that I demand you take as fact. Otherwise you are sexist/racist. If you point out my contradictions, it also means you are sexist/racist. If you talk out of turn, you disgusting white male oppressor, you are a sexist/racist. What's that? No, of course, you can't fucking win. You are a disgusting sub human filth who isn't allowed to have their oppressive opinion.

(Elfere)

Yeah... I posted once about how I was a straight white catholic married guy and that I'm proud of all those things.

Holy shit.

The amount of pure hate thrown my way... Some from people who call me a 'friend'

But it doesn't matter because, well, I'm a straight married white catholic. So therefore I've never once experienced any kind of discrimination.

Oh. And despite the fact thay all my ansectors were peasants. I'm clearly directly responsible for all slavery and religious intolerance in the history of the world.

(notacrackheadofficer)

I'm not even a Bernie fan , but that guy got played hard because so many people wanted a woman president. Women were much more interested in the war monging , rape defending, drunken cunt Hilary than him. They openly bragged their gender preference as their basis for choosing her.

(iainmf)

This seems to have come from the shift from discussing 'disadvantage' to 'privilege'.

Some research shows that if you have strong beliefs about privilege than you are less empathic to the privileged people. There was a study where they tested peoples change in attitudes after a class on white privilege and they found that rather than being more empathic to poor black people they students became less empathic to poor white people. Another study found that people who believed strongly in male privilege much more sceptical of research that showed sex differences which benefit men (ie a study that showed men were better at X). Also, a study of the trolley dilemma found that feminists were more likely to sacrifice men than the general population. It's reasonable to assume feminists believe in male privilege.

All this leads me to believe that the result of the change in the language you mentioned will be the dehumanisation of privileged groups. It possible that something like this was the intention behind the change in language based on the misguided belief that it will help the oppressed.

(CJPsalm139)

How is this not blatant propaganda to literally ANYONE?! It's literally racist, sexist, (not sure if this is a real word but it's the closest I can get) religiophobic, and all around terrible.

(littlefilms)

I'm Asian and I've been told that only white people can be racist which just feels patronising imo. First off what is the definition of racism? I always assumed it's the ignorant assumption that your race is superior than others?

So for them to say only white people can be racist, is ironically them admitting how they see white people compared to everyone else, they're basically saying only white people can realistically see themselves as superior compared to black people and it be offensive. If a white person thought they were genetically superior to a black person, I'm sure these people would see it as racist, but if a black person thought they were genetically superior, being taller/bigger, stronger, faster, well endowed, nice ass instead of a flat chicken butt etc, that's not racist? Ironically these people sound like the racists they are condemning e.g:

"only white people can be racist, because only white people can realistically think they're better than everyone, no one could possibly think a black person is superior, come on look at them they're black. Every single white person loves being white where as no one could possibly feel superior being black, what can black people be proud of? Nothing"

(robcars)

Yeah that's like saying there's no such thing as reverse discrimination. It happens all the time. I have worked at a hospital that was mostly women and they were always mean to the man and said oh you're a man you can do that you're a man you can do this. I always thought you can do the worst jobs. I started to go to nursing school and experienced excessive bias. This was even in California. The women teachers did not like men. I also had a problem with one lesbian nurse in college that was an instructor. She said men should not be doing this kind of work this is Woman's Work and men are taking good jobs from women. I complain to the dean but it did no good because she had a high pass rate on the exam. Finally I just had to drop out. Is really caused me to have a great hatred towards women. And a lack of respect towards most of them.

(topsyandpip56)

That is applied Marxism. Omg I got to live long enough to see disguised marxism taught in schools in United States.

You can find a word for anything you don;t like and say is oppression.

Precisely this. The west was warned multiple times during the cold war and long before that foreign subversion especially in relation to social justice matters would be used to install far leftist governments. This nonsense coupled with the growing influence of China on businesses is the result of ignoring the warnings or being a useful idiot.

(Jyvur_Entropy)

Yeah :/ I majored in Creative Writing and English Lit. You'd think there wouldn't be a TON of SJW talk, maybe some in works that deal with gender and race. Nah, I feel like I got a freaking gender theory degree. Every class delves into colonialism, intersectionality and such.

Higher ed also sends white women a lot of mixed messages about where they fit into this whole web of oppression. In one class, I learn that I'm so damn privileged I've got nothing to complain about. In other, I'm told that women are the 'subalterns of white people' and that, white women are also colonized, but by their husbands and fathers.

Eck. I'm sick of it all. I just wanted to talk about books! :(

(BonelessSkinless)

"I won't date you if you're not tall enough"

"I can hit you, cut you, scratch you and spit on you and you can't hit back. The second you do, I'll cry enact my double standard pussy pass power and have you arrested"

"If you're not making upwards of 70-90k a year don't talk to me. Money, money, me, me, me, money"

"Guys don't get insecure, just shut up you'll like it, you're a guy right you should feel honored to get with me"

"Your clothes aren't brand name and you don't have this whole list of qualities I want so goodbye"

"You have to pay for every meal, bill, expense and anything that comes up and I MIGHT look at your dick for 4 minutes on the weekend and I said MIGHT and that's if you clean the kitchen and give me 2 footrubs after your 12 hour shift"

You're right, we don't experience strife or sexism, silly me.

Eivind Berge #sexist eivindberge.blogspot.com

Reasons why people believe in the female sex offender charade

Whatever their reasons, people do not believe that women can sexually abuse because it is true. As I have resoundingly pointed out, it is logically impossible, given the core beliefs and values that I hold, for women to sexually abuse boys. In this post I will examine possible reason for why people believe, or say they believe that women can be sexual abusers despite the obvious falsehood of this proposition.

- Virtue signaling. Now that it is established as politically correct to believe in female-perpetrated sexual abuse, that in itself will make a lot of people say it just because it increases their status. It is a classic case of the emperor's new clothes -- social status counts more than perceptions and one tends to say what powerful people want to hear.

- It follows from other strongly held beliefs. I am thinking of feminists who posit that the sexes are equal, which is how we got into this mess. Once it is axiomatic to you that there cannot be any sex differences, women must be able to do everything men can no matter how absurd, and so female sexual acts must be equivalent to male abuse despite no one ever feeling it. This is similar to how some physicists feel compelled to believe in the multiverse. Neither phenomenon can ever be observed, but one must believe in it for the sake of consistency.

- Projection. Women project their own sexual feelings (or lack of them) onto males, honestly not realizing how different we are. Notice that women are by far the most vociferous proponents of the female sex offender charade, as well as inventing it, and we often hear that "abuse" was accused only because a boy's mother egged him on. Men used to keep such lunacy in check, and it can thus be seen as a nasty side effect of giving women too much political power.

- Their paycheck depends on it. Is a policeman, prosecutor, judge, school administrator, therapist or journalist going to go with his instincts, which if expressed will get him instantly fired, or what brings home the bacon and furthers his career? The choice is dishonorable, but understandable. These figures will almost always follow the profits. The same goes for accusers and their families who stand to gain from suing the school etc., in which case greed is the proper name of the sin.

- Thoughtlessness and going with the flow. I know I am special because I have thought and read extensively about sexual abuse, and there are doubtless people who give it little thought. I am sure I hold irrational beliefs on some other subjects myself, perhaps some of them equally ridiculous as the assertion that women can sexually abuse boys. But I wouldn't know, because I don't examine these views critically, and there isn't enough time in anybody's life to think critically and research the facts about everything. This is probably the most excusable excuse, but it can't remain excusable for long if you are made to think about the topic.

- Socially acceptable misogyny. To label a woman as "sex offender" is to declare open season for any hate anyone wishes to heap on her, and this being the sole remaining politically correct way to hate women, naturally it will attract misogynists. This hate is so strong in some men that they will pathetically deny their own sexual nature as boys in favor of claiming abuse, and this applies to accusers as well as bystanders. Thus you have grown men spouting the lie that they didn't want to have sex with their female teachers in school, or that they were "abused" if they did. I am willing to accept that their hate is stronger than their sex drive, but they were most assuredly not abused, because that would require a consensus reality in which I could intuitively partake and not just a false and self-serving belief. This doesn't even have to be misogyny, but the same kind of misanthropic malice that causes a person to jump on the bandwagon and participate in any old witch-hunt or lynching. Vigilante pedophile hunters are cut from this cloth.

Insofar as people believe in the myth that women can be sexual abusers, how do they justify it to themselves?

- The aversive experience delusion. We all know that boys want sex, but somehow, for the purposes of expressing an opinion on female "abusers," this knowledge is blocked out and replaced with the message promulgated by the theatrics of feminist abuse hysteria. They may be laboring under the delusion that "children" are asexual, never mind their own memory to the contrary. And the "teacher or similar status = abusive power differential" myth is a powerful destroyer of common sense. All it takes is a mumbo-jumbo explanation like that and a lot of people's minds go blank and ready to be filled with whatever authority tells them. This is similar to how the "rape is about power rather than sex" canard got established. It sounds like a sophisticated thing to say, so having heard it all his life from intelligent-sounding people, the man in the street will parrot it even though it bears zero resemblance to how he feels his own sexuality works.

- The more pseudo-sophisticated explanations. Some true believers will admit that boys go through all the motions and feelings of wanting and enjoying sex, but then all this is somehow made irrelevant by a metaphysical layer that still makes it abuse. Or it is believed that some kind of "trauma" will surface later. Of course this is gibberish unless you go out of your way to brainwash boys into thinking they have been abused -- which is to say actually abusing them -- but it is an explanation for how these dimwitted minds work.

- Misguided equality or an MRA tactic. Some men understand that the female sex offender charade is completely or mostly nonsense, but they want to punish these women anyway just to be "equal" or get even or convince women that the hateful sex laws were a bad idea (which never happens). This belief is common among men who have partially opened their eyes to the abuses of feminism, including a lot of self-styled "MRAs," but of course they are no such thing.

- The irrelevant harm theory. This is also common among "MRAs," who will want to punish women not for sex itself, which they know is harmless, but consequences such as child support. They may have a point, but this should be dealt with by reforming child support laws rather than pretending that women can rape or sexually abuse boys. Apparently they lack the imagination to do anything but go along with the feminists on 99% of issues.

If you look at the comment section below any news article about supposed female sexual abusers, wherever comments are unmoderated, it is always teeming with men who express disbelief that it can be abuse or say they wish they had been so lucky themselves. So this is one issue where male sexualists are decidedly not alone. I would say we represent the true majority, but those who promote the female sex offender charade wield disproportionate power, enough to make it the law of the land for now. This is a horribly wrong situation that we need to change, gentlemen. As male sexualist activists we must never forget to stand up for women accused of sexual abuse as well, because we know this charade is every bit as absurd and odious as any historical witch-hunt and even more troubling than the hateful persecution we face ourselves.

Clint Loveness #fundie pepperdineevolution.weebly.com

PEPPERDINE EVOLUTION
Picture
How many students will lose their faith because of the theory of Marco Evolution?

Clint Loveness
Video Producer at Bluefish TV
Founder of www.ProvetheBible.com

My name is Clint Loveness, a 2007 Pepperdine alumnus. I am concerned about the theistic evolution classes that were taught at the Pepperdine Lectureships this past spring. I want to share a little bit of my story in an effort to communicate why this is an important issue to me. My brother and I grew up going to church our whole lives: we were leaders in the youth group and my brother even preached some sermons at our church. About five years ago, I realized that my brother stopped going to church while he was going to Pepperdine; later on, I found out that he had doubts about the Bible. One of the questions "out of many others" that he struggled with was with the topic of evolution and the idea that everything took millions of years to become what it is now. He came back from Pepperdine with a post-modern worldview. My brother would have been the last person that I would have imagined losing his faith, and I was very shocked to hear my brother doubting that Jesus was the Son of God; I became more and more grieved because he got to the point where he could not talk about God without getting upset. I started to seek counsel from my minister and my church, and I read the book called The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. It introduced me to the branch of study know as apologetics, the definition of which is having the ability to defend the Christian faith with logical, persuasive reasons regarding why the Bible is true. After I read that book, my most pressing thought was, “Why was I not taught any of this before?" This changed my whole life because I learned about all of the evidence that supports the Bible. In the past I was shy to share my faith because I was intimidated by not having all of the answers. But studying apologetics gave me a new excitement to talk with strangers and atheists about my faith because I can give them intelligent reasons to believe the claims of Christianity, and I can use logic to explain why the Bible is true. Inspired by my passion for apologetics and the defense of my faith, I made a website called ProvetheBible.com to help people like my brother obtain answers to their hard questions.

At the Lectureships they mentioned that there is a shortage of preachers because the younger generation is not interested in the church. I believe that one reason for this lack of interest is that we are not teaching them how to personally defend their faith. I was excited to hear that Jeff Walling will be working at Pepperdine to train future preachers. I enjoyed his class on apologetics called "Faith in a Post-Christian World: Is it stupid to still Believe?” This was an outstanding class on defending the faith and I believe we need to teach more classes like that giving us reasons to believe in a culture that is very postmodern.

I was surprised that the Bible lectureships hosted so many classes on theistic evolution, which is very controversial in Christian circles. There were a total of six classes taught by these Pepperdine professors: Chris Doran, Chris Heard, Rodney Honeycutt, Jeanine Thweatt-Bates and Donna Nofziger. Theistic evolution is dangerous because it forces you to compromise scripture, which I will show you by sharing some examples. Chris Doran and Chris Heard said that they did not believe in a literal Adam or Eve.

After the class Tim Brinley and I both asked Chris Heard, an Old Testament Bible professor at Pepperdine, if Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Noah, and the world wide flood were literal events; my mouth dropped open when he said, "No, they were not real people or events." Right then and there, I realized that it’s no wonder that people like my brother do not believe the Bible anymore when their own Bible professors refuse to believe that the book of Genesis is a literal, historical account. Chris Heard also stated that he believes that the first historical person started with Abraham; this means he is skipping nineteen generations of people that are an important part of Christ's genealogy. Jesus quotes Noah as being a true event, so for Chris Heard to NOT take it literally is to doubt the words of Jesus, which puts the entire foundation of Christianity on a shaky basis!

In addition to my shocking encounter with Professor Heard, I met another student who doubted the Bible’s trustworthiness. When I asked him about the reasons for his doubts, he said that some elders at the Conejo Church of Christ did not take Genesis literally; because of them, he said he couldn’t trust the rest of the Bible. Those elders were Pepperdine professors. If we don't believe Genesis—the foundational book of our world’s entire history—we start doubting the rest of the Bible, and when that happens, our entire Christian foundation becomes extremely unstable.

According to many recent statistics, 75% of students leave the faith when they reach college. Why is this the case? I love the church, but the church teaches people what to believe instead of the reasons why they should believe it. If we teach critical thinking skills to our students, presenting them with both sides of a particular argument or worldview, they can then compare different worldviews and thereby strengthen and develop their own faith, which is something that I believe will help them want to evangelize and share their faith with others. As things stand right now, however, I feel that Pepperdine is forcing students to only hear one worldview, that of theistic evolution, and they are being narrow-minded by refusing to teach the facts supporting creationism or the flaws of evolution, of which there are many. Once the word gets out that Pepperdine is essentially indoctrinating students with theistic evolution, this will potentially divide Christians and stop students from coming to a school that is teaching these decidedly unbiblical, faulty views. Most Christians believe in creationism and will, quite possibly, be highly offended when they hear about what these new professors are teaching the students. I believe the solution to this potential division is to teach both creationism and evolution just as they are, and let the students make up their own minds. I believe that instead of teaching students why we HAVE to believe in evolution, we need to also offer more classes on apologetics to teach us why we can trust the Bible by examining fulfilled prophecy, archaeology, early manuscripts, reading outside secular historians that confirm the Biblical accounts, etc. As an example of the kinds of classes and materials I’m suggesting, you can find my top ten list on why we can trust the Bible by clicking on this link. For the sake of students’ belief in the validity of Christianity, we should be more worried about students learning this type of information rather than simply cramming the unscientific, faulty teachings of evolution down their throats.

I believe you will see that macroevolution is the doorway to atheism. We absolutely cannot compromise when it comes to teaching the credibility of God’s Word, because intelligent people like my brother know that evolution goes against the Bible and you cannot mix the Bible and the teachings of evolution without compromising. For example, Exodus 20:11 is one of the places in the Bible that describes the Ten Commandments; in the middle of listing the Commandments, it says that God made all of creation in six days and rested on the seventh, and God uses that as an example for our workweek. However, if you do not believe the verse about God creating all of creation in six literal days, why should you believe the rest of that same Chapter when it describes the Ten Commandments? Does that mean we should think that God was wrong about the Commandments too?

Matt Marriott #conspiracy illuminati-fake-deaths.blogspot.co.uk

Lady Gaga, Amy Winehouse and Peaches Geldof are all played by the same actress.

Lady Gaga, first illuminati pop icon with two staged deaths.
First death as Amy Winehouse, 11 weeks after Osama Bin Laden.
Second death as Peaches Geldof days before Osama Bin Laden resurrects on the third year attached to a Boeing 777 from the Indian Ocean, to be immediately after crucified as Obama.

Now you know what these kind of illuminati jokes are about:
- Amy Winehouse and Peaches Geldof share the same drugs dealer in 2008 and share same final words 2011 and 2014.
- Peaches Geldolf on Lady Gaga, 2013: "Don't even say the word. People should be asking her about me."

Notes
In 2008, however, it emerged that she had been filmed handing £190 in cash to a man who had also allegedly supplied drugs to Amy Winehouse, and commenting:
"I'm going to need Valium tomorrow after this." She was interviewed by police but not arrested.
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2...-showbiz-glare
Tweeting to the end: Peaches Geldof, Amy Winehouse and Alexander McQueen share final words
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...re-final-words

Peaches on being Peaches
19 April 2013 1 The Guardian: If there's one question you don't want me to ask you about Lady Gaga, what is it?
"Don't even say the word. People should be asking her about me."
http://www.theguardian.com/music/201...-being-peaches

Actresses playing Peaches and Pixie Geldof are as much sisters as actress playing Jared Leto and "his" brother (or siblings for that matter) at the very last Oscars, 2014.
Peaches with the fake sister and herself as Lady Gaga

BASICS
Death of Amy Winehouse alias Lady Gaga = illuminati joke about death of Osama Bin Laden alias Hussein Obama II
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?p=1139634

Refusal to acknowledge the cast from top to pop: From same actor in different roles to impersonaters.
From Lady Gaga alias Amy Winehouse alias one of the two actresses playing Peaches Geldof to impostor impersonating murdered Putin.
http://human-cattle.blogspot.com/2013/06/refusal-to-acknowledge-cast-from-top-to.html

Actress playing Jared Leto and "his" brother at the very last Oscars, 2014.
You live in the Truman world. Although the show is being terminated you refuse to leave the room.
After reading this, Ellen Degenerated 's suggestion that Liza Minelli is a travesti will become clear.
http://end-of-show.blogspot.com/2014...-by-paris.html

How do the the winged numbers, 777 (airplane) and 370 (flight), connect to the OTO (Ordo Templi Orientis) "tattoo" on Peaches Geldof's arm?
Illuminati celebrate BIG BANG with Aleister Crowley's winged writings
http://satanic-celebrations.blogspot.com/2014/04/aleister-crowley-in-illuminati-big-bang.html

Jerusalem, 2014: Carbon Copy of 911 2001: Obama Bin Laden resurrects from an ocean of discrepancies.
It wii be staged exactly like 911: while the official story will have "Osama Bin Laden" as perpetrator plenty of "discrepancies" will leave no doubt that it was an inside job.
http://911-for-dummies.blogspot.com/...ver-up-of.html

Tom Carder #fundie capalert.com

"You Make All Christians Look Bad."

It is not people like me who make Christians look bad; who drive people away from Jesus. It is people who situationally(SIC) redefine, counterfeit and conditionally apply His Word to suit cultural tolerances, convenience "interpretations" and moral relativity who PULL people away from Christ: people who think they are wiser than God and feel they can comfortably reject some of His Word because they embrace some; people who so pitifully soften, cheapen, distort and weaken His Word and change it into lies and superficial "truths"; people who cause the ones who walk away to expect practicing the Christian faith to be something it is not. Then, when the seekers are confronted with the Truth BY HIS WORD they can't handle it since His Word now gets in their way because of people who for so long have diluted the Truth to make it seem what it isn't by pabulum feeding the people with feel-good counterfeitings (SIC) which suit man with any adherence to His True Word being coincidental.

"You Should Be More Tolerant."

We will NOT situationally redefine or conditionally apply His Word to suit modern ethics, social engineers, moral spinmeisters, false religions or even to avoid invading the comfort zone of Christians. We love you too much to feed you lies and less-than-truths. It is people who do who pull people away from the CHRIST of Christianity. Practicing the Christian faith and what is expected of it is being very intolerant ... of sin ... even our own by HIS Word, not your word or mine, by embracing the sinner but not embracing the sin; by helping the sinner, even ourselves, out of bondage to the sin by loving him/her enough to TELL THE TRUTH, not in a vindictive look-down-your-nose fashion but in a compassionate way.

Tolerance, eh? On Judgment Day, Jesus will send the unforgiven sinner into the fiery pits of Hell in a heartbeat. Now that is intolerance. Of sin. And Righteously so. He further will not excuse any sin. For example, Jesus forgave the prostitute of her sin but did not excuse the sin -- He did NOT forgive prostitution, He forgave the prostitute of it. Jesus did not argue the judgment nor did He argue the law. He argued our authority to execute the woman. Prostitution is just as sinful now, after Jesus forgave the prostitute of it, as it was before He forgave her. He even reminded her of the sin by telling her to go and sin no more. He will forgive us all our sins if we are humble enough to ask, but He will not excuse any sin. All behavior which is sinful before forgiveness is still sinful after forgiveness. More intolerance. And righteously so.

"Tolerance" has probably become the most abused word in the English language. There is nothing wrong with being tolerant if tolerance is being shown righteously. We must not be tolerant of sin. Even our own. We must not embrace the sin as we embrace the sinner. We do not have to "accept" the sin to accept the sinner. We do not have to participate in or encourage the sin to "reach" the sinner. To do so is to cause the sinner to sin which is a sin on ourselves. Not in one single case did Jesus ever participate in or even encourage our participation in a sin to teach us of it and its consequences.


It is not people like me who tell His Truth undiluted and unmasked by modern man's alterations and distillations of it who drive people away from Jesus. It is people who offer self-serving counterfeitings of His Word to suit alternative interests, political correctness or modern morality who DRAW some people away from Jesus when confronted with the complete Truth [Acts 20:30 "Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them"]. It is people who conveniently modify His Word, people who set His Word aside when it gets in their way who PULL people away from Christianity. The victims of such deceit are so conditioned by the narcotic effect of a "mamma's milk" Spiritual diet that when they get a Spiritual "solid food" meal by His Word they can't handle it. People can Spiritually survive on a "cake-n-ice cream" diet only so long. Sooner or later they must have "meat-n-veggies." That is what we serve.

It is not people like me who tell His Truth undiluted and unmasked by modern man's alterations and distillations of it who drive people away from Jesus. It is people who offer self-serving counterfeitings of His Word to suit alternative interests, political correctness or modern morality who DRAW some people away from Jesus when confronted with the complete Truth [Acts 20:30 "Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them"]. It is people who conveniently modify His Word, people who set His Word aside when it gets in their way who PULL people away from Christianity. The victims of such deceit are so conditioned by the narcotic effect of a "mamma's milk" Spiritual diet that when they get a Spiritual "solid food" meal by His Word they can't handle it. People can Spiritually survive on a "cake-n-ice cream" diet only so long. Sooner or later they must have "meat-n-veggies." That is what we serve.

Our gentle and loving and compassionate Jesus is One of finality who will say "I never knew you" without batting an eye on Judgment Day to those who have not accepted Him as Lord and Savior. That is certainly intolerance, of sin, to which He is righteously entitled. The point here is that while Jesus provided teachings of Salvation and of gentleness and compassion and indeed wants us to be gentle and compassionate as was He, Jesus also provided teachings of supreme finality and harshness for the arrogant and haughty. Righteously so. He taught of Hell which so many well-meaning men of the pulpit seem to avoid. All must know this because to say to Him on Judgment Day "But I thought...." or "So-n-so said..." or "Interpreted, that means......." or "I didn't believe..." will not buy another chance.

So, it is not people like me who tell His Word unbridled and unabridged who are driving people away from Christianity or Christ. It is the people who say we do who are.

A. A. Allen #fundie miraclevalley.net

The reason [that faith healing does not work] that stands out above all others is lack of faith. You may say, "I have faith. I know God is able to heal me. But why does He not do it?"

Do you believe He will heal you...now?

You say, "I hope He will. I know God does heal today. I've been to Brother So-and-so's big meeting and seen hundreds healed. But when he laid his hands on me I didn't get healed."

What you have is not faith - it is hope. You hope to be healed. You have knowledge ? you know God is able to heal and does heal. You believe what you have seen, but you do not have faith. Faith is believing what you have not seen, simply because God says it is so (see Hebrews 11:1). If you had faith, you would have already been healed.

A dear sister came to me with a deaf ear. She had been deaf in that ear for many years. She said, "I don't see why I don't get healed. I have as much faith as anyone. I have all the faith in the world." I carefully explained to her that if she had real, living faith to that extent, it would be impossible for her to remain deaf, because real faith works. Faith without works {faith that doesn't work) is dead (James 2:20). Real faith is guaranteed to bring results, for God is faithful to His promises. When she recognized that she was lacking in faith, she humbly asked God to forgive her for doubting Him and to help her unbelief. Immediately, her ear was unstopped.

Robert P. George #fundie thepublicdiscourse.com

Could America Survive without Religion?

Can freedom survive in a society in which most citizens believe that human beings, who are supposed to have inalienable rights, are merely material beings inhabiting a universe of purely material and efficient causality?

virtue is one cultural condition of freedom, and it is necessary to the establishment and preservation of freedom’s other cultural conditions. Beyond that, there are other social goods—essential aspects of the common good of any political society—that require virtue among the people. When freedom degenerates into what the Founders called “license”—a counterfeit of true freedom—these goods, too, are placed in grave peril.

All of this may be common sense, but it was a sense that was by no means common when Adams and his fellow Founders launched what they themselves understood to be an “experiment” in republican government and ordered liberty. And it is a common sense that, as the conditions of contemporary intellectual life have made all too clear, can be forgotten. Indeed, it is a common sense that can be derided and mocked by people who regard themselves as too worldly, sophisticated, and enlightened to believe in things like morality and virtue. So in the face of modern nihilism (sometimes, paradoxically, masquerading as the most high-minded moralism) the defense of Adams’s proposition takes on a kind of urgency.

Reason itself, and experience, teach us not to pin our hopes on virtue ungrounded in, or unsupported by, faith in God. Washington, like Adams, believed that reason, given man’s fallen condition, was a bit too uncertain a trumpet, and that human passions of the sort that compete with virtues and lead us into error and sin are too powerful for reason to reliably prevail over them.

Washington and Adams were, to be sure, men of the Enlightenment—believers in the power of reason. And their Constitution was one that would test whether “societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force,” to quote Hamilton’s famous line from the first Federalist Paper. What’s more, they certainly did not believe, as many ignorant people today seem to believe, that faith is the enemy of reason. But they did believe in the power and importance of faith and, indeed, in the harmony of faith and reason, when faith and reason are rightly understood.

adrian w #fundie answers.yahoo.com

scientist actually calculated from facts that there is a 69.7564^256th power percent possibility that God exists. these were atheist scientists too. they were trying to prove that God does not exist. so if they come up with the opposite result for trying to disprove God, those that try to prove it will get better results.

the whole thing about faith is this, "Seeing is not believing, believing is seeing."
this means that we would not believe just because we can see, we believe because we cannot see. you cannot see light, wind, gravity, or a magnetic field. yet you can see the effects of them. this is the same with God. you do not need to see God to know that he is there, you merely need to see the effects of his presence.

Bodie Hodge #fundie answersingenesis.org

(Ken Ham's son-in-law responds to Mr. C)

Dear Mr. C,

Thank you for commenting about the Nye Ham debate. Please see my comments below.

This is one proof you lost the debate.

But Mr. Ham didn’t lose the debate (and the gospel was spread to millions of people). Here is the simple reason why: Mr. Nye never addressed the debate topic, so how could someone win the debate if they never addressed the topic?

The debate topic was the following: “Is Creation a Viable Model of Origins in Today’s Modern, Scientific Era?”

Mr. Nye immediately changed the topic to address something else: “Does Ken Ham’s creation model hold up? Is it viable?”

What few realize is that in doing so, Mr. Nye also misrepresented Mr. Ham’s position by claiming Mr. Ham’s model was that natural law changed at the Flood, that Mr. Ham’s model was opposed to science, that Noah’s Ark was like a zoo, that Noah’s Ark held at least 14,000 animals but was supposed to have millions of species, the Bible (specifically Genesis) was written by men only (no God), we oppose scientific predictions, and the list continues. The point is that this false model was a straw man that Mr. Nye set up. In other words, he changed what the creation model really was and attacked a false version of it in the debate, and so he never really addressed the debate topic. And this was the case throughout the debate.

you couldn’t answer nye on your feet,

A few things here. First, with the debate format and time limits, you can’t answer everything. Mr. Nye used the “skeptical method” by the way, which is to throw out numerous arguments, true or false, and hope to deceive people into thinking he won.

The reason for doing this is simple. Many watching the debate will notice that Mr. Ham didn’t answer a particular question, and so it is assumed then that he can’t answer the question, hence viewers may misperceive that someone loses the debate on that account. But it works both ways: neither debater can answer everything they were presented with even in typical debate, let alone when one uses the skeptical method.

Mr. Nye admitted to using this method after the debate. Mr. Nye says the following of a misrepresentation of biblical creationist and debater Dr. Duane Gish:

He was infamous for jumping from one topic to another, introducing one spurious or specious fact or line of reasoning after another. A scientist debating Gish often got bogged down in details and, by all accounts, came across looking like the loser. It quickly occurred to me that I could do the same thing. . . . I did my best to slam Ken Ham with a great many scientific and common sense arguments. I believed he wouldn’t have the time or the focus to address many of them.1

Second, not answering something is not the same as losing a debate. Jesus never answered certain things at his trial, and even though they had Him put to death on the Cross, Christ won (Acts 8:32).

Third, Mr. Nye failed to answer the most basic tenets of debate from his worldview, such as why he thinks logic, reasoning, morality, truth, and knowledge exist in his materialistic worldview. For Mr. Nye to even argue against the biblical position would be to give up his worldview (which cannot account for the existence of logic and reason) and borrow from the truth of God’s Word. In other words, for him to even try to make a case meant he lost the debate! He never answered this after being asked repeatedly to do so.

[...]

more and more people are realizing just how intellectually bankrupt AiG is

Yet we are increasing in support each year. This is mere hand waving. Our mission is to proclaim the absolute authority of God Word. Why would any Christian think this is bankrupt?

—in fact, some people i know, fellow old earth creationists, are now dialoguing with a woman who wrote a book defending YEC [young earth creation]—using mostly AiG materials—and, in light of criticisms of atheists, has now become an atheist.

And I used to hold to some old-earth ideas promoted by Dr. Hugh Ross, but because I couldn’t hold to geological and astronomical evolution in light of God’s Word or to the idea that the order of creation was different, that the old-earth position was not tenable.

The issue was God vs. man’s ideas. The hope would be that this woman would realize that atheists can be wrong but God cannot be.

as long as ministries like AiG endure, we'll see more and more stories like this;

As long as ministries like RTB exist that mix Christianity with secular humanistic religious ideas like the supposed big bang and millions of years in Genesis, then there will always be a need to help people get back to the authority of God’s Word beginning in Genesis.

especially among young people—once they realize they've been lied to by YEC ministries, they almost inevitably reject the christian faith.

Stats from America’s Research Group show the exact opposite. It was hypocritical Christian leaders who taught things like an old earth, when the kids can read Genesis and not get millions of years out of it, that led to the majority of kids walking away. Please read Already Gone by Ken Ham and Britt Beemer for more about why two-thirds of young people are leaving the church by the time they reach college.

By the way, what lies do you claim we teach?

my prediction is that, within 50 yrs AiG will either become nonexistent or so irrelevant that is practically doesn't exist, or that it will morph into an old earth creationist ministry!

Only the Lord knows. We ask that people pray to keep the ministry of Answers in Genesis a solid biblical authority ministry for years to come. But your prophecy is marked (consider Deuteronomy 13).

for those of you questioning your faith after watching ken ham lose to bill nye,

First, Mr. Nye didn’t win because he never addressed the debate topic. For those deceived into thinking that Mr. Nye won even though he never addressed the debate topic, we invite you to read the Bible (you can get an overview with Begin) and realize that God is never wrong, but people can be. It is a matter of faith in either fallible, imperfect men about the past or a perfect, infallible God.

Meanwhile, we’ve been praising the Lord for the many testimonies of people whose faith has been strengthened after watching the debate.

i encourage you to log onto [the Reasons to Believe website] for real answers to science-faith issues!

For those reading, Reasons to Believe believes that the secular interpretations of nature are equal to Scripture. Often times, they are used to supersede the plain reading of the Bible, particularly in Genesis in favor of the secular world’s ideas like the big bang.

The president of RTB, Dr. Hugh Ross, has made the claim in his book Creation and Time that nature is likened unto the 67th book of the Bible and should be trusted as such.2 He has reiterated this. If you read the Charisma article by Andy Butcher, “He Sees God in the Stars” (June 2003), you’ll find that Ross still agrees with this principle of adding to Scripture. The principle can even be found in his more recent book A Matter of Days.

RTB also agrees with astronomical evolution (big bang) and geological evolution (millions of years), which are tenets of the religion of humanism. They also believe the Flood of Noah’s Day was local and not a global, world-covering event (see, for example, Genesis 7:19–20).

We want to encourage RTB to get back to the authority of the Bible from the very first verse. When we read the pages of Scripture, the whole creation is corrupted due to sin (e.g., Romans 8:22), the ground has been cursed (Genesis 3:17), the Curse has not been removed yet (Revelation 22:3), and our fallen and sinful natures often err when trying to properly understand this sin-cursed and broken world.

So why treat nature on par with the 66 books of the Bible? Instead, the Bible should be used to supersede our fallible interpretations of nature, particularly the past.

GOD bless!

Blessing in Christ,

Bodie

Footnotes

1.Bill Nye, “Bill Nye’s Take on the Nye-Ham Debate,” Skeptical Inquirer 38, no. 3, “http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bill_nyes_take_on_the_nye-ham_debate/

2.Colorado Springs: Navpress 1994, 56.

Based Frog #psycho #sexist #ableism #conspiracy #wingnut #crackpot #elitist rebelreformer.wordpress.com

I Reject Fat Acceptance: It’s Not Okay to be Fat

This may sound like tough-love to encourage healthy dieting or some sort of garbage like that, but this certainty isn’t my intended purpose. I truthfully just believe that fat people are degenerates who are on the same level as alcoholics, smokers, poor people, divorced people, and; worst of all, scum who drive foreign-made automobiles. Yes; that’s really how disgusting I feel fat people are, because fat people are destroying civilization; and if you don’t agree, then perhaps this will change your mind.

For years now, we’ve seen the communists promoting the fat-acceptance agenda; glorifying obesity and brainwashing people into being accepting and tolerant of fatties. Fat people believe that we should become tolerant of obesity and endorse societal acceptance of being overweight. In fact, advocates of the fat-acceptance agenda have adopted the ideology of ‘obesity is beautiful,’ with their underlying goal being the destruction of civilization and degrading our culture through the obesity epidemic. The root evil of the fat-acceptance movement is a belief in accepting people for who they are, and not judging people for being overweight. Here’s the truth though: We don’t have to be tolerant of fatties, and obesity is disgusting.

Hatred of obesity is not only morally acceptable, but hating obesity is in fact a moral obligation of every individual. There’s nothing wrong with shaming obesity; especially not we direct our ridicule at the poor life decision of obesity itself rather than degrading actual individuals. It is completely inexcusable to be overweight because obesity negatively impacts society, and as such, it is society’s moral duty to shame it. After all, if fat people should be accepted by society although obesity degrades our culture, then by the same token, sluts should be accepted and viewed as “people” too. And even to a further extent, if we are to be accepting of fat people, then how about the equivalently absurd proposition that we be accepting of single mothers and alcoholic fathers? Surely if a cancerous trait such as the obesity epidemic negatively impacts society, then society has a moral obligation to ridicule and shame that negative trait through any means possible.

Obesity is a choice; just like poverty is, and likewise – just like poor people; fat people are lazy and gluttonous, but that’s only the beginning of their issues. Worst of all, it’s clearly an overarching trait that fat people are irresponsible and immature. Rather than admitting that they have no self control, fat people fail to take responsibility for their poor lifestyle choices and always make excuses for why they’re not in perfect physical shape. Fat people always conjure up absurdly stupid excuses pertaining to medical conditions, body-type differences, or genetics, and through all of these excuses, fat people claim that they’re just genetically inferior to normal specimens of the human race and thus inherently incapable of achieving a normal body shape. Now, I’ll be the first to admit that fat people aren’t on the same level as normal people and that we’d be a lot better off without fat people, yet their own admission of this still doesn’t change the fact that obesity is only ever caused solely by massive overeating on a continual basis. I have personally never observed a fat person NOT eating, and that’s because eating is all that fat people do all day. Fat people eat, and eat, and eat; there’s just no end to it – and as we all know, obesity is purely caused by consuming more calories than you use up. Meanwhile, people who believe that there are legitimate excuses for being overweight are delusional, because obesity, even in mild forms, was extremely rare until the 1970s. If obesity was caused by genetics or medical conditions, then there’d be lots of morbidly obese people in the past; but in truth, it wasn’t until fifty years ago that people began gorging themselves on 3 hamburgers in one sitting, and once people started doing that, the disgusting proletariat class of society has ever since been degenerating into morbidly obese human-like creatures. Being overweight takes a lot of effort on a daily basis, and the truth is that being overweight is caused entirely by a self-destructive lifestyle, and nothing will ever change that. Fat people don’t seem to understand this however, because fat people are also stupid, which is why they make up excuses for not being in shape. In fact, it has been proven by science that an unhealthy proportion of body fat destroys the brain of an overweight person and actually cause them to become less intelligent. This is a clearly observable fact which is actually very easy to believe and is the conclusion that most people would come to simply be observing fat people.

Not only that, but obesity is immoral, and in fact; obesity itself is evil. In every religion in existence, obesity is condemned as a sin; and there is no religion that condemns obesity more strongly than Christianity. The Bible often harshly ridicules laziness and gluttony, and there’s even a story in the Bible where God rewards a man for assassinating some morbidly obese king. Fat people are deliberately unhealthy and grotesque; they have no willpower; they’re quitters; and they’re nothing more than a drain on society since they’re useless. Fat people also are horrible to be around because they take up so much room and smell so bad. They don’t even practice basic hygiene because they’re too lazy, which is how fat people spread diseases; and even if they did practice basic hygiene, they’d still stink because all they ever do is sweat profusely from preforming basic tasks like walking into a McDonalds. Indeed; as useless eaters who eat exponentially more food than normal people; fatties are at best nothing more than a complete burden to society. For fat people, even basic everyday tasks require exorbitant effort, which only causes them to be even lazier and to become even more morbidly obese since all they feel like doing is eating all day.

Hating fat people isn’t even mostly about being disgusted at how they choose to become grotesquely obese. Rather for the most part, hating fatties is about encouraging the continuation of an able-bodied and free people. Fat people can’t even run, much less walk, without panting and gasping for breath, which is one reason that they’re a lot easier to kill off; and that’s probably why fat people can’t be firemen or even policemen; because fatties are nothing more than a burden and fat people just get in the way whenever there’s an emergency. And as for overweight women, they’re wholly incapable of giving birth to healthy children, and to add to that, overweight parents always raise children who are even more morbidly obese; sometimes to the extent of being several times more overweight. Meanwhile, those same families raising children who look like they’re three donuts away from a heart attack are the same types of families who don’t even know what vegetables are while at the same time ranting about genetic unfairness.

Obesity is a self-perpetuating problem, and the way I see it, fat people serve no practical purpose besides consuming vast quantities of food. In fact, fat people are nothing more than a drain on society since they bleed the healthcare system to death and take up extra room literally everywhere that they go. And speaking of how much fat people drain the healthcare system, let’s not forget that obesity is the #1 cause of death in America, and most health issues are caused entirely by being overweight. In fact, the vast majority of health issues, such as all cardiovascular diseases, nearly all diabetes, most types of cancers, and so on; can all only even be caused solely by obesity. Fat people are not normal; They’re simply slobs who don’t care about their lives, and fatties are simply sloths who gorge themselves to death in a deliberate attempt to ruin their bodies.

Obesity simply goes to show that good times create weak people; and as we all know: Weak people in turn create bad times, which is how fatties are one of the many groups contributing to the destruction of civilization. Obesity is not normal and it is entirely inexcusable. Obesity is a choice; a decision made on a daily basis by people who don’t care about their lives, and fat people are not the type of citizen that we want in this country. However, it’s actually compassionate to tell people all of this, because that means they can be encouraged to do something about their lifestyle. Then again, if people actually cared about their bodies, then they wouldn’t get fat in the first place, and it’s disgusting that some people want to live like that. You can confront fat people with any of this, and they won’t deny it; but of course, fat people always have the same old response to criticism of obesity:

[A picture of a comically overweight Pepe saying he’ll start the diet tomorrow]

DaneMuhlig #fundie youtube.com

~The Shack From Hell
The Shack is a movie that pretends to be a Christian film but it is NOT! It is a 100% in-Biblical move. It is a cult and an a heresy. It is part of the Grace Cult. It is New Age religion. The Shack is anti-Christ. The Shack portrays God as a woman, God the Mother. Jesus taught the prayer, "Our Father who art in Heaven." Not, "Our Mother who art in Heaven." Jesus called God "Father" 165 times. Jesus said, "Abba Father,' he said, 'everything is possible for you." [Mark 14:36]. Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of Heaven and earth. " [Mt.11:25]. "How much more will your Father in Heaven give good gifts to those who ask him." [Matt. 7:11]. Jesus said, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father." [John 20:17].In the New Testament letters God is called "Father" 40 times. "There is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist." [1 Cor.8:6]. "I kneel before the Father, from whom every family in Heaven and on earth derives its name." [Eph.3:14]."Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." [1 Cor.1:3].

The Shack shows God the Father as an African woman who suffered Christ’s crucifixion. This is an ancient heresy that teaches that God the Father suffered on the cross. The Shack falsely teaches that Jesus is the best way to know God, not the only way. The Shack teaches universalism, that is, that all people will be saved. In the movie “Papa” chides a person that he is now reconciled to the whole world. The person retorts, “The whole world? You mean those who believe in you, right?” “Papa” responds, “The whole world.” The Shack's Jesus says, "Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims. I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters.” The Shack God says, "In Jesus, I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me."

The Shack sees God’s nature as “too loving” to let anyone who has refused to seek salvation suffer the eternal consequences of sin. The Shack says, "Holiness has nothing to do with sin." And, "I don't need to punish sin." The Word of God says when the Lord Jesus is revealed from Heaven in blazing fire, "He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction " [2 Thess. 1:7-9].

In the Shack God's holiness is perverted. God's judgment and holiness are considered to be in conflict with his love. The Shack says judgment makes God "grossly unjust." The Shack teaches no responsibility and no accountability. It says, "You won't find the word responsibility in the Scriptures." God the Father in the Shack says, "Honey, I've never placed an expectation on you or anyone else." This is a blasphemous lie. God's Word says, "Repent and change." [Mt.4:17]. God's Word says, "Without holiness no one will see the Lord." [Heb.12:14]. God's Word says, "Faith without action is dead." [Jms.2:26]. God's Word say, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation." [Mk.16:15].

God's Word says feed the hungry, cloth the naked, visit prisoners, invite strangers into your home, help the sick. [Mt.25:41-46]. The Shack teaches that God is a friend, not Lord. It teaches that he is a "Buddy," but not a God to be served. The Shack teaches the Grace Cult. That God does everything and people do nothing. It teaches that God's grace forgives us no matter what. The Word says, "If we willfully keep on sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of Judgment and burning fire which will consume the enemies of God...How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who have treated as unholy the blood of the Covenant and who has insulted the Spirit of Grace?

'Vengeance is mine, I will repay,' and, 'The Lord will judge his people.' It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” [Heb.10:26-31]. If people willfully keep on sinning after they have received the truth there is NO SACRIFICE FOR THEIR SINS LEFT! The goal of the Shack is not reaching multitudes of Lost souls in world but feeling wholeness about oneself. The Shack does not promote stopping mass millions of souls from going to an eternal Hell, but it teaches people to feel good about themselves. The Shack wants everyone to be happy and comfortable. Jesus Christ says, "Because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I am about to VOMIT YOU OUT OF MY MOUTH!" [Rev.3:16].

The Shack wants everyone to say, "I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing." [Rev. 3:17]. But Jesus says, "You do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked...BE ZEALOUS HOT AS THE GLOW OF SOLIDS AND BOIL OF LIQUIDS AND REPENT AND CHANGE!" [Rev.3:17-19].

FoJC_Forever #fundie christiannews.net

Those who know Jesus (the) Christ know the Truth. We hear God and know His Word. While it's fine to cite some physical proof of the veracity of the Scripture, it does not take the place of knowing God, hearing God, and believing His Word. Science is not the definitive proof of God's existence and the Truth of His written Word, Faith is the definitive proof.

The Devil has been teaching that Faith is what people believe, contorting words and their meanings, so that people believe Faith is subjective and personally interpreted. It is not. Faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, who is Jesus (the) Christ. The Scriptures teach this emphatically, rather than teaching a textual based religion rooted in the ability of mankind to understand by his or her own efforts and intellect.

Follow Jesus, find Truth.

Bob Triez #fundie quora.com

>> As a Christian what would you tell an atheist to convince them in Jesus without using the Bible as evidence?"

Nothing. As a Christian, it is not my responsibility to convince them of anything. God says that His law is written on man's heart and that with all of creation as a testimony to the reality of God, man is without excuse if he chooses to reject God.

So all I do is present the Gospel. If they reject it, that is on them and they will have to account to God one day for why they still rejected Him.

But if they pushed, I would ask them to prove to me that evolutionism is true and they can not use any textbook, paper or lecture to prove it. They must prove it all on their own and only using evidence that they themselves collected. They can't use anything they were told in school or read about.

That is only fair, right? If I can’t use my Holy Book, they can’t use theirs. That is cheating and cowardly to demand I can't use my book as evidence but they can use theirs when both are collections of words written by other people and passed down over the years.

See, evolution and atheism take faith in other people's words to believe. They trust in something they can not see or prove to base their beliefs on. They deny this, but it is true.

The difference is, I admit I have faith, and they won't…but they do and they must or else they can not possibly believe as they do. It is a faith based belief system they have.

Usually if asked to do this, they walk away mumbling something about me being a stupid Christian. I have never once had one take me up on that and even attempt to try.

They claim religious people believe the way they do because they are a product of their environment growing up. Well, look at them. They are too and after years of indoctrination in public schools, they already have it in their mind God doesn't exist. Because of the environment they grew up in, they trust that evolutionism is true.

There is no difference here. Evolutionism is a religious world view. They just try and pretend it is science— but it isn't because real science must be observable, testable, be able to demonstrate it and it must be repeatable. Evolution is none of these…so they believe it is true. And that is called faith.

Issac #fundie yecheadquarters.org

[About FSTDT with the (old?) Admin's answers in bold.]

What is the goal of this site? Entertainment.
I guess it is entertaining to have a site that is 90% geared towards the hate of Christians. Even up to implying that they should be killed just for what they believe.

I don't get a lot of non-Christian submissions. Non-Christian quotes just don't get submitted to the site very often at all.
Which shows that your members are basically Atheists, and Satanists like yourself.

I allow people to say anything, I operate my site using a principle of minimal moderation.
Regardless of how many excuses you make for your sites content. What you allow on your site shapes what your site has become. If killing Christians is entertainment, then allowing it to be said is what you condone. Having the ability to delete comments like this on your site, but not choosing to because "you allow people to say anything" attitude. Is allowing, and approving what you actually think. Because when someone actually carries out what you allow on your site (killing people for what they believe), I'd like to see if you can get off the hook by using one of the lame excuses you use here. There is nothing you can say that will ever justify murder.

No one would care what fundies say if it weren't for the fact that they are trying to roll back civil rights in this country, rewrite the whole of history to fit their little pet theories about the universe, make a mockery of science by trying to justify ice-canopy theories, hydroplate theories, flood geology, and geocentricism.
So your goal of all this is a type of mind control? Where your way of thinking is the only way everyone should think? Because to do what you say above, it would take an established dictatorship that puts out information that only supports it's views (your views). And stifles all other views even up to killing those who would disagree. Even Hitler tried to do this. If what you believe were truly about free thought. You would not care what I think, or anyone else. The term free thinker is just a cover up for the mind control you want to havem over everyone. Because free thinking is a part of freedom. I see no freedom in thinking that anyone who does not go along with your ideas, should be ridiculed, or even killed. Maybe that's the real reason you allow people to say: We should kill Christians. Deep inside, it's what you want. So you let other people say it for you.

So is the mockery of science your justification for murder? Because every excuse I see by people like yourself, always boils down to science and evolution. And killing for evolution always connects to Hitler. And will be the reason I will always make that connection as long as sites like yours, and other condone killing.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.; various Randroids #racist mises.org

Open Borders Are an Assault on Private Property

Whether we’re talking about illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America, or birthright citizenship, or the migrants coming from the Middle East and Africa, the subject of immigration has been in the news and widely discussed for months now. It is an issue fraught with potentially perilous consequences, so it is especially important for libertarians to understand it correctly.

This Mises Circle, which is devoted to a consideration of where we ought to go from here, seems like an opportune moment to take up this momentous question.

I should note at the outset that in searching for the correct answer to this vexing problem I do not seek to claim originality. To the contrary, I draw much of what follows from two of the people whose work is indispensable to a proper understanding of the free society: Murray N. Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Some libertarians have assumed that the correct libertarian position on immigration must be “open borders,” or the completely unrestricted movement of people. Superficially, this appears correct: surely we believe in letting people go wherever they like!

But hold on a minute. Think about “freedom of speech,” another principle people associate with libertarians. Do we really believe in freedom of speech as an abstract principle? That would mean I have the right to yell all during a movie, or the right to disrupt a Church service, or the right to enter your home and shout obscenities at you.

What we believe in are private property rights. No one has “freedom of speech” on my property, since I set the rules, and in the last resort I can expel someone. He can say whatever he likes on his own property, and on the property of anyone who cares to listen to him, but not on mine.

The same principle holds for freedom of movement. Libertarians do not believe in any such principle in the abstract. I do not have the right to wander into your house, or into your gated community, or into Disneyworld, or onto your private beach, or onto Jay-Z’s private island. As with “freedom of speech,” private property is the relevant factor here. I can move onto any property I myself own or whose owner wishes to have me. I cannot simply go wherever I like.

Now if all the parcels of land in the whole world were privately owned, the solution to the so-called immigration problem would be evident. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that there would be no immigration problem in the first place. Everyone moving somewhere new would have to have the consent of the owner of that place.

When the state and its so-called public property enter the picture, though, things become murky, and it takes extra effort to uncover the proper libertarian position. I’d like to try to do that today.

Shortly before his death, Murray Rothbard published an article called “Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation State.” He had begun rethinking the assumption that libertarianism committed us to open borders.

He noted, for instance, the large number of ethnic Russians whom Stalin settled in Estonia. This was not done so that Baltic people could enjoy the fruits of diversity. It never is. It was done in an attempt to destroy an existing culture, and in the process to make a people more docile and less likely to cause problems for the Soviet empire.

Murray wondered: does libertarianism require me to support this, much less to celebrate it? Or might there be more to the immigration question after all?

And here Murray posed the problem just as I have: in a fully private-property society, people would have to be invited onto whatever property they traveled through or settled on.

If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no person could enter unless invited to enter and allowed to rent or purchase property. A totally privatized country would be as closed as the particular property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. and Western Europe really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.

In the current situation, on the other hand, immigrants have access to public roads, public transportation, public buildings, and so on. Combine this with the state’s other curtailments of private property rights, and the result is artificial demographic shifts that would not occur in a free market. Property owners are forced to associate and do business with individuals they might otherwise avoid.

“Commercial property owners such as stores, hotels, and restaurants are no longer free to exclude or restrict access as they see fit,” writes Hans. “Employers can no longer hire or fire who they wish. In the housing market, landlords are no longer free to exclude unwanted tenants. Furthermore, restrictive covenants are compelled to accept members and actions in violation of their very own rules and regulations.”

Hans continues:

By admitting someone onto its territory, the state also permits this person to proceed on public roads and lands to every domestic resident’s doorsteps, to make use of all public facilities and services (such as hospitals and schools), and to access every commercial establishment, employment, and residential housing, protected by a multitude of nondiscrimination laws.

It is rather unfashionable to express concern for the rights of property owners, but whether the principle is popular or not, a transaction between two people should not occur unless both of those people want it to. This is the very core of libertarian principle.

In order to make sense of all this and reach the appropriate libertarian conclusion, we have to look more closely at what public property really is and who, if anyone, can be said to be its true owner. Hans has devoted some of his own work to precisely this question. There are two positions we must reject: that public property is owned by the government, or that public property is unowned, and is therefore comparable to land in the state of nature, before individual property titles to particular parcels of land have been established.

Certainly we cannot say public property is owned by the government, since government may not legitimately own anything. Government acquires its property by force, usually via the intermediary of taxation. A libertarian cannot accept that kind of property acquisition as morally legitimate, since it involves the initiation of force (the extraction of tax dollars) on innocent people. Hence government’s pretended property titles are illegitimate.

But neither can we say that public property is unowned. Property in the possession of a thief is not unowned, even if at the moment it does not happen to be held by the rightful owner. The same goes for so-called public property. It was purchased and developed by means of money seized from the taxpayers. They are the true owners.

(This, incidentally, was the correct way to approach de-socialization in the former communist regimes of eastern Europe. All those industries were the property of the people who had been looted to build them, and those people should have received shares in proportion to their contribution, to the extent it could have been determined.)

In an anarcho-capitalist world, with all property privately owned, “immigration” would be up to each individual property owner to decide. Right now, on the other hand, immigration decisions are made by a central authority, with the wishes of property owners completely disregarded. The correct way to proceed, therefore, is to decentralize decision-making on immigration to the lowest possible level, so that we approach ever more closely the proper libertarian position, in which individual property owners consent to the various movements of peoples.

Ralph Raico, our great libertarian historian, once wrote:

Free immigration would appear to be in a different category from other policy decisions, in that its consequences permanently and radically alter the very composition of the democratic political body that makes those decisions. In fact, the liberal order, where and to the degree that it exists, is the product of a highly complex cultural development. One wonders, for instance, what would become of the liberal society of Switzerland under a regime of “open borders.”

Switzerland is in fact an interesting example. Before the European Union got involved, the immigration policy of Switzerland approached the kind of system we are describing here. In Switzerland, localities decided on immigration, and immigrants or their employers had to pay to admit a prospective migrant. In this way, residents could better ensure that their communities would be populated by people who would add value and who would not stick them with the bill for a laundry list of “benefits.”

Obviously, in a pure open borders system, the Western welfare states would simply be overrun by foreigners seeking tax dollars. As libertarians, we should of course celebrate the demise of the welfare state. But to expect a sudden devotion to laissez faire to be the likely outcome of a collapse in the welfare state is to indulge in naïveté of an especially preposterous kind.

Can we conclude that an immigrant should be considered “invited” by the mere fact that he has been hired by an employer? No, says Hans, because the employer does not assume the full cost associated with his new employee. The employer partially externalizes the costs of that employee on the taxpaying public:

Equipped with a work permit, the immigrant is allowed to make free use of every public facility: roads, parks, hospitals, schools, and no landlord, businessman, or private associate is permitted to discriminate against him as regards housing, employment, accommodation, and association. That is, the immigrant comes invited with a substantial fringe benefits package paid for not (or only partially) by the immigrant employer (who allegedly has extended the invitation), but by other domestic proprietors as taxpayers who had no say in the invitation whatsoever.

These migrations, in short, are not market outcomes. They would not occur on a free market. What we are witnessing are examples of subsidized movement. Libertarians defending these mass migrations as if they were market phenomena are only helping to discredit and undermine the true free market.

Moreover, as Hans points out, the “free immigration” position is not analogous to free trade, as some libertarians have erroneously claimed. In the case of goods being traded from one place to another, there is always and necessarily a willing recipient. The same is not true for “free immigration.”

To be sure, it is fashionable in the US to laugh at words of caution about mass immigration. Why, people made predictions about previous waves of immigration, we’re told, and we all know those didn’t come true. Now for one thing, those waves were all followed by swift and substantial immigration reductions, during which time society adapted to these pre-welfare state population movements. There is virtually no prospect of any such reductions today. For another, it is a fallacy to claim that because some people incorrectly predicted a particular outcome at a particular time, therefore that outcome is impossible, and anyone issuing words of caution about it is a contemptible fool.

The fact is, politically enforced multiculturalism has an exceptionally poor track record. The twentieth century affords failure after predictable failure. Whether it’s Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, or Pakistan and Bangladesh, or Malaysia and Singapore, or the countless places with ethnic and religious divides that have not yet been resolved to this day, the evidence suggests something rather different from the tale of universal brotherhood that is such a staple of leftist folklore.

No doubt some of the new arrivals will be perfectly decent people, despite the US government’s lack of interest in encouraging immigration among the skilled and capable. But some will not. The three great crime waves in US history – which began in 1850, 1900, and 1960 — coincided with periods of mass immigration.

Crime isn’t the only reason people may legitimately wish to resist mass immigration. If four million Americans showed up in Singapore, that country’s culture and society would be changed forever. And no, it is not true that libertarianism would in that case require the people of Singapore to shrug their shoulders and say it was nice having our society while it lasted but all good things must come to an end. No one in Singapore would want that outcome, and in a free society, they would actively prevent it.

In other words, it’s bad enough we have to be looted, spied on, and kicked around by the state. Should we also have to pay for the privilege of cultural destructionism, an outcome the vast majority of the state’s taxpaying subjects do not want and would actively prevent if they lived in a free society and were allowed to do so?

The very cultures that the incoming migrants are said to enrich us with could not have developed had they been constantly bombarded with waves of immigration by peoples of radically different cultures. So the multicultural argument doesn’t even make sense.

It is impossible to believe that the US or Europe will be a freer place after several more decades of uninterrupted mass immigration. Given the immigration patterns that the US and EU governments encourage, the long-term result will be to make the constituencies for continued government growth so large as to be practically unstoppable. Open-borders libertarians active at that time will scratch their heads and claim not to understand why their promotion of free markets is having so little success. Everybody else will know the answer.

vexic929 #fundie comments.deviantart.com

[ You were bullied for being straight? Yeah, that's totally the same thing. >: Just like LGBT teens that are bullied and ostracized, you had no one to turn to in this society that is so against heterosexuals. You must have felt so isolated in an overwhelming homosexual culture that routinely teaches the younger generations to hate straight people for being born the way they are.

Okay seriously no, LGBT teen suicide is a /very serious/ problem that is steadily getting worse. Even if it focused on one group that is being bullied (and is being bullied /hard/), you don't support an end to the bullying of that group? Do you also get pissy when Black History month rolls around? Do you not support it? I mean, IT DOESN'T INCLUDE LATINOS. They're persecuted too. If we're going to follow your logic that EVERY awareness program must include EVERYONE, we should just make it 'Non white history month'. Boycott black history month, it's totes biased. >:< ]


I
was making a point in stating that. It irritates the crap out of me that this day was made for one group of people about a problem that affects EVERYONE. Everyone is bullied at some point in there life for some reason, it doesn't just affect LGBT. No, I don't get mad when Black History month comes around; why? Because it's about something that affected that specific group of people--the abolishment of slavery and the celebration of the accomplishments of people of that ethnicity.

[ I think it has a lot more to do with your general dislike of homosexuality than any good reasonI. :shrug: Would you be opposed to a 'Spirit Day' dedicated to kids committing suicide over racial bullying? What about 'Adopt a Shelter Dog' day? That doesn't include cats, so are you still pissed when all those sweet dogs get adopted? What about Breast Cancer awareness month? There's more than one type of cancer that affects patients. How about anxiety awareness week? There's more than one mental illness.

No one ever said it *just* effects LGBT. But the day was made in response to a string of suicides by LGBT teenagers- it's to honor them and prevent it from happening again. LGBT bullying is a /big fucking deal/ because the children affected by it live in a homophobic society and often, homophobic households. Unlike a straight kid or even a child of a minority race, they usually don't have a support system to turn to because of that; they can't open up to their families because they have to hide who they are. Having a voice- a day- raises a lot of awareness. That is a /good thing/. And there are plenty of anti-bullying programs that cover EVERY aspect of bullying; is it really so bad to have one dedicated to a specific type that happens to be very bad at the moment?

Basically, it's childish to be angry over what is essentially a good thing. Everyone knows bullying is bad, but there are plenty of people that don't realize how much more devastating it can be for LGBT teens due to the inherit isolation that typically comes with their status. This event /helps/ these kids. And it's ridiculously /heartless/ ]

You're willing to listen and are only looking for an argument (as made obvious by your comments on my other deviations). You won't find one here and responding would simply be a waste of my time, have a nice day.

[ Seriously, nice cop out. It seems to me that YOU are the one unwilling to listen and only interested in further entrenching yourself in your narrow-minded views. Are you so against an honest discourse? *Queerly was being nothing but polite and very articulate in outlining her thoughtful, well-reasoned responses.

Spirit week DOES bring awareness to all types of bullying- how could a week dedicated to bringing awareness not? It is simply targeted at awareness for LGBT youthes, a group which uniquely has less support than most others and thus is greatly in need of awareness. I'm sorry, but being bullied/made to feel guilty about being a heterosexual is nowhere NEAR the same thing, unless said heterosexual is immersed in a largely hostile HOMOsexual community. Were you? Did you have no hetero friends or family members to turn to? Were you afraid of even admitting it? Unless I'm horribly mistaken, of course not. ]

Considering you don't know the situation I can forgive you for calling it a "cop-out". On the contrary, she was anything but nice in her comments on my journal and stamps and was only aiming to make me angry and start an argument.

Furthermore, as I have stated numerous times, I don't think any one group should have a day for themselves when it affects everyone. And did you do any research on this subject? For one thing; it's not a week, it's a day. For another, until this year (and on deviantART only this year for that matter) I didn't see any awareness whatsoever on the day for anyone else who was bullied or any other type of bullying--hardly anyone at all acknowledged that (except for those of us who were irritated about it). And being bullied for another reason than being homosexual isn't the same thing? Since when? It hurts just the same and people are scared to turn to other people for help just the same. There's no difference other than the reason behind it. And to keep people from killing themselves? That's what TWLOHA is for (link provided in case you don't know what that is), which I wholeheartedly support because it focuses on how to solve the problem. It's not about one group saying "oh poor us, we're dealing with a problem everyone else deals with but we're more important!" which is pretty much exactly what Spirit Day is.

[ Well, I suppose you're correct that I haven't seen everything she has written to you, so I'll concede that, but I still think that it is a major cop-out to not respond to her last paragraph up there- I'd be very interested in your response to the points she raised which, as far as I'm concerned, are spot on and I couldn't have put it better.

Oh yes it's a day not a week, that does invalidate my stance. Was I also wrong on what it's about? Oh, no. So never mind it invalidates nothing. I'll admit I was reading quickly as I was a bit upset upon finding an individual who opposes something that I view as being very good and beneficial.

Plenty of groups have days/weeks/whatever devoted just to them- so, as *Queerly asked, do you oppose all of them as well? Or do you just oppose this because you also oppose what you see as a sinful "choice"? And I support your religious choices, it's perfectly fine for you to believe what you do, I'm certainly not attacking that, even if I disagree with it. But it shouldn't be affecting your opinion on how to treat LGBTs, on supporting a movement that is benefical for them, gives them help and awareness that they desperately need. Like I said, everyone knows bullying is bad. IT HAS AWARENESS. Not everyone knows however what is happening to LGBT youthes, and worse, in some of the more hostile areas, it is IGNORED.

Bullying of LGBT is different. How man times do I have to say this? It doesn't "hurt the same"- perhaps it might appear that way to you, if you are lucky enough to live in an area where LGBTs aren't living in constant fear- but let me tell you, that is not the norm. What makes bullying of LGBTS so different is that they are being bullied in a society where they cannot just turn to the adults for help- a society at large that is hostile and often teaches others to hate them. Which is what makes it different from, say, racial bullying, where those children at least have family to turn to and no one says 'you shouldn't have chosen to be black, put some on dye your skin!'

You know what I did when I was bullied? I talked to my mom, my friends, once even the teacher and guidance counseler.

Do you know what *Queerly did when she was bullied? Withdraw in to herself, far too afraid for her safety in her conservative southern community to go to the teacher, and too sick at heart to be able to admit her true issues to her parents out of fear of rejection/hurting them/making them question their beliefs.

To sum it up, I would like to ask what *Queerly asked before she was blocked:
Would you be opposed to a 'Spirit Day' dedicated to kids committing suicide over racial bullying? What about 'Adopt a Shelter Dog' day? That doesn't include cats, so are you still pissed when all those sweet dogs get adopted? What about Breast Cancer awareness month? There's more than one type of cancer that affects patients. How about anxiety awareness week? There's more than one mental illness.

Like I said, groups getting needed awareness isn't a new thing.

I'm not trying to upset you or argue with you for no reason, and you are certainly entitled to your beliefs. However, I am as well and I will try and implore you to stop fighting something that is a good thing. While I myself have seen plenty of LGBT awareness movements, if you yourself have not, then that proves that they need the day, or week, or whatever it is that they're given in whatever way, more than ever.

There are lots of issues in the world. No day or week or movement could cover them all. In this case, this day covers LGBT bullying. I ask again, what the heck is so bad with that?? ]

And this is why I don't think you or Queerly were even listening, I have stated my reasons very clearly NUMEROUS times, including in my responses to both you and her and you continue to ignore them. Since you won't listen to me when I straight out reply with my answers maybe you should try reading some of the other comments, the artist's comments, etcetera which all state what I have said a thousand times. I'm getting pretty sick of being asked the same questions over and over and then not even being listened to when I answer. And before replying I would like to ask you to please do your research--there is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING that sets LGBT bullying apart from other types of bullying other than media coverage and extensive whining. They all have different degrees of severity, the only difference is--like with most minorities--when they are targeted they have the media freaking out and jumping to conclusions.

Here are some interesting statistics: 1 in every 4 kids from elementary to high school is bullied; only 30% of those are bullied because of their sexual orientation. Over 50% of students who were bullied were bullied because of their physical appearance. Only 4% of bullying cases end with adult intervention, 11% of bullying cases end with peer intervention, and 85% of bullying cases have absolutely no intervention--regardless of the reasons behind the bullying.

And, as I stated before, the degree of severity varies with each case, there is nothing to show that an LGBT kid suffers more or less than any other kid who is bullied (unless, of course, you look at one of the extremely biased websites that completely ignores the statistics of a child who isn't LGBT being bullied--unfortunately there are many out there, the majority of which can't seem to even keep a standardized statistic). If you still insist that this day is needed might I recommend you also create a day for every other child who is bullied for whatever reason; go on, make a day for those who are bullied because they are overweight, skinny, tall, short, heterosexual, smart, stupid, non-athletic, mentally-disabled, physically-disabled, "nerdy", poor, rich, black, hispanic, white, asian, unpopular, has a speech impediment, has frizzy hair, has stick-straight hair, doesn't have a boyfriend/girlfriend, stands up for another child who is bullied...need I say more?

[ You truly don't believe that growing up in a society that is hostile towards you and in which you generally are too afraid to speak out doesn't differentiate LGBT bullying from, to use your list, "overweight, skinny, tall, short, heterosexual, smart, stupid, non-athletic, mentally-disabled, physically-disabled, "nerdy", poor, rich, black, hispanic, white, asian, unpopular, has a speech impediment, has frizzy hair, has stick-straight hair, doesn't have a boyfriend/girlfriend, stands up for another child who is bullied"?

If your answer is yes, then I suppose our conversation is at an end because you are correct, we are simply talking in circles. But if you believe that LGBT kids are just whining about their issues as exacerbated by the media... I'm sorry, but I would say that people like you are the reason awareness movements are needed.

Also if you're going to use statistics, please include source links. ]

If you haven't noticed, most people are the exact opposite of hostile towards them nowadays (kids don't necessarily count, children can be very cruel about everything). Such people are actually pretty much glorified (see LGBT celebrities and politicians) now. I've noticed more people being hostile towards me and several of my non-LGBT friends for having a different opinion on homosexuality than I have seen or heard of any sort of hostility towards my LGBT friends (not simply in the area I live in, I have many friends from other countries, states, and cities).

You misunderstand what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that horrible stuff doesn't happen to LGBT kids and that they're only whining (although they [not all of them] tend to do a heck of a lot of it; as do most minorities), I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't ONLY happen to them so it doesn't make sense and is unfair to create a day just for them, regardless of how much awareness it raises.

There were mountains of sources most of which have been long since lost I'm afraid but a quick Google search of "LGBT bullying statistics" and just "bullying statistics" should bring up the vast majority of them.

Amos Moses #fundie disqus.com

Bruce Wang:
This might seem like an obvious question, but if you're opposed to homosexual marriage, how about if you just don't get married to someone of the same gender? Problem solved. Worry about yourself and let other people make their own decisions.

Amos Moses:
how about that IS A FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT and a STRAWMAN ...... and NO it does not "solve the problem" ..........

Bruce Wang:
Why? What is it about your faith that you think gives you the right to control the lives of other people?

Amos Moses:
what is it about your faith that makes YOU think YOU have that right ..... to destroy society and language and marriage and free speech and destroy your life and others lives ...... because THAT is what you are doing and advocating for ..................

Bruce Wang:
I don't have a faith, and I leave people alone to live their lives. They have the right to do that.

Amos Moses:
you live by MORE FAITH than any christian .... and ... it is BLIND FAITH

Bruce Wang:
Now you're just being willfully obtuse. I DEFY you to come up with one SINGLE thing I believe in that's "blind faith". That's the OPPOSITE of what I choose to believe.

Amos Moses:
A peer-reviewed journal said it, I have no reason to doubt it, that settles it ..... Unless new evidence becomes available.
With science all things are somewhat probable.
TBBT explains how nothing exploded and random chance created EVERYTHING ..... including YOU .... and then rocks became animate ..........
you accept science ... and in all probability .... you have never personally confirmed even one tenth of what you believe science is ..... BLIND FAITH ......... and that one tenth is a GENEROUS estimation ........

Bruce Wang:
So what I have is tested and accepted science. And you call that blind faith.
What you have is...blind faith in a 2000 year old book, and you mock ME?

Amos Moses:
no ........ YOU tested NOTHING ............ YOU accepted .......... ON FAITH .... and BLIND faith at that ...............

Bruce Wang:
I didn't have to test, other people did it for me. And that isn't blind faith. Blind faith is what you have.

Amos Moses:
again ..... BLIND FAITH ..........

Bruce Wang:
The material is contained in universities and libraries. That's the opposite of "blind". It's a very sad person that goes through life denying what's been shown and proven to be true.

Amos Moses:
believing the words of another without VERIFYING those words ..... = ...... BLIND FAITH ....... and YOU have NEVER verified even 1 % of ANY of it ..... BLIND FAITH ..........

Bruce Wang:
I don't need to read a manual on how a fire truck works to know that it works. Not blind faith. Do you go through life disbelieving everything you can't explain? How's that working out for you?

Amos Moses:
you do not know how quantum physics works and you are taking anothers word BLINDLY that they DO ........... and you have no means whatsoever of verifying it as true ..... nor have you ever, in all probability, done so .......and that is FAITH ..... and BLIND FAITH at that ....... when ones knows the truth ....... one then knows what to believe and what NOT to believe .... as TRUTH is the MEASURE of all else ........... and it is knowable without any other thing .......you still have no idea if it is true or not .... you BLINDLY ACCEPT through FAITH ........ and you have no means to verify EVEN BY READING their studies as you are not a, most likely, a quantum physicist ..... and you would have to be to even understand if what they were saying is true or not ........ nope .... your only "understanding" is "A peer-reviewed journal said it, I have no reason to doubt it, that settles it ..... Unless new evidence becomes available." ........ BLIND FAITH ............

Bruce Wang:
I don't blindly accept through faith. I knowingly accept through science. I don't accept it because a peer-reviewed journal said it...I accept it because the journal has been thoroughly tested and found to be accurate. Which is NOT "blind faith".

Amos Moses:
you knowing WORSHIP science with BLIND FAITH ......... and you REJECT TRUTH and you do not know the truth ...........

Lisa0315 #fundie christianforums.com

[In answer to the question if you had a time machine and went back to the time of Jesus' death but found he just died and stayed dead like everyone else]

If I found that Jesus did not rise again, then, I am not sure what I would do. Faith requires me to believe anyway. The "faithful" thing to do would be to say that you had somehow rigged the system to show me a false version of the events. The logical thing to do would be to stop believing. I sure HOPE (and I know you are going to be disappointed with this answer) that my faith would be strong enough to believe even when my own eyes tell me otherwise.

Angelica Zambrano #fundie christiscoming777.com

THE LOST

The Lord showed me a place where many people were walking to hell. I asked Him, “Lord, how is it that they walk to this place?” He replied, “I will show you.” He showed me a tunnel with many people walking through it. These people were chained from hand to foot. They were dressed in black and carrying a load on their back. Jesus said, “Look Daughter, those people that you see there, those people don’t know Me yet. That which they carry on their backs is sin, but go and tell them to turn their burden over to Me, and I will give them rest; that I am He who forgives all their sins…Daughter, go and tell those people to come to Me, for I await them with open arms, and go tell them that they are walking to this place.”

As I was watching the people walking, I said, “Lord, that person over there is my cousin; that young man is my cousin, Lord, and that young girl coming down is also my cousin; my family is coming to this place!” He replied, “Daughter, they are walking to this place, but go and them where they are walking, go and tell them they are walking to hell. Go and tell them that I have chosen you as my watchman…I have chosen you as my watchman, for it means that you are to tell the truth. You must go and tell all that I have shown you. If you do not speak out and something happens to that person, his blood will be poured over you, but if you go and do as I have told you, then that person has an account with me. If the person does not repent, then the responsibility resting upon you will be lifted, for the account will rest upon that person and his blood will not be poured over you. (Ezekiel 3:18)”

MICHAEL JACKSON IN HELL

Jesus told me that many famous people were walking to that place, famous and important people. Take for example, Michael Jackson. This man was famous all over the world but he was a satanist. Although many people may not see it that way, but it is the truth. This man had satanic covenants: He came to agreement with the devil in order to achieve fame and attract many fans.

Those steps that he performed, that’s the way I saw demons walk while tormenting people in hell. They would slide backward and not move forward, while they shout; enjoying the anguish they impose upon the people. Let me tell you that Michael Jackson is in hell. The Lord showed him to me after Michael died. He let me see Michael Jackson tormented in flames. I cried to Jesus, “Why?” It wasn’t easy to see how this man was being tormented and how he would scream. Anyone who listens to Michael Jackson’s songs or sings them or who is a fan of Michael Jackson, I warn you that satan is trapping you in his web so that you will end up in hell. Right now, renounce it in the name of Jesus! Jesus wants to set you free, so that you will not be lost.

The Lord said, “Daughter, there are also people who know Me, that are walking to this place.” I asked, “Lord, how can people who know You also come here?” He replied, “That person who has left My ways and that person who is living a double life.” He started showing me people who were walking to Hell. They were tied from their hands to their feet.

GO & TELL THEM

They each wore a white garment, but it was torn, stained and wrinkled. Jesus said, “Daughter, see how My people have walked away from Me. Daughter, I want to tell you that I am not coming for these people. I am coming for a holy people, ready, without blemish, without wrinkle and without defilement…Go and tell them to return to the old paths.” (Eph. 5:26-27) I started to see many of my uncles and many other people who had walked away from the Lord’s ways. “Go and tell them that I am waiting for them, to surrender their loads to Me, and I will give them rest.” Jesus was weeping, “Daughter, they are coming this way. Go and tell your uncles; go and tell your relatives that they are coming this way! Daughter, many will not believe you, but I am your faithful witness, I am your faithful witness. I will never leave you. Even if they do not believe you, Daughter, go and tell them the truth, for I am with you. I will also show you, Daughter, how people arrive at this place.”

We went to a tunnel where there were a multitude of people falling into the abyss. Not 1 thousand, not 2 thousand, but as many as the sand of the sea, countless. They were falling by the second, like handfuls of sand being thrown down. The souls were falling rapidly. Jesus was weeping, He said, “Daughter, this is how humanity perishes; this is how it is lost!…Daughter, it hurts Me to see how humanity perishes.”

Jesus said, “Demons also hold meetings in this place.” And I said, “Demons hold meetings?” Jesus said, “Yes, Daughter, they meet to plan, to plan what they will do to humanity. They hold daily secret meetings.” And with that, Jesus took me to a cell, where I saw a wooden table with chairs around it. And there were demons – all types of demons. Jesus explained, “Daughter, they are now planning to go and destroy the pastors’ families, the missionaries, the evangelists and all of those who know me. Daughter, they want to destroy them; they have many darts.”

The demons would laugh and mock and say, “Let’s destroy humanity and bring it to this place.” Jesus said, “Go and tell them that I am with them. Tell them to not leave open doors, to leave no place to satan, for satan walks about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.(1st Peter 5:8)” But the Word says, “he walks as”, because the only real Lion, is the Lion of Judah, Jesus Christ of Nazareth(Revelations 5:5)! Jesus said, “Daughter, they especially want to destroy the pastors; family.” I asked, “Why do they want to destroy the pastors’ family?” And Jesus responded, “Because they are in charge of thousands of people that are the sheep of the fold; the sheep of the fold that the Lord has given them. They want these people to return to the world again; to look back and end up in hell…Go and tell the pastors to speak the truth. Go and tell them to preach the truth and to speak everything that I tell them and to never keep to themselves what I tell them!”

Jah Truth #fundie #conspiracy #crackpot jahtruth.net

DUNE - GIBRALTAR
The Fremen & THE WAY*

by JAH

*The [Weirding] Way

The film DUNE (not the book) which is supposedly science-fiction, and visually is portrayed as such in the film, is, in reality, a TRUE story that is unfolding now and it is about GIBRALTAR - Gebal Tariq - The Rock of "The Night-Visitant" (in Arabic).
The basic plot of the film is straight out of the pages containing the Prophecies, in the Bible Old Testament Book of the Prophet Isaiah; and also those from the New Testament Books of John and Revelation/Apocalypse Prophecies and also from parts of the Holy Koran.

Paul, the human, (inside of whom is the spirit-Being - THE Sleeper - Christ) was told (whilst on Caladan - Caledonia - Britain) that change is good for a person, it allows them to grow and without change something inside of us [all] sleeps (the soul or Being part of the human+Being) and it seldom awakens (Mark ch. 13 v 36).

"The 'Sleeper' must awaken" (YOU must be born again as your spirit-Being and wake-up to the fact that you are NOT really "only human") or you will never "SEE" (with your awakened spiritual eye-sight) the Kingdom of God, and YOU will NOT enter into it.

Paul, whilst being tested, says, "I must overcome my fear (just like YODA tells Luke he must do, in 'Starwars' and YODA also says, "Luminous-Beings are we, NOT this crude matter," prodding Luke's crude human body - Read my Starwars Booklet). Fear is the mind-killer, it is the little-death that leads to total obliteration. I must face my fear and let it 'Pass-over' me. I must not fear!"

Fear is Satanically-inspired and is irrefutable evidence of a lack of Faith (the word Faith is not the name for Religions, it means "Trust in God"). The more fear, the less Faith; the more Faith, the less fear.

Dune - the desert planet, is, in reality, planet Earth, which is a spiritual desert where not one drop of spiritual rain has fallen during the time of The Testimony of the Two Witnesses (Read my Four Horsemen of The Apocalypse and The Two Witnesses Booklet) that is 1260 days (Prophetic years) in Revelation chapter 11 verse 3.

Dune - Desert Planet - No precipitation (rain). Not one drop of rain falls on the planet - Revelation chapter 11 v 6

11:6 These (The Two Witnesses) have power to shut heaven, that it "rain" (spiritually) not in the days of their Prophecy: and have power over "waters".........

Paul puts on a "Still-suit", to protect himself from the desert, which has two meanings. The first meaning of Still-suit is that of learning to be calm in the face of an ocean of evil (like the Dune-Sea in Starwars and Luke is told by YODA that when he is at peace, calm, then he will know the good-side from the bad) and thereby be able to hear the "still" small telepathic-voice of God, within his mind, for his daily-guidance. The second meaning is more closely demonstrated in the film as the suits distill water to keep them alive and symbolically represent the Fremen-wearers of the suits distilling all information, to take out the impurity and leave them with the TRUTH, which is what they need and can give them Life [eternal].

Muad'Dib says, "The time will come when all (who are a part of the system - like the [collar and] Tie-fighters in Starwars) will turn against us and seek our lives. We must reach the safety of [the] Rock." Inside which there are wind-traps and reservoirs containing millions of decalitres of drinking-water. Exactly as there are blast-traps at the entrances and reservoirs inside The Rock of Gibraltar.

Isaiah chapter 33 verse 16 "He shall dwell on high: his place of defence [SHALL BE] the Fortress of Rock: bread shall be given him; his waters [shall be] sure."

Muad'Dib, in order to lead the Fremen, has to drink The Water of Life, which is poisonous to humans - (symbolising crucifixion, or death, of the "Self"ish human-nature of the body) and thereby conquer death; and be able to guarantee Life Eternal to those who help and fight, for him and God, against Satan and his evil empire.

Yea, though a man were "dead", if he believes ME, yet shall he Live. If he believes my words (NOT other people's words ABOUT me but MY words) and DOES them, he will Live.

Paul then overcomes; conquers; controls and rides on the back of the worms (death) so that they do not attack his disciples (JEDIs).

He then leads the Fremen, and the worms (death) help his disciples to overcome, defeat and destroy the evil empire ruled by Emperor Saddam (who is merely the "glove-puppet" (read my "The Invasion of Kuwait in Prophecy" Booklet) of the REAL Emperor - Satan - like in Starwars) and all of its evil systems of government.

The Guild who are above the human-emperor Saddam and who are the people that really run the world, from behind the scenes (hidden from view), for their master Satan, are, in real life, known as "The Hidden Hand" and they, and their ancestors before them, have been running this world for Satan, for thousands of years.

The Hidden Hand are a small group of extremely (and I do mean in the extreme) rich people who say that they are Jews but are not, they are the synagogue [church] of Satan, as Christ states in Revelation chapter 2 verse 9 and it was they who engineered the crucifixion, for Satan, to try to defeat Christ and retain their obscene wealth, and, in so doing, brought about, the fulfillment of all of the Prophecies about Christ that related to THAT event and time, and which had to be fulfilled, to PROVE Christ's TRUE identity, etc.

Eric hyde's Blog #conspiracy ehyde.wordpress.com

I write very little in the area of Christian vs. atheist apologetics anymore, and for good reason.

It was in atheist chat-rooms and blogs that I first cut my teeth in theology many years ago. Since those days I have not heard anything new from atheists.

It seems that many atheists today (some like to use the title ‘New Atheists’ to distinguish them from the more profound philosophical atheists of yesteryear) have very little to add to the discussion. To be fair, the same goes with most Christian apologists.

However, I thought it would be fun to comment on the ten arguments I hear the most. My hope is that it will help expose some of the more obvious problems with them and maybe help both sides—atheists and Christians alike—to move on to more interesting debate material.

One additional note: another reason I do not enter into the atheist-Christian debate world much anymore is because of the sheer discourtesy that both sides tend to show the other. I will not delete any comments, no matter how uncivil or juvenile they become, because, for me, it is an important part of the article. The responses (if there are any) will demonstrate the current state of atheist vs. Christian banter. Also, I will not respond to rude posts. This is advanced warning so please don’t think me rude as well if I ignore them.

Okay, here we go:

1. There is no evidence for God’s existence.

There are a couple of problems with this line. Starting with the idea of ‘evidence,’ what exactly does one mean by evidence? What is sufficient evidence for one person is often not sufficient evidence for another. A court of law provides innumerable examples of how two parties can possess the same collection of data, the same power of logic and reasoning, yet argue for completely different interpretations of the data. The old saying is true: the facts do not determine the argument, the argument determines the facts.

When confronted with the charge that there is no evidence for God the Christian often does not know where to start with a rebuttal. It’s as G.K. Chesterton once said, asking a Christian to prove God’s existence is like asking someone to prove the existence of civilization. What is one to do but point and say, “look, there’s a chair, and there’s a building,” etc. How can one prove civilization by merely selecting a piece here and a piece there as sufficient proofs rather than having an experience of civilization as a whole?

Nearly everything the Christian lays eyes on is evidence of God’s existence because he sees the ‘handiwork’ of God all around him in creation. But this is hardly sufficient evidence in the court of atheist opinion, a court which presupposes that only what can be apprehended by the senses rightly qualifies as evidence (in other words, the atheist demands not evidence of God’s handiwork, but rather material evidence of God Himself). For the Christian who believes in a transcendent God, he can offer no such evidence; to produce material evidence of God is, ironically, to disprove a transcendent God and cast out faith. If one desires God to appear in the flesh, well… He already did. But even if one lived at the time and could touch Christ in the flesh, this would still not “prove” God’s existence in the scientific sense (science has no such categories).

The second part of the line is equally short-sighted. What does one mean by ‘existence’? If one means, ‘that which has come into existence,’ then surely God does not exist because God never came into existence. He always was; He is eternal. This was a famous assessment of the matter by Soren Kierkegaard (dealing with Hegel’s dialectic of existence). The argument is a bit involved, so for times sakes I’ll just have to state it and leave it there.

2. If God created the universe, who created God?

This is one of the more peculiar arguments I’ve ever come across. Those who use this charge as some sort of intellectual checkmate have simply failed to grasp what Christians understand as ‘eternal.’ It is an argument usually levied once a theist posits that God is required for the existence of the universe (a necessary Being upon which all other things exist by way of contingency). Some atheists then shift the weight over to the theist saying, “Well then who created God?” (which demonstrates a failure to understand God as the source and ground of being rather than God as simply one more being among other beings in existence, follow this link for more.) What is a Christian to do but smile at such a question? God is the antecedent of all things in creation and is eternal. If God had a Creator then His Creator would be God. God is God precisely because He does not have a creator.

3. God is not all-powerful if there is something He cannot do. God cannot lie, therefore God is not all-powerful.

Bang! Owned.

Not so fast. This argument would be fantastic—devastating maybe—if God was more of the ancient Greek god persuasion, where the gods themselves were subject to fate and limited to their specific roles in the cosmos. The Orthodox doctrine of God is much different. Christians (at least Orthodox Christians) view God’s ontology as subject to His perfect free-will. Why is He good? Because He wills to be good. Why does He not lie? Because He wills to be honest. Why does God exist as Trinity? Because He wills it. He could just as easily will to not exist. And yes, He could just as easily will to lie. The fact that He doesn’t is no commentary on whether He could.

(Note: Due to the immense amount of discussion that this point has raised, one clarifying statement is worth noting. An argument based on strict logical word games can render the idea ‘all-powerful,’ or ‘omnipotent’ self-defeating. When one considers the juvenile question, “Can God create a rock so big that He can’t lift it?” this point becomes clear. But in reality, such an argument winds up further solidifying what Christianity means by an all-powerful God. For the Christian it simply means that all power and authority are God’s. Following the logical word game above forces the believer to make a redundant proclamation in order to remain consistent: “God cannot overpower Himself.” But this fact is anything but confounding, it merely stresses the point that there is no power greater than God, so much so that one is forced to pit God against Himself in order to find His equal.)

4. Believing in God is the same as believing in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

What I love about this well-worn atheist ‘argument’ is that it actually serves to demonstrate how vastly different a belief in God is to these myths and imaginations. When one honestly assesses the Judeo-Christian doctrine of God he will find multiple thousands of years of human testimony and religious development; he will find martyrs enduring the most horrific trauma in defense of the faith; he will find accounts in religious texts with historical and geographical corroboration; etc (these fact are of course not ‘proofs,’ but rather ‘evidences’ that elicit strong consideration). Pit this against tales of the Tooth Fairy, Santa, and Spaghetti Monsters and one finds the exact opposite: no testimony or religious refinement, no martyrs, no historical and geographical corroboration, etc. Instead, one finds myths created intentionally for children, for point making, or for whatever. It’s strawman argumentation at its worst.

5. Christianity arose from an ancient and ignorant people who didn’t have science.

Indeed, those ancient, ignorant people who believed in the virgin birth of Christ must have believed it because they did not possess the knowledge of how babies were born. Goodness. The virgin birth of Christ was profound and of paramount concern to the ancients precisely because they understood that conception was impossible without intercourse. Ancient man considered the virgin birth miraculous, i.e., impossible without divine action (and at the time most people scorned the idea), and the same could be said with every miraculous story in Scripture.

Indeed ancient people did not have the Hubble telescope, but they were able to see the night sky in full array, something almost no modern person can claim (thanks to modern lighting which distorts our ability to see the full night sky). On average, ancient people lived much closer to nature and to the realities of life and death than many of us moderners.

In terms of a living relationship with these things the ancients were far more advanced than we are today, and this relationship is essentially the nature of religious inquiry. If people lack religious speculation today, maybe it is because they spend more time with their iphones and Macs then with nature. Maybe.

But the claim that Christianity was viable in the ancient world because it was endorsed by wide spread ignorance is a profoundly ignorant idea. Christianity arose in one of the most highly advanced civilizations in human history. The Roman Empire was not known for its stupidity. It was the epicenter of innovation and philosophical giants. I would wager that if a common person of today found himself in a philosophical debate with a common person of first century Alexandria, the moderner would be utterly humiliated in the exchange.

6. Christian’s only believe in Christianity because they were born in a Christian culture. If they’d been born in India they would have been Hindu instead.

This argument is appealing because it pretends to wholly dismiss people’s reasoning capabilities based on their environmental influences in childhood. The idea is that people in general are so intellectually near-sighted that they can’t see past their own upbringing, which, it would follow, would be an equally condemning commentary on atheism (if one was consistent with the charge), but the idea is fairly easy to counter.

Take the history of the Jewish people for example. Let us say that to ‘be’ Jewish, in the religious sense, is much more than a matter of cultural adherence. To be a Jewish believer is to have Judaism permeate one’s thinking and believing and interaction with the world. But is this the state of affairs with the majority of the Jewish people, whether in America, Europe, Israel, or wherever? One would have to be seriously out of touch to believe so. The same phenomenon is found within so-called Christian communities, that is: many sport a Christian title, but are wholly derelict in personal faith. “Believing” in Christianity is a far more serious endeavor then merely wearing a church name tag. Indeed, being born in a Jewish or Christian centric home today is more often a precursor that the child will grow up to abandon the faith of his or her family, or at least be associated with the faith by affiliation only.

7. The gospel doesn’t make sense: God was mad at mankind because of sin so he decided to torture and kill his own Son so that he could appease his own pathological anger. God is the weirdo, not me.

This is actually a really good argument against certain Protestant sects (I’ve used it myself on numerous occasions), but it has no traction with the Orthodox Christian faith. The Orthodox have no concept of a God who needed appeasement in order to love His creation. The Father sacrificed His own Son in order to destroy death with His life; not to assuage His wrath, but to heal; not to protect mankind from His fury, but to unite mankind to His love. If the reader is interested to hear more on this topic follow this link for a fuller discussion.

8. History is full of mother-child messiah cults, trinity godheads, and the like. Thus the Christian story is a myth like the rest.

This argument seems insurmountable on the surface, but is really a slow-pitch across the plate (if you don’t mind a baseball analogy). There is no arguing the fact that history is full of similar stories found in the Bible, and I won’t take the time to recount them here. But this fact should not be surprising in the least, indeed if history had no similar stories it would be reason for concern. Anything beautiful always has replicas. A counterfeit coin does not prove the non-existence of the authentic coin, it proves the exact opposite. A thousand U2 cover bands is not evidence that U2 is a myth.

Ah, but that doesn’t address the fact that some of these stories were told before the Biblical accounts. True. But imagine if the only story of a messianic virgin birth, death, and resurrection were contained in the New Testament. That, to me, would be odd. It would be odd because if all people everywhere had God as their Creator, yet the central event of human history—the game changing event of all the ages—the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ had never occurred to them, in at least some hazy form, they would have been completely cut off from the prime mysteries of human existence. It seems only natural that if the advent of Christ was real it would permeate through the consciousness of mankind on some level regardless of their place in history. One should expect to find mankind replicating these stories, found in their own visions and dreams, again and again throughout history. And indeed, that is what we find.

9. The God of the Bible is evil. A God who allows so much suffering and death can be nothing but evil.

This criticism is voice in many different ways. For me, this is one of the most legitimate arguments against the existence of a good God. The fact that there is suffering and death is the strongest argument against the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God. If suffering and death exist it seems to suggest one of two things: (1) either God is love, but He is not all-powerful and cannot stop suffering and death, or (2) God is all-powerful, but He does not care for us.

I devoted a separate article addressing this problem, but let me deal here with the problem inherent in the criticism itself. The argument takes as its presupposition that good and evil are real; that there is an ultimate standard of good and evil that supersedes mere fanciful ‘ideas’ about what is good and evil at a given time in our ethical evolution, as it were. If there is not a real existence—an ontological reality—of good and evil, then the charge that God is evil because of this or that is really to say nothing more than, “I personally don’t like what I see in the world and therefore a good God cannot exist.” I like what C.S. Lewis said on a similar matter: “There is no sense in talking of ‘becoming better’ if better means simply ‘what we are becoming’—it is like congratulating yourself on reaching your destination and defining destination as ‘the place you have reached.’”

What is tricky for the atheist in these sorts of debates is to steer clear of words loaded with religious overtones. It’s weird for someone who does not believe in ultimate good and evil to condemn God as evil because He did not achieve their personal vision of good. So, the initial criticism is sound, but it is subversive to the atheist’s staging ground. If one is going to accept good and evil as realities, he is not in a position to fully reject God. Instead, he is more in a position to wrestle with the idea that God is good. This struggle is applauded in the Orthodox Church. After all, the very word God used for his people in the Old Testament—“Israel”—means to struggle with God.

10. Evolution has answered the question of where we came from. There is no need for ignorant ancient myths anymore.

This might be the most popular attempted smack-downs of religion in general today. It is found in many variations but the concept is fairly consistent and goes something like this: Science has brought us to a point where we no longer need mythology to understand the world, and any questions which remain will eventually be answered through future scientific breakthroughs. The main battle-ground where this criticism is seen today is in evolution vs. creationism debates.

Let me say upfront that there is perhaps no other subject that bores me more than evolution vs. creationism debates. I would rather watch paint dry. And when I’m not falling asleep through such debates I’m frustrated because usually both sides of the debate use large amounts of dishonesty in order to gain points rather than to gain the truth. The evolutionist has no commentary whatsoever on the existence of God, and the creationist usually suffers from profound confusion in their understanding of the first few chapters of Genesis.

So, without entering into the most pathetic debate of the ages, bereft of all intellectual profundity, I’ll only comment on the underlining idea that science has put Christianity out of the answer business. Science is fantastic if you want to know what gauge wire is compatible with a 20 amp electric charge, how agriculture works, what causes disease and how to cure it, and a million other things. But where the physical sciences are completely lacking is in those issues most important to human beings—the truly existential issues: what does it mean to be human, why are we here, what is valuable, what does it mean to love, to hate, what am I to do with guilt, grief, sorrow, what does it mean to succeed, is there any meaning and what does ‘meaning’ mean, and, of course, is there a God? etc, ad infinitum.

As far as where we come from, evolution has barely scratched the purely scientific surface of the matter. Even if the whole project of evolution as an account of our history was without serious objection, it would still not answer the problem of the origin of life, since the option of natural selection as an explanation is not available when considering how dead or inorganic matter becomes organic. Even more complicated is the matter of where matter came from. The ‘Big Bang’ is not an answer to origins but rather a description of the event by which everything came into being; i.e., it’s the description of a smoking gun, not the shooter.

That’s it… my top 10 list. Thanks for reading. Cheers.

Alia_Harkonnen #fundie reddit.com

Fuck You

I can’t connect to anyone. I don’t know what to say to people even if I want to say something. I wish for most people to just disappear on the spot. We live in different realms. They say their stuff and I can’t even argue because I still can’t fully wrap my head around that they believe it. That all these people live in the world that allows them to think and talk that way. And feeling so right while doing it. So sane and balanced, well intended. So sure in their own importance and abilities even when they act modest and insecure, it shines through. In how they give advice, in how they assume the value of their intent, in how they think people should hear their opinions and conclusions because they have something to offer. In the fact that they dare to even search for meaning in things. In their self love, or pursuit for self love. In their selfies. In their jokes. I hate them. I hate them because they don’t even have the capacity to understand why I hate them. I can try to explain how disgusting they are but it won’t resonate when all those parts are what they are most proud off. So the problem is me, except I know i see things clearly. I know why I hate what I hate, and I stand by my hatred. I like my hatred. I have almost no real personality, I have no real tools to cope much with life, but I am glad I still feel disgust and hatred. If I didn’t, I would be someone truly horrible.

“Hate eats you up inside.” No, it doesn’t. It builds me up. At least it gives me momentary focus. Who cares whom I hate anyway. I’m generous with it. I don’t even interact with people though, how much do you need to be liked to be bothered by misogyny or misanthropy of someone like me?

Does it really need to be explained that there are levels from which we can observe things. On some level I hate you all. On some level you just annoy me. On some level I really don’t care. There are people I don’t hate, who say things I don’t find to be dumb. But I still can’t connect. I can’t have conversations, I can’t have or meet up to expectations. I hate the people I like as well then, on some level, cause they make me feel the worst. And I’m not even really close to anyone, that’s my act of altruism from a very profound level where I’m practically a hero. Every time I choose to stay away, I am a hero. Every time I tell you to go fuck yourself, I am a hero. Cause I let you go and I know exactly what you think about me, and it’s so easy for you to reach your conclusions and let it go. I am doing an act of kindness. When I tell you to go choke on a dick, I am giving you an easy out. And I like it. I like to say these things to people I don’t like. But it’s nothing. What makes you worthy of such dislike is how easily you then take this hatred trivially, but it’s not trivial. It’s not personal, for that you would have to be a person. It’s depressing, it’s disgusting, it’s completely overwhelming how sick you make me feel.

I’m not speaking from a moral high ground although my hatred is moral. I’m not speaking as a person, I’s much bigger than that. I don’t speak from self love, cause I could never begin to even think about taking that idiotic concept seriously, let alone see it as something to work on. How do you say such stupid words and don’t stop and get filled with disgust. Or at least find it funny. Something, anything but what you’re doing and thinking now.

No, I don’t love myself. If I hate myself, that’s also on some level. On some level I have very bad anxiety, I can’t speak, I can’t think and I can’t take it. I hate this situation. But it doesn’t matter. Contradictions are only an issue to idiots. There’s no hypocrisy. I don’t have to be anyone at all to hate you. Nothing needs to be deserved.

My hatred won’t harm you, it helps you. You will interpret in such way where it will fit right in with your beliefs and I am the example of what you don’t want to be like at all. And that’s how it will always be, you’ll talk on and on loving your voice, and I’ll say my shit and no one will hear anyone, cause if by any chance we do hear then we can just hate. If you could see how i see you, you would hate me too.

I know why I talk here. I just come here trying to find my thoughts and put them together so they leave my head. I don’t do it to exist or to tell others who I am. I don’t have solutions. That’s all it is, stupid random thoughts. But I have no doubt that my hatred is my morality. It is not wrong, and it is not bad, not for me or for anyone else.

Love is different, love is for individuals.

But I know I can’t connect with anyone. There is no solution, and the problem isn’t complex. It’s lack of ability. It’s so frustrating. You can’t imagine the frustration of it. When you want something so much but it doesn’t exist in others, and it doesn’t exist in you. You spent years working on some solution personified, or epiphany, and you spend years knowing there is none, but you still want to say to someone they are right, or that you agree, or that something they said reflected what you were thinking and it meant something to you. It is not something you experience often, and even though it won’t change anything, you think you can get something through that recognition, that something can be added onto you. But when you try to say it, it’s already dead. You can’t do anything with it, you can’t make it important without coping and turning things into your own little myths and legends. And then it’s disgusting. Before you know it it’s over.

But that’s not your life. You’re not alone, you all share the whole world where almost everything in it has the same meaning and you all relate. You’re so safe. Sometimes you find some things you can’t relate and you feel lonely until you eventually find someone you can relate even that to. You feel lonely so easily but you’re never really lonely. We are really lonely. We can’t relate anything, not even with each other. Our minds are empty. We don’t connect. We live in completely different worlds but while you’re all together in yours we are nowhere. It’s not a world, it’s just some empty place with nothing in it and we watch you. Your world is shit. Jealousy only goes so deep, it’s a distraction. Your world is a nightmare to watch but you are relatively content in it, and you’re not lonely in it. You ruin everything I could care about. I don’t want to be like you, and i don’t want to be where you are. And I don’t want to be where I am. But these two things are completely different and comparison is dumb.

I can’t do anything. I’m also just stuck. I can only hate everything to keep sane. When I say i wish everything was different, I don’t mean self improve, i don’t mean being like someone else, I don’t mean utopia, I mean everything.

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.

Original Playwrite Unknown #fundie bible-truths.com

(=Note: I am not sure if this is a fundie qoute in on itself but it is a description/review of a popular fundie play taken from a Christian Universalist blogging site, but even then they express extreme views=)

Heaven's Gates, Hell's Flames - Maybe the most satanic play ever

Have you ever heard of the play "Heaven's Gates, Hell's Flames"? I have never, ever withnessed such blasphemy what I withnessed about half a year ago! I had no idea that the tradition of middle-ages still lives so strong!

In the beginning of the drama, Jesus is crucified. Then the play shows us different people, who die during the play and are accepted to heaven or sent to hell depending on if their name was on the Book of
Life.

The thing which angered me most was that how the play was emphasizing hell and the eternal torment. Those, who have not reached the True Gospel are probably in great distress. I, although I know that God will not torture anyone for eternity, but chastens and makes everyone learn righteousness, I felt myself very, very uncomfortable. I don't remember last time when I have felt so terrible.

The play went on about an hour and during that hour the Satan took many souls into the depths of hell, where they shall be burning eternally.

In the play, Satan was portrayed as the master of hell and torture which is totally unscriptural, because Bible tells us that Satan will be thrown into the Lake of Fire and he does not rule it! Even the actor who played Satan admitted to me after the show that it is God's
hell, not Satan's (but still he took part of the play KNOWING that it wasn't actually scriptural!)

Immediatly after the play, when the play has scared the hell into the people (pun intended), the show's director climbs to stage and tells people to come and take Christ to their lives.

There is nothing wrong with taking Christ to your life, but these poor people do not take Christ into their people because of their faith and knowledge of the truths, but more because of the fear of eternal torture.

I ask myself now, how can the show's director ask people to step forward and take Christ into their lives if they do not know the true nature of Christ and God? God wills ALL to be saved and Christ is the saviour of all! ("For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach because we trust in the living God, Who is the Saviour of ALL men, especially of those that believe" - I Tim. 4:10)

Instead, they taught that damnable heresy of eternal torture. That God
allows and WILLS (because nothing will happen if God doesn't will it!) 99,9% of people to suffer for ETERNITY!

And now I have a need to mention few of the Satanic Highlights of the play.

In one scene there was a boy, whose father said that there is time to attend to church and give your life to god. Then the boy and the father died and they were both judged to hell, the father because he hadn't given his life to Jesus and the boy simply because HE BELIEVED HIS FATHER!

Is it really the boy's fault if he believed his father? Is the boy to blame? Do we believe that God of Love will punish and torture this boy ETERNALLY? The boy didn't even think he did anything wrong, because his father told him to do so and without better judgement, the boy did what almost anyone of us would have done in that age: he listened his parents, in this case the father.

The Last Judgement includes the word "to judge" and I have all my life believed that judging includes righteousness and God is righteous, more righteous than any human. Who believe that it is a fair judgement
to judge that boy to the eternal torture? Can anyone of you call it justice? No, I think no-one can call that justice. That is the justice what was taught on the play and I am overwhelmed how deeply Satan has deceived those poor people who believe in a god like that! How deeply are those people deceived who call the eternal torture of people justice!

I know that God has many great plans of us, but none of those plans include Eternal Torture! They are plans of Love, plans of Justice.

If you think logically, would eternal torture be a plan of Satan or the plan of God of Love? Well, it is the plan of Satan of course!

And the play also included a scene where were a non-believing mother and a teenage girl, who had her name written on the book of life. After they died, the Satan and his demons took the mother into the depths of hell and torture. The girl sobbed "mother" for few times, but when Jesus came, she suddenly started to smile and was happy.

How can one be happy when your mother or someone dear will be tortured for eternity? Would you be happy? NO Would anyone you know be happy? NO! So would there be a single happy person in heaven if almost all of their friends and family members are tortured? I would say "No" but there are many people who say that it's just the opposite and that is, I say, utter maddness!!

Here are some quotes from "christian" leaders concerning hell and eternal torture. (links not allowed)

They really believe that people don't feel any saddness because of the eternal torturing of their loved ones, but in fact they say that people will rejoice because such thing happens!

But the very post was to tell you another tale of maddness.

The description of the play says: "It is a dramatization of the reality of heaven and hell, showing the grace, mercy and love of God, and shows the choices we make"

Grace, mercy and love of God was NOT part of the message of the play! The more true description would be: "It is a traumatizion with a lie of eternal torture, showing God as the God of Torture, God of No Mercy and God of Hate, and teaches the heresy of Free Will."

Have any of you ever heard about this play? How do you feel about this? Isn't this almost as sick as it can be? The man who played satan knew that bible doesn't teach that way, but he still took part in the play, because "it is for the good cause". I would dare to say that Christ doesn't reach people with that kind of play. It's a play of satan, a play of fear, not of God and love!

Toe Jam #conspiracy shroomery.org

I never been abducted, but I went to a rehab in Nevada, very close to the supposed location of area 51. It's all govt. airspace out there, so anything in the sky is govt owned supposedly. I would hear sonic booms all day; just see a jet floating along, then it dissapears and BOOOOOM! these booms SHOOK THE BUILDING.
But anyway, at night, I'd see these lights floating above the hills, and they would like do figure 8's and change colors rapidly, and I would poke my buddy and ask, "Can you see that?" and he would just immediately say no, one one would see them, or if they did, they'd say it was a satellite or something. I have seen satellites and they don't move like that, they move straight across the sky and have a white unblinking light. Plus these things I say would hang around awhile then dip off into the sky, seemingly into space.
I dunno if these were govt aircraft or what, but they were unlike anything I ever saw.

And On a more light note, this one time I ate 1/8 ounce of Psilocybe Ovoideocystidiata freshly picked (this is equivalent to a quarter or more of cubes) and me and my buddies SOOO thought we were about to be abducted, but it just turned out to be a low flying plane LOL!

Cryptid Wiki #crackpot cryptidz.fandom.com

Air rods, called "flying rods" and sometimes referred to as "sky fish," are something like crop circles in that even some skeptics believe in their existence. The only question is what they really are. Invisible to the eye, they are picked up by cameras all over the world.

image

Explanations

Are they living creatures, alien probes, or some sort of 3D electromagnetic smudge? To believers in the cryptozoology-based theory of air rods, air rods are probably living creatures, and they are possibly related to older stories of atmospheric beasts.

Air Rods might not be made of matter. Perhaps they are made of electromagnetic fluxes or some other form of energy. It is possible that an electromagnetic flux of the right sort would affect film but not be visible to humans. If this is true and air rods are alive, they would be the first living creatures of that sort we have ever discovered. If air rods are made of some sort of electromagnetic flux and are not alive, they should still be studied because they represent a weird phenomenon that science could probably learn a lot from.

Another suggestion is that air rods are made of some undiscovered, fifth phase of matter (other than solid, gas, liquid and plasma). If that were true, confirming their existence would be doubly exciting. A totally new life form and a new phase of matter all in one!

The total lack of dead air rod bodies also leads some researchers to consider that they might be made out of something other than conventional matter. If they are made of conventional matter, their bodies must disintegrate into tiny particles at death, or their bodies might not be recognizable as air rods after death. Perhaps they just look like a loose collection of broken fly wings or other parts that people assume must have broken off from known insects.

Whatever air rods are, they are exciting and deserve scientific research, whether they are living creatures or just some sort of anomaly that happens to fly around as if it is alive.

Another theory suggests that, if Air Rods are one and the same with Atmospheric Beasts, they could have evolved from the organisms that are native to the clouds.

Hoax

To skeptics, air rods are bits of flying debris, insects or birds filmed under unusual conditions, or blips on film that are due to errors in film processing.

People were scared and shocked when they realized that rods might be living creatures, so the first thing they did was try to disprove this by showing that air rods were something normal that simply showed up on film in an odd way. They already had solid proof that rods were not two-dimensional blotches on the film. This meant that rods could be insects, birds, or something else that was somehow blurred weirdly as it was being filmed. However, all attempts to deliberately create air rod footage by filming insects and birds in odd ways failed to produce anything that matched the features of rods. Airborne debris, such as bits of straw, also failed to duplicate air rods. The most studied air rod films showed air rods swooping within a dozen feet of the camera, coming close to the ground and going between objects with nearby trees and bushes visible behind the air rods, so that they couldn't be long, thin birds or precise lines of insects seen in the distance, as some skeptics claimed.

However, when people tried to duplicate air rods using fake models that were thrown or pulled rapidly through the air, they got much closer. It is absurdly easy to hoax air rod photographs using models or computer generated images. Hoaxing air rod films are harder because it is much more difficult to make your models move and behave like air rods. However, hauling them about skillfully enough on fine wires can do the trick. You just need some skill in puppetry. Faked air rod photographs or films differ from the genuine air rod footage in that the faked items are generally easier to see and more whitish in color. It is harder to create the glass-clear and blurry air rods that are more typical.

However, these fakes prove nothing. It is obvious from the sheer number of air rods that hoaxers could not have pulled off even one percent of the pre-discovery air rod footage. How many movie studios do you think let air rod hoaxers run around pulling their models through the air in the background of films decades ago? And how did so many air rods get into normal home videos from all over the world? Not only is a hoax of this scale completely absurd, but it would have been uncovered years ago if it had existed. Air rod models, unlike genuine air rods, are perfectly visible to the naked eye. People would have been aware of what was happening, even if you could somehow coordinate that many hoaxers for a whole century!

Therefore, any successful attempt to show that air rods are not real would have to bring forth some phenomena that could be accidentally filmed, something that the skeptics have so far failed to do. This hasn't stopped skeptics from putting forth many ideas that don't even come close to explaining air rod footage. Skeptics still rely on the ideas of insects, birds and windblown debris fairly frequently.

Also, since it is hard to disprove the historical air rod footage, many skeptics have chosen to concentrate their energies on the most tender and vulnerable area of the air rod phenomena. This is the fad that gained momentum after the initial discoveries. The idea of air rods attracted all sorts of weirdos and kooks. Also, since it is so easy to hoax air rod photographs, many hoaxes began showing up to complicate the issue. It is fairly easy to attack these hoaxes, so that is what skeptics did. In fact, all post-discovery air rod footage is suspect unless it can be solidly proven that the filmmaker was not trying to get air rod footage. A true professional hoaxer could skillfully use puppetry and/or computer generated images to produce fake films that would be quite hard to detect.

Most air rods have been debunked as a problem with cameras that shows an insect's several wing beats instead of one, creating a rod effect (see picture above).

Sightings

image
Artist's rendering

Air rods were discovered in the 1990s. People found that some films of all types, ranging from home videos to movies seen in theaters, had odd disturbances that looked something like blurry rods that were mostly transparent, occasionally whitish in color. Most of these disturbances were fast-moving and barely visible to the eye. These rods show up best against large areas of the same color, such as the sky.

The people who examined films for anomalies of this sort started calling what they did "sky fishing" because they usually started by looking at the areas of sky that were visible in films. They found that these rods were widespread. Countless films had them lurking almost imperceptibly in the corners, including old television shows, movies, films of sporting events, almost everything imaginable. There were simply too many examples to study them all, running into the thousands or tens of thousands. There were also air rods visible in photographs, but these were hardly studied at all for reasons that will become clear below.
Description

Close study of air rod films revealed a number of very interesting features. As these rods zoomed about, they displayed all the features of three-dimensional objects. In other words, they were not two-dimensional blotches on the camera lens or on the film itself, but something out there in the environment that was actually being filmed by accident. This three-dimensional nature of air rods has been proven without a doubt by the types of measurements and tests that only professionals can do. Careful measurements showed that most rods were between four inches and three feet long. They seemed like uniform cylinders without any difference between the head end and tail end, with pairs of appendages along the length of this cylinder.

image
Flying Rod in the night time. Insect? New Species? Or something alien?
In some air rods, these appendages look like fins that vibrate rapidly along the entire length of the cylinder in undulating waves. Other rods have appendages that look more like very rapidly beating bee wings. Most of the time, rods are blurry and transparent in color, making them inconspicuous. A rare few are very white in color, sometimes an even, solid white. The cylinder part often resembles an out-of-focus hair on the camera lens, but the appendages along with the three-dimensional turnings and motions mean that genuine air rods cannot possibly be hairs on the camera lens.

In addition to their three-dimensional character, these rods seemed to act in intelligent ways. Sometimes several rods followed each other and seemed to play with each other in the manner that butterflies might play. Rods sometimes followed people. They never went through other objects, they always went around them, even when this meant deviating from the path they had been on before. This seemed to indicate that they could not pass through solid objects and that they might be alive.

History

However, if they were living creatures, why had people never seen them? Why did they only show up on film? And what could they possibly be made of?

This fad has produced a mountain of recent photos and films. Suspiciously, the whitish air rods that are easy to see are showing up much more frequently in these pictures. Also, since rods are blurry, a great number of rather ordinary things that probably are random anomalies of film developing or hairs on the camera lens have been identified as air rods by amateurs. It is easy for skeptics to demolish such pictures. However, if something has never been taken seriously by serious air rod researchers, skeptics don't prove anything by debunking it.

It has become popular among the faddish air rod supporters to claim that air rods can be seen with the naked eye, something that serious researchers have never suggested. It has also become popular to claim that air rods are not living creatures, instead, they are UFO probes sent by aliens. There is no particular evidence connecting aliens and air rods, people just think that it seems like a good idea. This idea is so popular that many believers have started calling air rods "Roswell rods" after Roswell, New Mexico, a town with a famous history of UFOs. Also, this is because the famous "cave footage" (one of the clearest known films of air rods) was filmed in New Mexico, but not in Roswell.

Apart from the fad and the people this fad has attracted, serious researchers are still trying to find a solution to the air rod mystery. The biggest part of this mystery focuses on what air rods might be made of. How can something be visible on film (even if it is inconspicuous) but never to the naked eye? There is no known material substance that has this property. Faddists like to claim that air rods move too fast for people to see them. This is simply not true. Although air rods are fast, many films show them taking several seconds to circle a person. Anything going at such a speed ought to be visible.
Air rods do look as if they vibrate at a high rate, lending them a blurry character, but this phenomenon is like that of quickly rotating blades in a fan. As the blades speed up, they become a blur and then gradually become almost transparent, but you can still see them. It might be possible for air rods to be nearly invisible if they are made of a small number of thin, transparent surfaces that vibrate or beat the air very quickly. If this is what air rods are made of, they are probably insects of some kind. They would be a new species since nobody has ever reported invisible insects before. Even so, it does seem suspicious that people cannot see them but the camera can. Even if they are transparent, quick-moving and blurry, it seems like people ought to be able to see them without the use of cameras.

imageRod effect

Sara Ruth #fundie aish.com

[Reacting to Leora Eisenberg's "Why I Choose to Dress Modestly"]

I am all applause for your article EXCEPT: You say "religious fundamentalism" as if it is a dirty thing. Fundamentalism is strict adherence to [ones faith], ...[where religious teaching] is taken literally and obeyed in full. When a person follows [doctrine], both [the] literal and implied, this is fundamentalism. For me, there is no other reason to be "religious". We either believe Gd or we don't, we either believe we have His Word or we don't and if we DO believe in Gd and we believe we have His command to us but we have no intention of following its fundamentals, what is the point? In reality, that tells us clearly that we do NOT believe that we can know anything about Gd by HIS Words or that we can even trust our sacred books to BE His Word; so we absolutely cannot believe in the faith we profess. I know; "the Jewish community must keep its identity". But I cannot fathom why because it is Gd who gave this "identity" and if we doubt and/or reject the fundamental teachings of Gd...I am just saying, what IS the point? IF you believe in Gd and believe Gd's Word, religious fundamentalism is not just a GOOD thing it is the ONLY thing. We cannot seriously believe Gd is Creator, that He is Sovereign, and yet say "We see your law and You are too strict, You are 'outdated'. We will do SO MUCH but NO MORE because we will not believe You actually meant what You said or at least that You meant for it to stand for us. We will decide what You mean and 'interpret' it where WE deem necessary and in OUR idea of the kind of god we actually believe You are." That will never do; it would never do for a human king and it will surely never do for our Gd. Gd is STILL Noah's Gd. Gd is STILL Avraham's Gd. Gd is STILL Moshe's Gd. Gd is STILL David's Gd. Gd is STILL the Gd of the Prophets. Gd did not change. It is not likely He left us a Word that would become "outdated" or "optional", especially not before Messiah. If we don't believe that, why "believe" at all..is it just me?

John Oakes #fundie evidenceforchristianity.org

There is a third reason many do not accept faith in Jesus. This group may very well be the largest group, but I have not studied the question carefully. This is the group who are well aware, or at least sufficiently well aware of who Jesus is and the evidence for the Bible and for the deity of Christ, but who are unwilling to accept the implications. If Jesus is Lord and master, then I am his servant. If what Jesus said is true, then I am in trouble over my sin and need to repent of that sin. For a great number of people, the requirement of Jesus that we repent of our sins and turn our life over to him is sufficient reason to not be a Christian. What a great number of people do about this fact is that they choose not to believe. To believe is to necessitate change. We rationalize our unbelief. The way Paul puts it in Romans 1:18,19 many, because of their unrighteousness, “suppress the truth, since what can be known about God is evident…” The way Jesus put it, “This, then, is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil.” The people in Jesus’ day had plenty of reason to believe in Jesus. The resurrection of Lazarus spoke for itself. Yet, many refuse to come into the light. What these people end up doing is they find a way to rationalize away belief in Jesus. They manufacture logical arguments, twist or ignore data to justify not believing in Jesus. I have read a great number of books by skeptics and critics of Christianity. Most of their arguments are so obviously false as to be silly, yet these writers are convinced of their arguments. It is my experience that what people believe has more to do with emotion than evidence. When belief in something challenges our security, our pride, our desire to seek pleasure, we are more than willing to conveniently ignore the evidence and to construct a belief in something that is not true. I believe that if you think about it, you will be able to think of many personal situations of people you know who blatantly ignore obvious truth because they cannot handle the implications.

So, there are a variety of reasons people do not believe. One thing for sure, it is not for lack of evidence or due to lack of time for the evidence to have gotten around. Our job as believers is to try to help all three groups of non-believers to come into the light through our personal example and careful instruction.

The reason you do not see the evidence for Christ on TV or in the media in general is that Satan and non-believers in general have control of the media. The reason information about DNA has spread whereas the gospel has not is that people, in general, do not have an emotional reason to reject belief in DNA.

Sheshbazzar #fundie godlikeproductions.com

Jesus is God: A Simple Biblical Argument

I challenge all of you to point out what is heretical in what follows. Monotheism, I serve Yahweh, I know him. You don't and are a coward for your avoiding this simple, innocent question, namely whether Jesus is or isn't the word "God".

All of you effeminate deniers of Jesus' godhood have a lacking reason, you cannot prove the obvious, that Son = Father, and insist on proving the unprovable i.e., that Son != Father. This your modest reason, you, irrationally obviously, still want to stuff in the stead of your other lacuna, you want to substitute reason for faith, dividing your already mince reason, faith being nonexistent in you. Thus it is that

For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. (Matthew 13.12)

Argument (turn your brain on, if you can):

Jesus is the word of God, the word "God". Word of God, means that "word" is a property of "God" i.e., "God" is a word. Jesus is the word "God". (Already lost?).

This word of God is spoken of God. This word "God" is the original meaning of the word "God", what does it means to be God. This word is the concept of God which God begat by thinking on himself. God conceived his concept by introspection, God knew himself: who knows God better than God himself? Yea, who knows God at all except God?

This word of God says everything about God, whatever you will ever correctly think about God is derivable from the word of God. This word of God is simply the I of God. This I of God is his identity, his image and likeness. This word is the temple of God, the stones of which are the angels, messages of God, words of God, children of God who speak about God, they are the properties, relations of God, just like in mathematical logic. The chief cornerstone thereof being the word of God itself. Yes the word "God" is a proper part of itself.

This word is the praise of God for whatever it says about God can only be praise. This praise of God, by speaking about what it witnesses, by praising God, says itself because it is itself that praise. Thus the word of God says itself. The word of God, like God, says the word of God. The word of God knows God. The word of God is God because, as already mentioned, only God can know himself. (Quick test: go and say "I" in public, does anyone, except you, answers "here I am"?).

The above is a rational proof of Father = Son.
Notice that whenever you speak about God, your sentence, as a concept, involves nothing but concepts, in particular the concept of God. Consider for instance the following true relation "Father begets Son". What is the word "Father"? It is none other than the concept of God. This concept is none other than the word of God, the word "God", the Son. Hence the equivalent relation: "Son begets Son". Can you distinguish Father from Son? No, as the above example a posteriori confirms. The name of God "I become" or "I was, I am, I come" makes this obvious: "I come" is begotten of "I am" and yet is still the name of God, the I of God i.e., the Son.

And yet, the Son isn't God, but this is unprovable and leads to a contradiction. You cannot say it, it is beyond any concept. I tacitly believe this. But you can't, your faculty of faith is atrophied. What the mysterious equality Father = Son causes is the contradictory, void and without form hell where we are right now. Where the Son was sent, where we, Ittai the Gittite, fell, following the Son withersoever he goeth, even unto death.

You don't know God, you don't know the Bible, you are worthless dross to be done away with.

Matt Walsh #fundie theblaze.com

Dear Christians, it doesn’t matter how you feel. It matters what the Bible says.

Jen Hatmaker is a prominent Christian author and speaker. My wife tells me she had a show on HGTV for a while. These days, she’s apparently moved away from renovating homes to renovating Scripture.

That’s a problem, because unlike an old ranch-style house with ugly carpets and 1970’s wallpaper, God’s Holy Word doesn’t need any updates. It’s eternal, unchanging, and always right, no matter how we happen to feel about it.

Christians like Jen Hatmaker would do well to remember this. Especially if they’ve been given, or have claimed for themselves, a position of leadership in the faith. It’s a grave responsibility to be a Christian with an audience. As someone with an audience of my own, I know this well. If we contradict Christian teaching, if we misrepresent Christ’s commandments, if we lead people away from the truth and into the darkness, we have not only put their souls in jeopardy but our own. Christ says it would be better for us to drown in the sea with a stone tied around our necks than to cause someone else to stumble into sin. I believe He meant that quite literally.


That leads us to Hatmaker’s interview with Religion News this week.

When asked about gay “marriage,” Hatmaker declared that homosexuals have the “right” to marry members of the same sex. She said our churches should offer support and instruction to those in gay “marriages.” In other words, she believes that churches should not only accept the abomination of gay “marriage,” but actively facilitate it. When asked if she would attend a gay “wedding,” she said she’d be there with “gladness,” ready to pop the champagne and celebrate their sin with them. She said that if her own child turned out to be gay, she would want him to enter a “faithful, committed marriage” with another man. And, in final act of heresy, she announced that gay sexual relationships are “holy.”

This is the Gospel according to Jen Hatmaker. Many supposed Christians in our culture have a similar Gospel. But it may be useful to pause here and reflect on what the Actual Gospel has to say on the subject. Indeed, we either believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God or we don’t. If we don’t, then we shouldn’t be writing books and giving interviews and going on TV and speaking in front of crowds while waving the “Christian” banner. We should renounce the faith, declare ourselves agnostic or atheist or whatever, and then we’ll be free to promote moral relativism and hedonism all we want. We’ll still be wrong, but at least we’ll no longer be heretics. But if we do actually accept the Bible as the unalterable and eternal truth, then we must make sure that we aren’t publicly contradicting it.

So, for the benefit of those Christians who think Scripture was silent on the issues of marriage and sexuality, here are a few relevant passages:

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” – 1 Corinthians 6:9

“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.” – Romans 1:26

“Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine” – 1 Timothy 1:8

“Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” – Jude 7

Hatmaker called gay relationships “holy,” which means divine, while the Apostle Paul called them degrading and unnatural, and promised that anyone who practices homosexuality and does not repent will be barred from the Kingdom of God. As Christians, we are left to ponder who is a greater authority here: The Apostle Paul or the lady from HGTV.

Now, you may struggle with the Biblical teaching on homosexuality, just as you may struggle with any other teaching. You may not understand it. You may find it harsh and difficult and emotionally distressing. But before we even get into explaining why the Bible says what it says, all we really need to establish is that it does say it. Period. We are commanded by God to accept this teaching or risk losing our souls. It’s not an option. We are not required to follow Christ only in the areas where we can find mutual agreement with Him. Our consent and agreement does not matter. At all. Not one tiny bit. We are called to follow regardless. That’s what it means to love God.

If Mrs. Hatmaker finds herself grappling with doubt and uncertainty about this teaching or any other, she should pray about it, consult her pastor, read Scripture, read Christian apologetics on the topic, pray some more and then pray again. She should do all of this in private, speaking only with close Christian friends and mentors who may be able to help her sort through it. But what she should not do — what she absolutely cannot do — is stand in front of the world and declare these teachings moot just because she finds them distasteful. How she feels about them personally is of no consequence. She is not God. Her thoughts and feelings don’t become reality just because they entered into her head.

Obedience is not emphasized in churches very often these days, but it should be. Obedience to God means following Him, standing by Him, affirming His teachings at all times, even when we struggle to understand them. We are commanded to submit to God. Submit. That means give in to His Word and His Law, no matter how it makes us feel.

So, why is gay marriage wrong? Well, first of all, because He said so. I know that reason will not be enough to convince unbelievers outside of the church, but for Christians, if we intend to continue being Christian, it is reason enough. “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding,” Proverbs reminds us. If you don’t understand why God condemns the homosexual act, that’s because you lack wisdom and insight. It’s not because God is wrong. Don’t rely on your own understanding. Trust God. That’s the fundamental problem with Christians who try to “update” the sexual morality of the Bible: They don’t trust God. They don’t believe Him. And if they don’t believe Him, it’s hard to see how they could really believe in Him.

But if we do want to understand why God has declared the homosexual act a sin — even if the why of God doesn’t matter nearly as much as the what — I would recommend that we do three things:

First, read the first chapter of Genesis. God looked at Adam alone on Earth and decided that he needed a partner. It is not good for man to be alone, He said, so he made Eve. This tells us that men and women were, in a very intimate and profound way, made for each other.

Second, read the early passages in the Gospels. Christ was born of a woman and raised by His mother and His earthly father. We call Jesus, Mary, and Joseph the “Holy Family,” but you might also call them the “correct” or “true” family. If we want to know what a family is supposed to look like — and if all of the Biblical words and commands and teachings on the subject are somehow not enough — then we need only observe the physical, literal demonstration God provided for us. He said, “Here is a family, THE family. Make your families like this one.” How much clearer could He be?

Third, read Matthew 19. Jesus, casting away any lingering doubts, describes a lawful marriage in detail: “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 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’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

According to the Son of God, a marriage occurs when a man is united to his wife and the two become one flesh. There you go. There it is. There’s the truth. What part of “man united to his wife” is difficult to understand?

These three passages are especially important because they tell us something about the nature of things. Marriage has a certain nature. It serves a certain function. It does certain things and exists for certain reasons, and those things and those reasons and those functions are all made clear by God and His prophets and Apostles. If we read the Bible, we come to understand that gay “marriage” is not simply immoral, but intrinsically impossible. It doesn’t just defy God’s commandments, it defies logic. Speaking of gay “marriage” is like speaking of “dry water” or “rectangular triangles.” It’s simply incoherent.

Now, there are many aspects of the faith that I find challenging and mysterious. Personally, for me, this isn’t one of them. It all seems quite sensible and utterly consistent with the innate moral intuition that all human beings possess. But even if I couldn’t see the logic in Biblical marriage and even if I couldn’t intuit it based on natural law, it would still be just as true, and I would be called to affirm it and profess it all the same. There are many concepts that my puny little brain can’t seem to wrap itself around, but that’s why I must lean on God’s understanding. Not mine. And certainly not Jen Hatmaker’s.

So I would ask Mrs. Hatmaker what she believes has happened in the last few years that all of a sudden changes the fundamental nature of marriage? What exactly have we learned, in our modern and enlightened state, that even Jesus Christ did not know? What is the truth that we’ve discovered that debunks the truth given to us by God Almighty? Yes, a lot of us have icky feelings about Biblical sexual morality, but feelings aren’t truth.

Of course I’m being a bit flippant. Nothing has happened or can ever happen to debunk or disprove God’s truth. All that can happen is that we, in our weakness and stupidity, become blinded to it. And if we are blind then we should pray to have our eyes opened. But until that happens, all we can do is follow God’s voice in the darkness, wherever it leads. That, we should always remember, is the very essence of faith.

Andrea Tantaros & Stephen Hayes #fundie google.com.au

Fox Hosts: Jennifer Lawrence "Sound Like An Idiot" For Calling Out GOP On Marriage Equality, Women's Rights

ANDREA TANTAROS: Actress Jennifer Lawrence sharing some harsh views on the GOP. The Hunger Games star tells Vogue magazine: "I was raised a Republican, but I just can't imagine supporting a party that doesn't support women's basic rights. It's 2015 and gay people can get married, and we think that we've come so far, so yay! But have we? I don't want to stay quiet about that stuff." The 25-year-old star also slamming Kentucky county clerk, Kim Davis. You'll remember she is the woman who refused to issue gay marriage licenses earlier this year. Lawrence saying, "She's a lady who makes me embarrassed to be from Kentucky. All those people holding their crucifixes, which may be as well -- I don't know -- pitchforks, thinking that they're fighting the good fight. I grew up in Kentucky. I know how they are." Wow, I'm embarrassed for Jennifer Lawrence, I'm embarrassed to be a woman, Harris, to listen to a female spout some idiocy.

HARRIS FAULKNER: Pitchforks? Really?

TANTAROS: Yes.

FAULKNER: Wow. You know, I'm actually speechless about this, because hearing you read it was so different than when I read it myself. Hearing those words out loud, did she practice that? I mean, maybe this is a script from an upcoming movie that we don't know about. Because I --

TANTAROS: No we already made -- the movie Clueless was already made. We had Stacey Dash on the couch.

FAULKNER: I just -- I don't believe it's reality.

TANTAROS: These are pretty dumb remarks.

FAULKNER: So yeah, you know, Sandra said something earlier, and now I'm starting to get it. You know, they're supposed to be actors and actresses. When they do this sort of thing, I'm curious, does this kind of check a box against them for marketability? Because people may not like her much after --

SANDRA SMITH: I don't know. In Hollywood it makes you more marketable, right?

FAULKNER: You think so?

SMITH: Look, she's -- I'm afraid to say this now, but she is a very good actress. She's won numerous awards. Her movies do very, very well. I don't know if she's looking for attention here, but I'm just speculating. But I mean this -- for her to speak on behalf of so many people, religions, groups. It's just irresponsible. I don't think it'll hurt her though.

TANTAROS: She insulted quite a few people in that rant that she did, Stephen. I just want to know what rights does Jennifer Lawrence not have?

STEPHEN HAYES: Well she is well within her rights to say that she doesn't want to stay quiet anymore, and she obviously has passionate views about some of these issues. I would just say as a matter of helping her, giving her some advice, if you don't have anything intelligent to say, you're better off remaining quiet. And to suggest that Christians wield their crucifixes like pitchforks, really says much more about her ignorance than it does about Christians broadly.

TANTAROS: Alright so she has the right to say these things.

JULIE ROGINSKY: She does.

TANTAROS: And she has the right to sound like an idiot, I guess.

ROGINSKY: Well, I don't think her views on Kim Davis were idiotic. I know everybody's going to disagree with me, but I think Kim Davis took her religious views and foisted them upon the rest of Kentucky, you know, the rest of her county. And the reality is that, quite frankly, she was supposed to follow the law, the law was what it was, and she chose to say that her religion was more important.

HAYES: But even for people who believe that -- and there are some conservatives who believe that -- even for people who believe that, that's one very narrow point that she made, and made inartfully. But then to broadly say that Christians wield their crucifixes like pitchfork, it's absurd.

ROGINSKY: I don't disagree with that at all. But listen, let's not forget, Jennifer Lawrence is, what, 22, 23, 25 -- I don't care, I keep saying this.

SMITH: She's an adult.

ROGINSKY: You're right, but I keep saying this, who cares what Jennifer Lawrence has to say? I mean, I get that she's a celebrity, but can we please stop listening? And I say this as a Democrat, I really don't care what George Clooney has to say. Who cares what these people have to say?

FAULKNER: He looks good, though.

ROGINSKY: He looks good saying it, but you know what? Let's stop paying attention to them.

HAYES: She looks OK.

ROGINSKY: Let her say what she wants to say. You are only offended if you choose to be offended. You don't like what she says? Don't go to her movies then.

TANTAROS: Oh Julie, as long as liberals keep saying dumb stuff, we're gonna cover it right here on this program.

ROGINSKY: Well, then I'll keep coming back and helping you say it. Alright.

Sparrow's Song #sexist #psycho incels.co

[Story] [Truecel Confession] I've Been Larping Online As A 47yr Old Convicted Child Molester For Two Years Just So I Can Bask In The Hatred People React With

I first got the idea after I got home from shopping at a Wal-Mart a few years ago. This was before I started wearing an eye patch whenever I went outside. I noticed that due to my enopthalmos and asymmetrical brow ridge, strangers would give me these horrible looks like I was the creepiest, inbred child molester they have ever seen. When I was looking up pictures of men with enopthalmos on google, I noticed that enopthalmos literally makes you look like a creepy toddler rapist. Then I looked up child molester mugshots and it appears that enopthalmos is a common trait among child molesters, in fact I would say that enopthalmos is such a child molester feature that any man who is afflicted with enopthalmos is literally a child molester whether they have molested children or not. If you have enopthalmos, society has assigned the role of child molester to you, you don't have a choice... that's how people will see you until you get surgery or rope.

So I decided to to see how people would react to enopthalmos with words because it's not like I talked to all the people irl who gave me looks of disgust and disdain. The best way to see how people react to men with enopthalmos is to see how people react to convicted child molesters. So I started larping as one so I could get an idea of what is going on inside of people's heads when they see my face irl.

A guy literally went tryhard on me and grabbed my IP to find my city and state. Then he looked for 47yr old convicted child molesters who served 10 years for a crime committed in 2007. He couldn't find anyone in my area who perfectly matched the description of my larp I gave him. Eventually, a friend of my friend who was in on the larp told him I was larping and why I was doing it. Then the guy with the IP grabber went around telling a bunch of the people who were spamming me death threats and shit that I was a larper. He was being a soyboy cuck about it and tried to call me mentally ill, I told him I was facially ill and I told him that I'm a convicted child molester no matter what because that's what me face look like. I was pretty upset that he did this because the hatred people had for me and all of the threats were my main cope at the time.

I wish there was a way I could get officially registered as a convicted child molester without actually molesting a toddler. I saw this documentary about a trailer park with for child molesters that were rejected from every other place they tried to live. That would be a great place for me because I wouldn't be getting facemogged or lifemogged that hard by people. there. All my neighbors would be worthless ugly scum just like me and we'd all be hated equally. I hate living around symmetrical faced people who aren't worthless and waiting to die like I am. There needs to be segregation. If facial surgery isn't covered by healthcare, the government should at least offer a program where they falsify records in your behalf so that any ugly faced man can be a convicted child molester without molesting a kid or doing prison time. Just give me the member's card, send me to the pedo trailer park, and give me pedobux. When you have enopthalmos and asymmetrical brow ridge, you have no future, no career, no friends, no relationships... you will die alone hated by the world and seen as subhuman trash... just like old child molester. That's why I identify as Trans-Convicted Child Molester, my lack of child molestation and prison time should not prevent me from having the same status and treatment as a biological convicted child molester, my face is all that should matter.

TheSageOfDarkness #fundie zeldauniverse.net

on uganda's "kill the gays bill

We don't like it, but it's not our problem. We have no right to tell other people what to do. I know People will hate me for saying that, but it's the truth.


[ ^Are you talking about homosexuality or the Death Penalty for homosexual acts. ]

Death penalty for homosexual acts.


[ If you mean what I think you mean, then you're a horrible, horrible person. If not, then I apologize for misreading.BTW, everyone has the right to tell others what to do. However, the person recieving the criticism has the right to not accept it or act on it. This applies equally to us as it does to the Ugandan government ]


Sorry. but we do not agree. I will never tell another person what to do with their life and the choices they make.

[ You're still being ambiguous. It's almost as if you're telling me that we shouldn't be telling the Ugandan government what to do.

But we're not. We're just reminding them that they don't have the right to tell homosexual people what to do, a-la your logic. ]


I know what you are saying, but us crying about it is not going to change anybodies mind. If it was me I would do it more simply because it people complain and it would piss me off. I'm sure thats how they are. Until people shut up they will just troll the ???? out of the US and any other country that complains about what their leaders do.


You're speaking as if it's our country. We have choices. We in our society can say yes or no. They do not. If somebody disagrees they die, and if they want to pass a bill, they just will. No matter what their people say. That is the bigger problem! NOT JUST GAYS! I think that is what people should worry about more. People dying for having their own mind. Not just one group of people. It makes me sick seeing people cry over gays, blacks, ect, when it is the entire masses that are being killed for just having their own outlook. Yet again though, we should not worry about them when we have our own country to unite and fix. We waste too much time on other countries.


[ on gay marriage]

I believe Homosexuality is incorrect. Not wrong, incorrect. I'm not trying to offend anybody but I can have my own opinion on it. Humans have the gift of introspection and we can tell the difference between our sexes. Nature HAS intended for male and female to be together and I should not have to explain myself. I myself cannot stand the argument, “Animals are gay too" because that is redundant as all hell. Again, we have this little thing called self-awareness. Most animals do not, and the ones that do have nothing close to our level of ours. I just don't understand how people can be with the same sex and I never will. People have told me they love them. But again, I don't believe in romantic love. Just so everybody knows I am no gay basher, I have a few gay friends and what not. But when it comes to the marriage thing, I do not think it is our right to bud in on its foundation. Marriage IS a religious coming together of a man and women. It has nothing to do with the state or with in the laws. It's something that religious people do not do and I respect it. I think gays trying to pry their way in are just disrespectful to people who believe in tradition.

...

It's very simple. We have two sexes, not one. My personal look on it is some sort of brain dysfunction. I know it sounds harsh, but again, you can look up studies on this. Our bodies chemicals come into play with the opposite sex. It's our natural working order. So how can people become gay? It's intriguing the human mind.

Emotional ties can be bisexual, yes. But like other animals, humans fit into groups. We have friends and become close to one another. But we don't start humping each other either. I don't see relationships as straight or gay because I do not believe in romantic relationships. I see it as who is humping who because at the end of the day, we are organisms and we multiply. That is what life naturally is. Eat, sleep, and sex. That is what we did at the beginning of our existence. But our intellect is so advanced now, we can sit back and think about what we do. Which I think adds to human error. We make weird decisions

[ Are you implying that only religious people can get married?Also, are you implying that gays can't be religious ]

Gays can be. But thats hypocritical. Like when Gay people say, " God doesn't care who I'm with." But if they open up their little book and actually read it, they would see otherwise. . Stupid people like that who have no idea what they are talking about makes me laugh. I am not even religious and yet I know more about a lot of religions than it's own people simply because it's fascinating.

Yes. My point. We don't make the rules. Why are there 2 sexes then if that is not what nature has intended? Not just with animated life either. It goes the same for our plants too. Why do so many refuse to see the obvious? WE ARE MADE TO WORK THAT WAY! It's so sad, but I know it's true, that you can't even have your kids in 3rd grade before they have some he-she walk into a classroom and talk about gay ????. LEAVE THAT TO THE PARENTS! Not only that but I understand the caring part and emotional ties with other humans. I can kinda see how that works. But when a chick has a dick and a dude has a vag, something is not screwed in right in their heads. Sorry. If I had kids I would be really pissed off if my school had somebody teach them about ( "tolerating" ) gays, yet do not teach them facts about them or so much as point out the obvious. I had to sit through it myself but I just laughed at it. White kids and be called "honkeies" all day long and we hear "nigga" in our childrens schools everyday but "fag" is just so evil it will get a kid kicked out of school? Are you kidding me? Equal rights = Equal treatment. Not special treatment and that what they REALLY want. Not to be criticized, and people are too scared to do it in this day and age but I am not. I will not support cry babies that complain and waste my time really giving a ????. People that have lives have better ???? to do than listen to people complain. If they want to get married there are five states and a few countries they can move to.


Again, I am not a homophobe and even my gay friends understand where I am coming from. I am not trying to offend anybody.

CrossRufus #dunning-kruger #conspiracy #fundie #crackpot #pratt reddit.com

One thing I have been increasingly taking notice of is how e-skepticals - you know, the "science, reason, facts and logic" crowd, people you can easily find at internet communities such as "Fundies Say The Darndest Things", "RationalWiki" and basically most left-wing forums - tend to be extremelly vain, ego-driven and arrogantic. For instance, let's illustrate this with a hypothetical situation: imagine it's scientific consensus that a few million years ago there was a frozen continent named "Lumumba" and that a random man named Edmund contests the existence of Lumumba; according to the skepticals Edmund is a mentally unstable idiot whose brain lives in an alternative reality. At a first glance it could seem fair to regard him as such, he's in disagreement with thousands of individuals who are educated on that field after all, right? However, let's take into account that Edmund currently has no means to verify these claims by himself (like most people) and it basically has no relevance at all to his practical life; having that in mind, one should start to question if it really makes sense to mock and belittle that person. Why must he believe what a bunch of people with diplomas tell him on the matter in order to not be deemed as intelectually inferior? If having an inquisitive mindset is so valued and praised by the "facts and reason" crew then why people like Edmund are supposed to just accept everything scientists say? Why does that say anything about his mental health if believing or not believing in Lumumba causes literally zero negative impact in his life or in the lives of others? The whole issue here comes down to the fact that these skepticals aren't really interested in promoting scientific thinking and skepticism but rather in feeding their own ego and trying to affirme themselves as smart and enlightened in comparison to the "idiotic science-denying bigoted cranky fundies"; that's why you have youtube videos with titles such as "physicist reacts to flat-earthers" and websites such as the ones mentioned at the beggining (RationalWiki and FDST), it's all a huge group session of intellectual masturbation.

And no, I am not strawmaning, that hypothetical situation is based-off something quite similar I saw on a FDST thread: it was a comment that labeled anyone who took Pink Swastika (a book about alleged homosexuals in the Nazi Party and the connection between homossexuality and the fascist ideology) seriously was clinically insane. I mean, really? The view one has about things that happened more than seven decades ago in another continent is really so relevant to the point of determining their mental health? I can kind of understand cases like the mockery of flat-earthers (well, actually I don't, thinking that the Earth is flat causes no damage to anyone, so why not just let them have their belief instead of starting this whole outrage?), since it's actually possible to verify by yourself that the Earth cannot be flat (for example, by looking at the clouds in the sky or realizing that people in other countries are under different time-zones), but having this same attitude towards something so inexact, imprecise, malleable and distant such as the study of the past is an attestation of arrogance.

"You clearly don't understand how science works, the scientific method is extremely rigorous and scientists have to stand scrutiny from their peers in order to have their findings accepted as factual. If you have doubts about a certain topic you can simply study and verify it by yourself" Ok then, I will study it by myself and come to my own conclusions, but until I'm in my right to have doubts and having them instead of just blindly accepting everything the scientific community says (like, let's be honest, everyone does) doesn't make me intelectually inferior to anyone. However, let's not ignore that it would take me years and years of study to "understans" just one specific topic, that I would still have to just accept as true everything that my peers from the hundreds of other fields say (no, you can't seriously expect someone to specialize on everything in a lifetime, come on) and that even in my own field I would have to assume as true the countless premises that it's based upon (for example, an archeologist has to accept this or that method of dating as the most precise so everything he has learned so far can make sense - this example may not be accurate but I just wanted something to illustrate what I meant)

"Yikes, the Dunning-Kruger is strong on this one. Ok Mr. Nuanced Contrarian, so if all doctors said that taking poison is harmful for your well-being and may possibly culminate in your death but a local charlatan claimed it would give you superpowers then you would take both claims as having the same weight just because you can't verify it by yourself first?" No, I would absolutely stand with the doctors on that one; however, that's not because they are science-people but rather due the fact I know from my own experience that poison is harmful (by seeing all the cases of people who took it and experienced negative effects). So yes, I agree that it's stupid to do certain things when you can verify with YOUR OWN EYES that it won't have a good outcome (not vaccinating your kids, for example)

"We know that science is accurate because it works" Why? Where that implication comes from? Just because a certain institution or group of people creates things that work and improve our lives it doesn't necessarily mean their explanations and theories behind their "inventions" are true; if that is the case then the healers of some amazonian tribe are correct in their beliefs about spirits just because some of their cures are effective?

"If you are so against science then why don't you just drop your phone, leave everything behind and go live in the wilderness?" Again, why? Where that implication comes from? Just because I don't accept as true some explanations of reality that the scientific community come up with it doesn't mean that I think everything related to science is evil and that we should reject all of it's inventions

"You are thinking of scientists as 'the others' when in reality they are just people like you. Also, it would make no sense for scientists to try hiding something from the public when in fact they would receive prestige for exposing the findings of their peers as false" Well, what if they are indeed 'the others'? I mean, who knows? There could be a lobby to push for some agenda or a certain conspiracy to cover something up; this may sound like silly conspirationism but you can't really know for sure. As for the "scientists will seek to disprove their peers instead of covering them up" part, it's just an assumption, there is no reason to say that scientists will necessarily have such mindset; it can be true but it could also be true that anyone who questioned the consensus would risk getting ostracized or even losing their diploma and their source of income - I mean, who knows?

"Science may not have the answers for everything but that doesn't mean your cranky nutjob theories are on the same level of accuracy and respectability" Well, that's a "case by case" situation since there are many different "cranky nutjob theories" out there, but to spare some words and space let's say that such affirmation is mostly true. What then? Just because the alternative theories are wrong it doesn't mean all criticism is invalid. Furthermore, you have to have in mind that different worldviews often come from differing premises and assumptions; science, for instance, is based on methodological naturalism, the assumption the explanation for every topic investigated must be a natural/material/non-supernatural one, while a religious person, for example, takes into account the existence of the divine and thus will likely come up with an alternative and supernatural view of the same phenomenon (what you mockingly label as "goddidit"). Yes, these people have a faith they embrace and because of that they think differently, what's your problem with that? Why can't you just let them be? Oh, I forgot: you guys are desperate for self-affirmation and in constant need of feeling smart and enlightened in comparison to the "cranks, bigots and fundies", right?

Cindy Jacobs #fundie rawstory.com

Self-proclaimed television prophet Cindy Jacobs recently told her followers that her faith once caused a woman to re-grow a cheek bone in seconds and that she was able to self-heal a grapefruit-sized tumor caused by Satan.

In a web video posted last week, Jacobs explained that she once felt “crippled in my gift” to heal because she prayed for someone and they died.

“I was so hurt over this that I wasn’t willing anymore to extend my faith, I was shipwrecked,” she said.


But at a prayer meeting, Jacobs said she began to “move out powerfully in faith.”

“I gave this prophecy, ‘You were in a car accident, and it destroyed your right cheekbone, so literally there’s a hollow under your cheek, you have no cheekbone. Where are you?’” she asked people at the meeting. “You see, that even takes faith to ask someone to stand up when you’re ministering like this.”

“And so, this woman stood up, you could see that she had been in a car accident, she had that concave, you know, look to her cheek,” Jacobs continued. “And I said, ‘Reach up and feel it.’ And she did. And as she rubbed her hand over her cheek, when she moved it away, you could see, God had grown the bone right under her hand.”

“Praise the Lord!”

Jacobs said that she was also able to heal herself after God showed her “the root of some things that allowed sickness into me.”

“I once had a grapefruit-sized tumor in my body, and the Holy Spirit showed me the source of that,” the TV prophet recalled. “It had come from a root of unforgiveness and a root of wounding. And, in fact, it was near — or behind my female organs or whatever and the Lord showed me that Satan had wounded me as a woman.”

Jon Rappoport #quack #wingnut #conspiracy lewrockwell.com

COVID Trauma-Based Mind Control

“Can we get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature, such as self preservation?” (CIA interdepartmental memo, Project ARTICHOKE, January 1952)

The covert operation called COVID, which has been planned for years, is all about trauma-based mind control.

The trauma combines fear of a germ with the sudden psychic shock of the lockdowns, the masks, the social distancing, the economic destruction.

For many people, this trauma is paralyzing on a subconscious level.

The government and media messaging about the “pandemic” was immediate, and it was launched as a wall-to-wall campaign. News reports, ads, public service announcements, talk shows, newspaper articles, press conferences, etc. No room was permitted for counter-opinion and evidence or intelligent discussion and debate. The messaging flood plays a major role in the trauma effect.

In a state of subconscious paralysis, people obey. They follow orders. They sleep-walk. They even, on top of the layer of paralysis, actively defend the powers-that-be.

A nation asleep. A world asleep.

—This would be the time for a political leader to step forward and address the people, in order to wake them up—first, by directing them to look around and see the unconscionable economic and, therefore, human wreckage.

This leader, this president, would describe in sufficient detail the horrendous situation: job loss, business closures, bankruptcies, suicides, murders, broken families. The national engine of production, shut down. The “cure worse than the disease.” Far worse.

Then the leader would rally the nation with a plan for recovery. This would be a further wake-up call. For example, for a start, the creation of a million jobs, to repair the crumbling national infrastructure. Roads, highways, bridges, canals.

Trauma and paralysis need “a reverse vector.” Supplied with great energy and conviction.

We see none of that. Political leaders are mainly timid and brainless—when they aren’t forcing more restrictive measures on the people.

Perhaps the political leader with the most swagger and counter-consensus attitude—in the still most powerful nation in the world—is Donald Trump. Is he waking up the country? Is he stepping to the podium and laying bare the economic devastation that has been leveled at the people? Is he voicing a plan for recovery?

No.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT PICTURE?

Most people see, in his maddening and conspicuous lack of real leadership, nothing unusual, because they are still in the middle of the trauma and the shock.

But there is “plenty of unusual.” A leader who doesn’t lead. A leader who, in a time of crisis, when leadership means so much, doesn’t step up.

THAT is unusual. That is madness.

Now, add this: the Stockholm Syndrome. People under rule by edict and force will often develop an attachment to their oppressors. Loyalty. Even a perverse love.

Why? Because they see no other option.

And because, on a subconscious level, the whole surreal world they are now living in makes no sense at all unless their rulers are doing the right thing.
Therefore, their leaders must be right. They have to be right.

The governors and mayors have to be right. Even the president, in doing nothing substantial, is right.

Of course, the loss of job and business and money is also paralyzing in the extreme. The government prescription seems to be: WAIT. Keep living on Welfare and bailout until the money runs out or until the crisis is declared over.

All in all, many people are subconsciously asking this question: would I rather wake up and therefore see the mass insanity all around me, or would I prefer to stay asleep and follow orders and pretend that is the best course of action? They choose the second option.

Waking up means the individual is living life at a new and different level. It means seeing the truth. It’s the first step to coming up with a strategy for dealing with the reality that has been imposed.

Not waking up means living in a state of conformity, accepting official statements and orders, following those orders, fitting in, acting normal, adjusting, behaving according to stimulus-response.

Re quarantine, isolation, social distancing, wearing masks: “We did not know what the Russian [brainwashing] procedures were, but it seemed that they were producing some peculiar changes of attitude. How? One possible factor was perceptual isolation and we concentrated on that.” (Donald Hebb, Sensory Deprivation: A Symposium Held at Harvard Medical School. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1961)

John Q Citizen would say: “But I have to believe the quarantines, the isolation, the lockdowns, the distancing, the masks…they’re all happening so we can contain the virus. If I stop believing that, things would look very different. And I don’t want thing to look very different.”

Re the use of fake official science as mind control: “Brainwashing is a system of befogging the brain so a person can be seduced into acceptance of what otherwise would be abhorrent to him. He loses touch with reality…However, in order to prevent people from recognizing the inherent evils in brainwashing, the Reds [Communists] pretend that it is only another name for something already very familiar and of unquestioned respect, such as education or reform.” (Edward Hunter, Brainwashing. New York: Pyramid Books. 1956)

Re the recruitment of citizens to operate as contact tracers in a wide-ranging program: “Brainwashing is defined as an observable set of transactions between a charismatically-structured collectivity and an isolated agent of the collectivity with the goal of transforming the agent into a deployable agent.” (Thomas Robbins, ‎Benjamin David Zablocki, Misunderstanding Cults, 2001)

COVID IS A MASS MIND CONTROL PROGRAM.

fourgivn1 #fundie rr-bb.com

Correct...which is why I FIRST believe in the Word of God on faith, and THEN support it with evidence. And the simple fact is that there is MORE evidence in support of Christianity than there is in support of any other religion. People try to 'disprove' ALL of the evidence in support of Christianity by presenting SOME evidence that appears to be in contradiction to it. Just because Christians begin their belief in God/Jesus/the Holy Spirit/the Word of God, does not mean that 100% of their belief is rooted ONLY in faith. Even the word of God itself says to test the Lord. I believe what I believe first because of blind faith, and second because of evidence that supports what I believe.

Anonymous #fundie rapidnet.com

"Christian" Fantasy

Biblical or Oxymoron?

- The dictionary defines fable as:

"fantasy/fiction/falsehood dependent for effect on strangeness of setting (as other worlds or times) and of characters (as supernatural or unnatural beings); the setting is usually in a non-existent or unreal world, the characters are fanciful or unreal, or the conflict focuses on physical or scientific principles not yet discovered or contrary to present experience."

- Fantasy is especially dangerous for children. While most children in the 1970s knew enough truth to place divination in the forbidden realm of the occult, today's children -- who often feel more comfortable with occult games than Biblical truth -- see nothing wrong with pagan practices. Fantasy movies, like Disney's The Lion King, are good matches for the new earth-centered paradigm or world view that is transforming childrens' views of reality. While God told us to continually communicate truth to our children (Deut. 6:5-7), today's culture trains children to see reality through a global, earth-centered filter. This "new" mental framework distorts truth, stretches the meaning of familiar words, and promotes mystical "insights" that are incompatible with Christianity. Packaged with entertainment, this message usually bypasses rational resistance, desensitizes opened minds, and fuels general acceptance of pagan spirituality (Berit Kjos, "The Spirit Behind The Lion King," 1/95, The Christian Conscience, pp. 32-34).

- Most true Christians would recognize fantasy, such as the movie Star Wars, as being extremely wicked (in this case, sorcery -- "The Force" being equivalent to black magic and white witchcraft). Yet, apparently, when we call it "Christian," this somehow sanctifies what we do with our minds (imaginations), or what we allow our minds to entertain. For example, one can look in any issue of the Christian Book Distributors Fiction Catalog and find the most outrageous fantasy literature, yet it is all dubbed "Christian." The following is taken from the CBD Fiction Catalog, 9/94 premier edition:

" ... now there's no more compromising for those who love Christian fiction, because you are holding the key to your next escape-from-it-all right in the palm of your hand ... CBD's brand new Fiction Catalog? It's filled with the latest and the best refreshing, thrilling, inspiring, wholesome fiction for you and your family" (p. 2).

Wholesome? The following is a sample of that which CBD considers "wholesome." [Much of this type of writing comes from medieval mysticism, which God hates (cf. Deut. 18: 10-12).]:

(a) Millennium's Dawn, by Ed Stewart (p. 25):

"June 2001. The future never seemed brighter for Dr. Evan Rider and his new bride, Shelby, as they prepare to embark on the honeymoon of their dreams. But the dream quickly becomes a nightmare as a long-buried secret shared by three college friends erupts, engulfing the couple in a sinister plot of blackmail, terror, and betrayal."

(b) Till We Have Faces, by C. S. Lewis (p. 34):

"The unlovely Orual, eldest daughter of the King of Glome, becomes so consumed by her mingled love and jealousy of her beautiful half-sister that she makes a complaint to the gods -- and receives an answer she did not expect. This novel, possibly Lewis' best work and the one he considered his own favorite, is his compelling rework of the myth of Cupid and Psyche." [Sound like something you could want your children to read -- about "the gods"?]

(c) The Song of Albion, by Stephen Lawhead (p. 33):

"Wolves prowl the streets of Oxford. A Green Man haunts the Highlands. A breach has been opened between our world and the Celtic Otherworld and anything, anyone, may now enter [sounds similar to Poltergeist, one of the most wicked movies ever produced]. But it's Lewis Gillies, an American graduate student at Oxford, who reluctantly stumbles through. In the savagely beautiful Otherworld, Lewis finds himself caught in an epic struggle between light and darkness -- a struggle that will determine the fate of his own world. Memorably penned with vivid and poetic imagery, Lawhead's breathtaking reworking of Celtic myth will keep you reading long into the night" [no doubt, and right into the DARKNESS! -- the Celtic civilization is the culture from which we have received much of our modern day Halloween practices.]

- "Well," someone might say, "I'm not doing anything wicked, I'm just reading about wickedness." But does this align with godliness? There are four things about fantasy which must be considered:

I. It is Anti-Truth.
II. It Slips Into Reality.
III. It Does Not Fit True Godliness.
IV. A Love for God Will Oppose It.


I. Fantasy Is Anti-Truth

Isaiah 32:6 describes error against the Lord. All lies are against God (1 John 2:21; John 8:44). Satan is the father of lies. Since fantasy is not true, then it is a lie! We have been duped into thinking there is some spiritual gray realm out there in which something can be neither true nor a lie. It's just called fantasy! But fantasy is made up of lies, deceit, and unreality, all wrapped up in a pretty (or sometimes, not so pretty) package.

How about the popular 1994 Disney occult/New Age "children's animation" film, The Lion King, which some consider wholesome "fantasy." One observer wrote this about The Lion King:

"The Lion King packs a powerful New Age symbolism and philosophy. Its theme, the 'Circle of Life' is a variation on the cycles of nature: life, death and rebirth, particularly as it relates to the theory of evolution. The film presents this theme from the perspective of the nature religion, more so than Disney films of the past -- 'We are all connected in the great circle of life.' The accoutrements of shamanistic ritualism is graphically portrayed in the dedication of the baby Simba to the spirits of the earth" (Media Spotlight, Vol. 15, No. 2, p. 3).

Yet, we have others who claim the name of Christ, like James Dobson's Focus on the Family, who would like to encourage you to go and see this film that is filled with abominable contents. (See the 8/15/94 Parental Guidance magazine, which is published by Focus on the Family.) FOTF claims that The Lion King has only a few slight imperfections, otherwise it is "a wholesome, brilliantly animated picture relating the importance of family and responsibility."

A "few slight imperfections"? How about the character Rafiki speaking of the eternal state of life and his connectedness with it when Simba, as an adult lion, asks the question, "You knew my father." Rafiki's answer: "Correction! I know your father." Recalling that his father had once told him that the stars are former kings who look down on the earth and guide its inhabitants, Simba looks up at the stars and cries out to his father, "You said you'd always be with me, but you aren't." Shortly thereafter his father appears to him [spiritism; cf. Deut. 18:10ff] in a cloud and reminds him of his responsibility to assume his rightful place in the circle of life. -- "Look inside yourself, Simba," he says. "You are more than what you have become."

Besides the spiritism in the film, ask yourself a question -- "Do animals talk?" Just on this fantasy alone (animals talking) it is a lie.


II. Fantasy Subtly Slips Into Reality.

It becomes very difficult to separate fantasy from reality, especially in the minds of children. There was an interesting article in The Newhall Signal (newspaper) in light of this. Noting one of the teachings of the popular fantasy games, "Death is usually seen as a temporary state with characters returning 'from beyond' to play again" (7/22/87, The Newhall Signal, "Fantasy Games Linked to Real Deaths," p. 16).

Notice a few more books in the CBD Catalog:

(a) A Skeleton in God's Closet, by Paul L. Maier (p. 25):

"Move over, Indiana Jones! In this novel, Harvard archaeologist Dr. John Weber has just discovered a shocking secret -- Jesus' bones. The evidence [an obvious denial of the resurrection] seems incontestable. When word of the discovery leaks out, pandemonium ensues and millions abandon their Christian faith. But which is the hoax -- the archaeological find or the Resurrection itself?" [How can this be edifying?]

(b) The Guardian, by Jane Hamilton (p. 25):

"A new frontier for Christian fiction! Tabris [a guardian angel] has been given a second chance. As a guardian angel, he was found guilty of committing the one unforgivable act against his human charge and against God. Yet God, with mercy and grace, has forgiven Tabris and given him one more assignment -- one more human being to protect. Why? Find out in this celestial parable that will illuminate the indefinable love God has for his creation -- you, me, even angels. " (Emphasis added.) [See the jump from fantasy to reality -- cf. Heb. 2:16 -- any angel who has ever sinned is a demon. Sinning angels are never forgiven, but doomed eternally!]

(c) Darien: The Guardian Angel of Jesus, by Roger Elwood (p. 22):

"The ultimate adventure with an unforgettable guardian angel! Of all the guardian angels in heaven, God chose only one to protect Christ during His time on earth. He chose Darien. (That's the Darien who questioned God's decision to throw Lucifer from heaven and was sent to earth to witness Lucifer's destruction of the world in the novel Angel Walk.) You can imagine that Darien has quite a tale to tell, protecting God's own son -- and he tells it with poignancy and originality. Through this angel's eyes, you'll go on a fascinating and even disturbing journey from the time of Lucifer's rebellion, to creation, to the miracles of Jesus' birth and life. If the stories of Christ's life have become just matter-of-fact Sunday school lessons to you, then here's the breath of fresh air you need!" [Notice the move from fantasy into reality? How are lies, deceit, and fantasy going to freshen one's love for the Word of God?]

This move from fantasy to reality, by definition, affects one's view of reality. Remember when Close Encounters of the Third Kind came out? People believed it! Fantasy gets people to fantasize about reality. It is a slippery slide into lies unknowingly.
III. Fantasy Does Not Fit True Godliness

What is godliness (1 Tim. 6:3; Prov. 3:5-6; 28:14)? Romans 1:18 teaches that God's wrath is against "ungodliness." And as shown above, fantasy is ungodliness. Diving into fantasy, which, by its very nature is against the Truth, is a denial of God, what He says, and the Truth of His Word. How can a lie be used for evangelism, worship, or anything else godly? By its very nature, fantasy removes the person from the Truth (reality) and moves them into a realm away from God. This ungodliness is well depicted in the CBD Fiction Catalog, where it says on page 2:

"It's been said that reading fiction is one of the best ways to 'escape' from the cares of everyday life. Since the beginning of time, great thinkers and writers (even Jesus himself) have been inspired to create allegories, parables and epics, as well as the good, old-fashioned novel itself. What a tragedy to think we have to settle for fiction that merely grabs our attention, but lacks the values and spiritual insight we could carry with us when we return to the 'real world.'" [Again, the move from fantasy to reality.]

Is this what the Lord wants us to do -- "escape" from reality? No! Fantasy is an attack on the very core of one's being as a follower of Christ! And what about the claim that Jesus' parables and the allegories in Scripture, or figurative speech, are parallel to the use of fantasy? No! The Bible's parables, allegories, and figurative speech are not about fantasy at all. They are all about Truth!


IV. A Love For God Will Oppose Fantasy

God would not have His children take refuge in unreality. A love for God is equal to a love for the Truth (John 14:6). Matthew 22:34-40 teaches to love the Lord with all your mind (imagination). What does the Lord say in Ephesians 4:25? -- Speak the Truth to one another! Do we ever stop speaking the truth and speak fantasy to one another, or write fantasy to one another? Is this how God would have us live? Notice Ephesians 4:29. What's the goal? Build each other up in the TRUTH! (not in fantasy). If a Christian is loving the Lord with all his MIND (imagination), he will be dwelling on truth, reality, His Word, and Him, NOT FAIRY TALES AND FANTASY!

Fantasy typically is filled with evil. What should be the Christian's perspective of evil (Rom. 16:19)? If we love the Lord with all our MINDS, then we will not only avoid taking any pleasure in fantasy, but we will hate it. Because fantasy is anti-reality, it is against godliness, it opens the door to deceit, and is an affront to the very core of your being as a Christian. And what is that? -- Taking refuge in God, not escaping reality (Psalm 73:25-28).


- In 2 Timothy 4:3-4 ("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"), the Greek word translated myths means tales, stories, or fables (untrue stories). So what about Pilgrim's Progress and other so-called Christian stories like it?

Pilgrim's Progress (by John Bunyan) is claimed by many to be a good illustration of the truth -- the truth of a Christian's pilgrimage in this life. Some would say, "The Bible uses (a) parables, (b) allegories, (c) figurative language, symbolism, etc., and (d) dreams and visions, so what's wrong with Pilgrim's Progress doing the same? A few examples follow:

(a) Parables are not fables.

Matt. 12: 33-35 (using a real idea, expressing another real idea)
Matt. 13:3-9/18-23 (real/real)
Matt. 13:24-30/13:37-43 (real/real)
Matt. 13:31-32 (real/real)
Matt. 13:33 (real/real)
Matt. 13:44 (real/real)
Matt. 13:45-46 (real/real - He does not fly out of the realm of reality)
Matt. 13:47-50 (real/real)

(b) Allegory is symbolic, not mythical -- Gal. 4:22-31 (real/real)

(c) Figurative is not mythical -- John 6:53-63 -- Jesus does not fly out of the realm of reality. In fact, He uses such explicitly (real) language that people are having a hard time understanding Him. Yet, He explains that He is speaking in a figurative way (John 6:63).

(d) Dreams and Visions are not untrue stories -- Daniel 7:1ff; 8:17 refers to truth; 8:26 ("is true"); 9:21 (writing of Truth). These are not untrue stories (fables). Ezekiel 1 &10 -- these are real creatures!

So what about Pilgrim's Progress? There are serious problems in what that book teaches. For example, Christian leaves his armor behind and eventually his sword for the rest of his journey. This does not at all square with Ephesians 6.

Of course, someone would say, "It just a story." Exactly. It is a story that is supposed to illustrate truth, and when it fails to do this, it falls short and becomes an untrue story (fable), which is not doing a good job (at times) in illustrating truth. No doubt, there are many aspects about the story that are interesting and thought-provoking, but that does not excuse the twisting of truth into a lie. Here are some more problems:

(a) Is it a myth? Yes. "But, it is a 'Christian' myth!" Is this supposed to make it okay? No, it makes it worse! That's what Paul was talking about in 2 Tim. 4:4? Pagan myths? No -- "Christian" myths! That's why it is so dangerous.

(b) Another possible danger with Pilgrim's Progress is that the Christian life could be seen through the eyes of the story rather than solely through the Word of God. Romans says to transform our minds (12:1). Only the Word of God can do that, not "Christian" fantasy. A Christian's affection should be upon God's Word and His truth, not the fables of men. This type of Christian fable can pull our affections away from the Word.

(c) Has the Word of God become so dull, dry, drab, or undesirable to us that we would even think we would need such a book as Pilgrim's Progress to spur us on in the faith?
- A few more Scriptures indicate our concern with "Christian" fantasy:

(a) 2 Peter 1:16 -- We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

(b) Titus 1:14 -- and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth.

(c) 1 Timothy 1:4 -- nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work -- which is by faith.

(d) 1 Timothy 4:7 -- Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives' tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.

- Considering the present distress (2 Tim. 3:1), how can fantasy, no matter how supposedly good it may be, be found profitable? We need to concentrate on reality -- the truth of the Word of God -- and leave the fantasizing to those who are perishing (especially in light of the prevailing ignorance of the Word). And, especially when Paul describes the "against the true church" as those who will "be turned aside to fables," we ought to hold fast to the truth -- the Word of God (1 Thess. 5:21).
An Example from a "Christian" College

A recent FrontLine magazine (Vol. 6, No. 4) with a cover theme, "The Christian and the Arts," carried a lead article titled "The God of All Beauty." The article is very disturbing because it lists so many Scripture references [out of context/misapplied], but the author's rationalizations fail to give due consideration to Pauline Epistle truths for this Church Age and the warnings about this world/age. Two other articles in this FrontLine issue are by Donna Lynn Hess of Bob Jones University (BJU), one on fantasy and the other on selecting reading material for children.

The first article refers favorably to C.S. Lewis, a devotee and author of occult fantasy with unbiblical metaphors; yet Hess claims that this kind of fantasy is useful in helping children "develop valuable literary skills" and in developing an understanding of "similar literary elements used in Scripture." In the second article by Hess, she states: "As Christian parents, we recognize the need for choosing books in which the theme is morally sound. But it is just as important to be sure that this theme is artfully expressed"; she also says that it's okay to expose children to stories with themes "antithetical to Christian beliefs" in order to "help inoculate them against the false ideas, attitudes and behaviors these writers promote."

BJU's ShowForth video division ("The video source you can trust.") also markets three video productions of C.S. Lewis' fiction, and a documentary biography of Lewis himself. ShowForth's catalog layout (p. 7), under "Inspirational," lists C.S. Lewis as one of the "Warriors of the Word" along with C.H. Spurgeon. Considering Lewis' many theological errors, it is dangerously deceptive to place him in such august company. A pastor knowledgeable in the unbiblical teachings of Lewis wrote to BJU documenting Lewis's errors. BJU responded with an involved, articulate, but off-the-mark defense for using "fantasy" as a teaching tool.

In the articles in FrontLine, as well in articles sent out by ShowForth, Hess gives an unusually broad description to the term "fantasy," and does not give adequate consideration to the whole counsel of God. "Fantasy" should not be used, as BJU does, to describe the figures of speech and literary techniques found in God's Word. More serious study ought be made of the nature of God, the condemnation of all forms of spiritism throughout Scripture, the recurring theme of sober/sound mind (especially in the New Testament), and the disassociation in the Epistles with "fables" (myths) in presenting God's message.

In these times we live in, we believe pastors and parents must exercise extreme caution regarding the literary use of fantasy. But caution is apparently not in BJU's vocabulary concerning this matter. BJU Press has published Medallion, a popular fantasy reader for elementary age home-schoolers. There are strange similarities between Medallion and two explicitly pagan books -- one a sixth-grade reader for public schools called The Dark is Rising, and a Wiccan manual by Starhawk called The Spiral Dance. In response to a review of Medallion by Berit Kjos, BJU trivializes the similarities, and states, "It appears that what this critique requires of Medallion rules out all fantasy for the Christian. We hold that no story can mix fantasy with the supernatural facts of Scripture without dangerously trivializing Biblical truth by associating scriptural realities with a dream world." [Couldn't have stated the truth more clearly if we had tried!] Contrary to the scholarly opinion of BJU's Literature and Language departments, "Christian" fantasy parallels the occultic literature for children, using similar images, story-lines, symbols, and characters. Literary fantasy, rather than being neutral, has occultic roots. (This paragraph was excerpted and/or adapted from the 10/96, The Christian Conscience, "Pagan Story for Christian Children," pp. 40-42; see page 41 for a detailed comparison of Medallion and The Dark is Rising.)

pastoredsmith #fundie disqus.com

pastoredsmith:
There is nothing in atheism except denial. Denial, when it comes to refuting the truth about God, is a religion. You worship your own logic. And, my congregation is doing well. Perhaps you should join us. God will change your miserable, imaginary life into one of purpose.

bumsmcgee:
They are not that different than you. They just add one more God they don’t believe in to the list you yourself use. Your threats are just your own paranoid revenge fantasy. You can’t handle being disagreed with.

pastoredsmith:
You don't know me, yet you continue your fake insults. Typical of an atheist who knows he can't win the argument using his own logic. Don't know who said it, but they are right...... "
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers." Had to be an atheist that said that.

bumsmcgee:
Yeah, it’s always the atheists people like you give the blame to. Anyway what I said is true. I just disbelieve one more God than you do.

pastoredsmith:
"people like you give blame to..." No, that is not true. "Blame" is not "given" it comes from actions. FFRF, the bullies you represent, are the people who are trying to stifle all voices but those who line up with them. It is atheists who want to rewrite textbooks and omit the obvious Christian influence on the formation of the USA and all the good that is being done. I've never seen an atheist hospital nor an atheist food pantry. How about an atheist version of the Salvation Army that feeds and clothes the needy. None exist. The absence of God in a life is equal to the absence of true, genuine love; for only in God can that kind of love be found. I don't hate you, although you certainly have insinuated the opposite of that here. To tell the truth is not to hate, it is to set the record straight. I pray you find your way home from your atheism before it is too late for you.

bumsmcgee:
You're just reinforcing my point. Atheism is an opinion and that's all it is. We don't form clubs and organizations, except in cases where religion oversteps its boundaries. And I know of Christians who side with groups like the FFRF on occasion because your side DOES occasionally champion political causes they have no business being involved with. If no one is there to keep your side in line, you'll get away with murder.

pastoredsmith:
Wrong. Your point is that atheists think they can command the government. You think that by sending a threatening letter to a school, you can prevent a Christian teacher from laying a Bible on her desk. You think that you can silence Christians in the public arena, but you will never accomplish that. You think that you have authority over Christians in matters of free speech, but you don't. And, it is NOT atheists job to "Keep your side in line." You are not the gods you claim to disbelieve. And, I can always tell when an atheist has lost an argument. The slander comes forth. Murder? You don't believe in the 10 Commandments, if you truly don't believe in God, then you don't believe in the Bible. So, it is not I who commits that which I believe is wrong.

bumsmcgee:
You are WRONG

Atheists have no desire to command or control the government. The point is, they strongly desire that faith-minded people like YOU don't either. You are convinced you have the TRUTH but all you have is faith, and many reasonable people disagree with the heavy-handed things you try to hammer through. People like you believe abortion is murder when it is NOT, not by the definition of the dictionary nor the definition of the law. If you had your way, people would be thrown in jail for not worshipping your holy book and homosexuals would be jailed or worse. We have the right and the desire to be protected from people like you.

pastoredsmith:
No, I am RIGHT. Atheists DO want to control and command the government. Atheists ARE trying to silence Christians. I notice that you don't focus your efforts on Muslims. Only Christians. And, I have the truth....faith in the truth is easy. All you have is faith in the vein babblings of man's wild imagination. You have no basis for morality, as you think one thing and the next guy something, so there is no base line to build on....like a building with no foundation. And, you add much to what I am as opposed to the monster you make me out to be. I believe in freedom for all; including atheists, homosexuals and the like. No, I never advocated anyone be thrown in jail for their beliefs. And, the "protection" you seek from "people like you" is exactly my point. You don't want protection any more than gays "only wanted to get married." you want to fundamentally change society to jail "people like me" who dare express the truth. All this and you still hide behind a "handle." You are a coward, stenching the world from behind your private little curtain. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..." he is only a babbling atheist. If you wish to discuss, fine, But, stop the insults. I'll talk with you, but you won't slander me further.

bumsmcgee:
We have seen pastors calling for the execution of gay people. For that reason and that reason alone we need to be protected from the likes of you. You want your faith-based beliefs to be laws. You want a woman's right to choose to be taken away, and this is strictly based on your faith. You are RELIGION, we should have the right to say NO to you and we need to be protected from you.

pastoredsmith:
You have seen confused individuals who call themselves "pastors" calling for execution because someone is gay. Why do you care anyway? Are you gay? A woman's right to choose? What about the BABY's rights? After all, you say you are a person of science who hides behind that mask, right? So, if a whale fetus is a baby whale, what makes you think a fetus is not a human baby? From conception? You are no scientist. You are a hypocrite. And, I am NOT "religion." Religion does kill. Ask any Muslim who'd love to chop off your head because you are an atheist. People are very much imperfect; even and maybe especially some who call themselves "Christians." Can you testify to the good moral character of all atheists? No, you can't. No, you don't need protection from me. That's not what you seek. You seek silence of Christians; the very people who are doing good in this culture. Silence the hospitals and food pantry's and the clothing banks and all the good things that we (I) am involved with. You have lumped us in with radical religion because there is a fringe who are idiots, such as the "church" in Topeka that boycotts military funerals. These people are not Christians and hide behind the wall of lies they put up that is painted to look Christian. Sir, you need protection from someone, I'll agree. That someone is yourself. Your own twisted mind causes you to conjure up lies about me because you *think* I'm guilty of them. You couldn't be more wrong.

bumsmcgee:
What do you mean, "why do you care anyway?" Some religious lunatic decides that all gay people should be put to death, and wants to see the government enact such craziness? There are stats that say 1 in 10 people are LGBT. I care VERY MUCH that a guy calling himself a Christian Pastor would like to have the power to basically call for genocide. And this is something you defend?

The fact you're calling a fetus/zygote/embryo a "baby" tells me you're not being entirely reasonable. Of course I don't see abortion as something that is good. The thing is, most of the women put in that agonizing position don't either. But you don't look at individual situations AT ALL. You just say it's murder (it's not) and that's that. And once again, you want the government to enforce it. Yet another very good reason why the FFRF exists and why we have the right to be protected from people like you.

If the two examples above are the "good moral character" you insist Christians have, and criticize atheists for not having, I think can I safely rest my case. People like you scare the living daylights out of me.

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.

Kenneth Copeland #fundie #mammon #racist msn.com

A wealthy televangelist explains his fleet of private jets: ‘It’s a biblical thing’

In the waning days of 2015, renowned televangelist Kenneth Copeland laid out exactly why he needs a luxury private jet to do his job: you can’t “talk to God” while riding commercial.

Criticized at the time for his use of extravagant planes, Copeland argued travel for his work would be difficult, nay, impossible without them. The Texas-based preacher invoked his mentor, prosperity gospel preacher Oral Roberts, who Copeland said faced unsolicited requests for prayer when he flew on public airliners, “agitating his spirit.”

“You can’t manage that today, in this dope-filled world, get in a long tube with a bunch of demons,” Copeland told fellow televangelist Jesse Duplantis, who’s faced similar backlash for asking his followers to bankroll a $54 million jet. “And it’s deadly.”

Copeland’s defense, viewed by millions and widely mocked at the time, did little to help his case. Many figured the “demons” he spoke of were the same people he was asking for donations. The preacher was asked to clarify his remarks last month by “Inside Edition” reporter Lisa Guerrero, and the exchange has recently gone viral, reigniting conversations about televangelists and the tax-exempt status of churches.

Captured on video confronting Copeland as he got into a car, Guerrero pressed him repeatedly on his 2015 comments, at one point asking: “Do you really believe that humans are demons?”

“No I do not, and don’t you ever say I did,” Copeland responded, visibly perturbed. He added, “It’s a biblical thing, it’s a spiritual thing, it doesn’t have anything to do with people. People? I love people. Jesus loves people. But people get pushed in alcohol. Do you think that’s a good place for a preacher to be and prepare to preach?”

The questioning centered around Copeland’s Gulfstream V jet, which he announced he’d purchased from Tyler Perry in Jan. 2018. Declining to state how much he spent on the aircraft, which is one of three in his possession, Copeland said Perry made the plane “so cheap for me I couldn’t help but buy it.” He again asserted the plane was necessary for his work, which has sent him to nearly every continent and allowed him to spread his message to thousands of people.

“If I flew commercial, I’d have to stop 65 percent of what I’m doing, that’s the main reason,” he said.

Copeland said he was a “very wealthy man” and acknowledged using the private jets to travel to his vacation homes. Guerrero asked how he would respond to those who say preachers shouldn’t live so luxuriously.

“They’re wrong,” he replied “It’s a misunderstanding of the bible that … if you go into the old covenant, do you think the Jewish people believe you should be broke?”

Guerrero follows up: “Are you saying that Jewish people appreciate money more?”

“They believe in wealth,” Copeland said.

“Some people would find that offensive,” Guerrero responds.

“Wait a minute now, I’m not talking about some people,” Copeland explains, before mentioning the Abrahamic Blessing. “I’m talking about the bible.”

Jared Taylor #racist #wingnut amren.com

Is It Time for Secession?

Are the United States ripe for partition? Francis Herbert Buckley, a lawyer and academic who has taught at McGill and is now at George Mason School of Law, thinks they are. “In all the ways that matter, save for the naked force of the law, we are already divided into two nations just as much as in 1861,” he writes. “The contempt for opponents, the Twitter mobs, online shaming and no-platforming, the growing tolerance of violence — it all suggests we would be happier in separate countries.”

It’s a great step forward that a separatist can find a respectable publisher — even if it claims to sell “books for smart conservatives.” American Secession reports that there is a lot of support for separation and offers good reasons for it but, alas, only hints at the most compelling reason.

Prof. Buckley makes much of a 2018 poll that found fully 39 percent of Americans — including 42 percent of Democrats — wanted to secede. Presumably there would have been fewer secessionist Democrats under President Obama. Another 2018 poll found that 31 percent of Americans thought there would be a civil war within the next five years. I don’t take these numbers very seriously; wild talk is cheap. But I think Prof. Buckley is right to underline a recent Gallup finding that only 44 percent of Americans would be wiling to fight for their country. Surely, he is correct to say that far fewer would fight to stop an American state from seceding.

Many people think that 700,000 dead Civil War soldiers settled the question of secession, but Prof. Buckley disagrees. He argues that the Framers clearly thought the states had the right to secede. James Madison believed any attempt to keep states in by force would be wrong and “would look more like a declaration of war.” Virginia joined the United States with the express proviso that it had the right to bolt. New England states that didn’t like the War of 1812 didn’t debate the legality of secession; only whether to do it.

Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison thought the slave-holding states should be expelled if they didn’t have the grace to leave, and wanted to hold a national Disunion Convention to expel then. On July 4, 1854, he told an Independence Day crowd that because the Constitution implicitly recognized slavery, it was “a covenant with death and an agreement with hell.” He then burned a copy, saying “So perish all compromises with tyranny!”

James Buchanan, who was president when the Southern states began to leave, believed they should not be forced to stay:

The fact is that our union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it cannot live in the affections of the people, it must one day parish.

Before South Carolina hotheads fired on Fort Sumter, even Abraham Lincoln wavered: “Would the marching of an army into South Carolina . . . without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion? I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion.”

Prof. Buckley reminds us that even now, there is one way to leave that everyone would agree is legal. The Founders believed the federal government would never give up power voluntarily — they were right — and that’s why they wrote Article V of the Constitution. It lets the states bypass the federal government to amend or even abolish the Constitution. If 34 state legislatures agree, there will be a constitutional convention at which anything goes. If 38 states then ratify the changes, that’s the new constitution — which could recognize secession or even sanction a partition. “Secession cannot be unconstitutional,” writes Prof. Buckley, “when there’s a constitutional way of making it happen, through a constitutional convention.”

I don’t think any of that would be necessary, because the federal government wouldn’t today invade a seceding state. As I wrote nine years ago, Americans don’t have the stomach to slaughter fellow Americans just to keep their corpses within the union. If a state wanted to make a serious go of it — especially for “progressive” reasons — the coast is clear, and as Prof. Buckley notes, these days, it is lefties who promote secession.

One of the best-known breakaway movements is in California, and Mr. Trump’s 2016 victory gave it a boost. The state already has legal marijuana despite federal drug laws and it loves illegal immigrants. The “Calexit” movement is run by people who think: “California loses billions of dollars every day [in federal taxes] supporting states whose people hate us and our culture. Let’s keep our taxes in California and invest in our people first.” Prof. Buckley notes that this sounds like “California first” or even “make California great again” and almost implies an anti-conservative immigration policy. The point is, many Californians hate Donald Trump and want out.

Vermont is so full of goofy liberals it has Bernie Sanders for a senator; it has also long been a nest of secessionists.

The Cascadia movement would make an independent country out of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia and would, as Prof. Buckley puts it “unite people with the same kinds of ideas about the environment, Starbucks and yoga.” If the President gets a second term, Prof. Buckley can imagine Democrats calling for resistance in the streets.

They already have. The manager of a Red Hen restaurant proudly refused service to White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, and a woman jostled and screamed at White House counselor Kellyanne Conway. Black congresswoman Maxine Waters then urged Democrats to mob and humiliate any Trump cabinet members they saw in public.

This is all part of the nastiness Prof. Buckley says is a sign of irreconcilable differences. Examples he cites are a 2017 article in Foreign Policy — not normally a crackpot magazine — claiming that “for the first time in America’s history, a Nazi sympathizer occupied the Oval Office.” Prof. Buckley also remembers that when Michelle Obama said that “when they [our opponents] go low we go high,” Attorney General Eric Holder corrected her: “No, no, when they go low, we kick them.” When Republican Senator Rand Paul was attacked and suffered six broken ribs and lung damage, MSNBC host Kasie Hunt laughingly said it was one of her “favorite stories.” Reporters routinely write vile stories about Republicans that would have got them fired in more civil times, but the point of today’s journalism is, in Prof. Buckley’s words, to let readers “feast on their hatreds.”

The last go at secession didn’t end well, and perhaps because he was born in Canada, Prof. Buckley understands something about it most Americans don’t: The further we get from the Civil War, the more we are supposed to revile the Confederates. The people who were actually trying to kill each other became friends. President Grant invited Robert E. Lee for a visit to the White House, and on the 50th anniversary of Pickett’s charge, veterans from both sides met on Cemetery Ridge and embraced each other. There was a popular television series, The Grey Ghost, in which Confederates were the heroes, and, as Prof. Buckley writes, “From their defeat, white southerners were permitted to retain some measure of dignity in the memory of their battlefield heroes.” Not anymore. Anything Confederate or even Southern is worse than leprosy, and “if millions of people in one section of the country are told they’re presumptively evil, and that the presumption really can’t be rebutted, they’re going to wonder if they belong somewhere else.”

But as Prof. Buckley recognizes, there is an even more testy divide: “Now the divisions are broader than North versus South. It’s liberals versus conservative and especially progressives versus Trump supporters.” “In our politics,” he adds, “we are already two nations.” One likely split would be to hive off the two coasts and leave the middle, making three countries.

That would make smaller countries, but Prof. Buckley says they would be better countries. He makes much of the fact that the people who claim to be the happiest in the world live in small countries (he ignores the fact that they live in white countries). They have governments that are close to the people and if they are homogenous, they have a sense of community. One disadvantage of big countries is that they spend more than they need to on weapons. America, China, and Russia don’t need anything like all the firepower they have, but their leaders like being able to swagger around the globe. Prof. Buckley thinks their citizens may not care. In the United States, it is the 700 to 1,000 defense-industry lobbyists — about two per congressman — who keep the defense budget fat.

The military-industrial complex is a good example of the dangers of size. Prof. Buckley argues that big countries have a lot of corruption because their governments spend huge sums people love to divert. He makes an interesting point: The kinds of political corruption that are actually illegal — bribery, extortion, mail fraud, vote-buying — are the least of our problems. Campaign contributions and lobbying are far worse, and are perfectly legal. After they leave office, about half of all congressmen become lobbyists, and make much more than they ever did as “public servants.” While they’re in office, they vote on bills with an eye to pleasing their future paymasters.

Prof. Buckley does note one clear advantage of size: free trade. Imagine, he writes, what it was like under the Articles of Confederation, with states taxing goods from other states. However, this problem could be solved through a common market of the kind that has enriched Europe.

Prof. Buckley recognizes that outright secession is unlikely, despite its advantages, so he proposes a middle ground: home rule. States would make all their own laws but leave foreign policy to the feds. All the hot issues — same-sex marriage, gun rights, abortion, public prayer, drug laws — would be thrashed out locally. If Americans were free to move to whatever state suited them, everyone could find a place to be happy.

This, is of course, was what the Founders wanted, and until the 20th century, and the federal government touched most people only when they went to the post office. Now, as Prof. Buckley points out, the feds want to run our lives for us. They are helped by a Supreme Court that has become the final arbiter of tough problems and forces the same solutions on every state. Federalism was supposed to be a compromise to get the best of both small and large government, but a ruthlessly centralizing United States is destroying all the advantages of smallness.

Home rule would be much better than what we have now. American Secession is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough. Prof. Buckley does note that “diversity” is not an advantage for a country, but I don’t remember a single occurrence of the word “race.” Prof. Buckley admits that at one time the country was coherent — British and Protestant — “but if we were ever that, we’re certainly not that today.” He goes on: “Our constitution has been justly admired, but it was made for a citizenry very different from the angry Americans of today.” And on: “The constitution was designed for another country, one in which people agreed on fundamental principles, and that’s not today’s America.”

What happened to yesterday’s America? Prof. Buckley gives us a hint with one of his diagnoses of why the country is splitting apart politically: “With their identity politics, the Democrats have become the intersectional party of racial and sexual minorities, of immigrants and feminists.” This is certainly true, but Prof. Buckley fails to note that the most bitter and enduring fault line is race. Instead, he trots out nonsense: “Other countries have their common cultures or religions. What America has is an idea that constitutes our identity as Americans, and that idea is liberalism in the classical sense.” The Founders would have been astounded to be told that they were starting a country with an identity that was nothing but an idea.

Prof. Buckley also argues that no secession movement would repeal civil rights laws or follow racial contours. That might be true for goofy-liberal secessionists in California or Vermont, but a split along current political-party lines, would be implicitly racial. As the partition was worked out, the racial divide might even become explicit.

It is strange that conservatives are so unwilling to recognize the importance of race while liberals, in their perverse way, are often obsessed with it. Still, this book is progress. Anyone who recognizes that people are better off separate — for whatever reason — is preparing the way for the kind of racial separation that many whites yearn for.

Erik55 #fundie bungie.net

Evolution is an attempt to make ,the people who believe it, feel better about themselves because they know that they are sinners. Basically they brainwash themselves in order to froget about the fact that without Jesus they will live eternity in hell. Simply this WHY? Why do you believe in evolution? Its basically something that NO proof is given, hence the word 'theory'. It's something that even Charels Darwin didn't even believe in...yeah the very person that made evolution doesn't even believe in it....people don't even know about evolution yet they believe it anyway and i'll ask again WHY? The Bible isn't a theory...it's fact. There is proof that The Bible is true and the Grand Caynon is one of the best facts...

HaifischGeweint #fundie freethoughtblogs.com

For the purposes of relative brevity only, I am limiting the content of this post to HIV/AIDS discrimination in Canada, and will not be addressing the racial component (i.e., which racial groups are at highest risk). It should go without saying that this is already a loaded topic. I’m going to warm this post up by providing you readers with a video link for the trailer of a powerful documentary about the life-long effects of discriminatory North American laws (specifically in the U.S.) on HIV-positive people, before I break down some basic terminology:

HIV Is Not A Crime – A 2011 Documentary by Sean Strub

Relevant Terminology

Now, partly for the purposes of reducing the space it takes to say “living with HIV/AIDS”, and partly as a sign of compassion for those individuals who are thusly described (some of whom are my friends), for the rest of this post, I am going to use the word poz instead. I will be using it like any other adjective, just like how I don’t talk about my friends who are poz any differently than anyone else unless the topic at hand is specifically about social barriers against people who are poz. Previously, one might have said “infected”. But is this person a zombie or a rabid animal? I think we can all afford to be a lot more sensitive, and just use the word poz instead.

Furthermore, on the issue of the term “infection” (and sometimes even its cousin, “transmission”) — some people are born poz, some people became poz relatively unintentionally (i.e., not engaging in high-risk behaviours, such as bare-backing with someone they knew at the time was poz or sharing needles), and some people who became poz at one time now have such a low viral load that it can’t even be detected (let alone transmitted in any way to another individual). It is for sensitivity to all of these people and, really, most people who are poz (and not currently dying from complications of AIDS), that many prefer to speak of becoming converted. Most people who are poz aren’t walking around with such an active and excessively contagious infectious process coursing through their circulatory system that it is in any way appropriate to refer to them as “infected”. And in fact, even for those who are so unfortunate to be dealing with a hyperbolic bloom of the virus in their system, this is usually a temporary state, often associated with the earliest phases in conversion (which can easily go unnoticed for many newly converted) or the final stages of AIDS (in which case, they are unlikely to just be out for a casual stroll like anyone else).

The point is that words like “infected” and “infection”, when talking about people who are poz, carries a connotation of uncleanliness, filth, and/or viral transmission — again, medical intervention has actually advanced to the point that many poz people are no-transmissible or even un-detectable (I’ve seen it with my own eyes while working for a doctor whose only poz patient had been non-transmissible for 13 years and started testing un-detectable). You don’t personally have to agree with this argument, but I do, so I will be referring to people as becoming converted (or at risk thereof) unless I’m quoting a source that uses different language, such as the Supreme Court of Canada.

Finally, a major component of anti-poz stigma is when people look at someone who is poz and perceive of their condition first (as though it were a disease, an infection, or otherwise just icky in socially significant ways) and then perceive of the person in front of them after the fact. Many people will see the fact that This Individual Is Poz as more important (or of a higher priority) than the fact that they are an individual. A human being, not just a body that carries a perceived threat of invisible death and some sort of unseen contagious filth. A person. This attitude of seeing some isolated quality before recognizing the full personhood (or even not being able to see past this isolated undesired quality) of the individual concerned is called essentialism. If you’re already familiar with the role of essentialism in racism, sexism/misogyny, homophobia/transphobia, and ableism, among many other forms of systemic oppression, yes I am talking about the same thing here. Essentialism is the driving principle in anti-poz stigma, but bigotry is the behaviour of application of that principle — the line is razor-thin.

Criminalization Of HIV In Canada

Now that I’ve established the terminology you will be seeing in this blog post and likely elsewhere if you choose to look for resources (especially in gay and queer communities, where I’ve personally seen poz and converted/conversion used most often), I can start talking about the criminalization of HIV. I’ve actually known about a law that exists in Canada now for a few years, whereby if a person who is poz engages in unprotected sex without disclosing their status to their partner, they can be tried and convicted of aggravated sexual assault (i.e., rape). I found out about it because, though he had not converted either of two known casual partners with whom he engaged in unprotected sex, a CFL football player named Trevis Smith was being put on trial and his reputation permanently destroyed for not disclosing his status to his partners. To the best of my knowledge, Smith’s wife has never charged him, presumably because she’s not looking at her husband as some sort of infectious pustule. Other people have been convicted on similar charges under similar circumstances prior to and since Smith faced sentencing that marked him a sex offender, but his particular case was what brought this issue to my attention. I’ll be getting to what the law actually states momentarily.

First, for the record, while I personally very strongly disagree with engaging in unprotected sex without first having an honest conversation about STIs and safer sex (no matter what your status), I can fully empathize with someone who can’t quite get the words out until after the first encounter. This is also simply not the same as lying when a partner enquires. I talk about why that is in this blog post I wrote in May 2011 when I found out that a bunch of my friends-at-the-time, who all still claim to be sex-positive, were apparently sex-positive-unless-you’re-HIV-positive. The short version is I have experience not being able to get the words out soon enough, and though that person continued to see me and not use protection for nearly a year, when we broke up, he threw it back in my face — I’m talking about human papillomavirus, which I was exposed to before the first time I consented to sex as a young adult (take all the time you need to think about that). But what I didn’t mention in that post is that I also have experience being directly lied to about someone else’s STI status, and being directly lied to about someone going to get tested . While I can be compassionate to someone who couldn’t find a way to bring it up (assuming we are speaking of someone who is poz and either non-transmissible or undetectable, or someone who knows their poz status and uses a condom to protect their partner), I cannot stand by someone who lies about their status when asked about it or who (regardless of their status) deliberately avoids getting tested and/or practising safer sex. Full stop.

I firmly believe that the media circus around Trevis Smith, and the existing law around non-disclosure, bolstered already pre-existing widespread stigma and a dangerous avoidance of personal responsibility (that really need not be further exacerbated) on the part of people who can’t rest assured of their status because they won’t get tested for fear that they will test positive for conversion. People already avoid getting tested so that they can keep a false sense of security. I dated multiple such individuals and have talked to countless people who haven’t the faintest idea of how to actually practice safer sex (it’s more than just a fucking condom) or who assume that if their prospective partner doesn’t say anything, it’s because they have nothing to disclose (these are people who are recklessly negligent towards themselves). Criminalizing HIV isn’t going to make it go away, any more than not getting tested will reduce your chances of conversion. So what does Canadian law actually say about HIV?

In 1998, R. v. Cuerrier set the precedent for HIV criminalization in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled, at the time, that someone who is poz who is engaging in protected or unprotected sex without disclosing their HIV status to their partner, obtained consent under fraudulent circumstances, and therefore has committed an aggravated sexual assault. The default assumption here is that people who are poz are frightening, are rapists, and unsuitable sexual partners for anyone who isn’t poz. Whether or not the sexual partner(s) pressing the charges was/were converted is irrelevant, as is whether or not the person who is poz even has a sufficiently high viral load that they can convert anyone else; and in fact, as in Trevis Smith’s case, Cuerrier’s two partners were not converted. It’s also unclear whether or not the complainant must demonstrate to the court that they were of HIV-negative status prior to the encounter, although in one case, a failure to demonstrate that resulted in an aquittal. Well, the law changed recently. Very recently. Now you can be charged even if you are undetectable or non-transmissible, if you didn’t use a condom. And you can still be charged even if you did use a condom, no matter what your viral load was at the time. Of course, the media spins it as “now you can be HIV-raped without a condom and you won’t even know it! Clutch your pearls!” Here’s the actual statement in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision two months ago:

[ “This Court, in Cuerrier, established that failure to disclose that one has HIV may constitute fraud vitiating consent to sexual relations under s. 265(3)(c) Cr. C. Because HIV poses a risk of serious bodily harm, the operative offence is one of aggravated sexual assault (s. 273 Cr. C.). To obtain a conviction under ss. 265(3)(c) and 273, the Crown must show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the complainant’s consent to sexual intercourse was vitiated by the accused’s fraud as to his HIV status. The test boils down to two elements: (1) a dishonest act (either falsehoods or failure to disclose HIV status); and (2) deprivation (denying the complainant knowledge which would have caused him or her to refuse sexual relations that exposed him or her to a significant risk of serious bodily harm). Failure to disclose may amount to fraud where the complainant would not have consented had he or she known the accused was HIV-positive, and where sexual contact poses a significant risk of or causes actual serious bodily harm.

[…]

The evidence adduced in this case leads to the conclusion that, as a general matter, a realistic possibility of transmission of HIV is negated if: (i) the accused’s viral load at the time of sexual relations was low and (ii) condom protection was used. This general proposition does not preclude the common law from adapting to future advances in treatment and to circumstances where risk factors other than those considered in this case are at play.” ]

In other words, if you would consent to sex with someone assuming that they are HIV-negative but doing nothing to either rule out the possibility that they are poz or even protect your own sexual wellness (as any responsible sexually active adult should), but your attitude towards that person does a 180 in the event it turns out they are poz, the Supreme Court of Canada will answer you by registering your former sex partner as a sex offender and sentencing them to prison, for up to a maximum of a life sentence. And yet the Supreme Court of Canada just can’t see how this could possibly be abused. Well, the BC Civil Liberties Association can. So can Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and their coalition of allied organizations, which released this statement on the same day as the Supreme Court’s decision. Because not every person who is poz who dares to have sex with a consenting adult is actively trying to convert HIV-negative people without their consent (again — in that case, I do not stand by his actions and think he should be criminally punished), but the Supreme Court of Canada ruling criminalizes every HIV-positive body in the country; unless, as Michael Vonn says, you freeze and label your used condoms and get signed waivers from all your sex partners indicating that they knew your status before you had sex. Anyone with a bone to pick against a poz sex partner in Canada now has a golden ticket to ruin that person’s life, livelihood, public reputation, and ability to maintain and secure gainful employment, safe housing, or custody of their own children, by dragging them through a guaranteed media circus and criminal court. Race is a significant factor in this, that is already too complex to address even briefly, except to say that the guaranteed majority of people who will be impacted by this are racialized individuals. You can take that to the bank.
Changing The Record

To some people, sex-positivity means sex is a positive thing that you should gleefully embrace at every possible opportunity. If that’s what floats your boat, fine, but sex-negative abstinence “activists” and pro-lifers alike would like nothing more than to paint all sex-positive activists and their ideology thusly. And of course, it is this very slippery misappropriation of the term “sex-positive” that leads the same people who embrace it to recoil in disgust at the audacity of anyone who is poz to have a sex life at all — to say things like “Well if I found out I had sex with someone who was HIV-positive and they only told me afterwards, they may as well have held a gun to my head and raped me, because if I knew they were HIV-positive, I never would have given them my consent.” One of my long-term partners actually posted this online in a discussion led explicitly towards this conclusion by a local self-proclaimed sex-positive activist (who, funny thing, has since used that website and Twitter to repeatedly libel me and multiple others — but especially me, because I’m too poor to hire a lawyer to stop her). I just about barfed on my keyboard when I read the words my so-called friends, allies, and lovers had contributed to this conversation, and when I managed to contain myself, I seriously contemplated spontaneously ending my romantic relationships over it. Amazingly, these are people who rub shoulders with, fuck, and maintain a leather family with at least one person who is terrified to tell anyone too loudly that they have herpes, for fear of being treated like a Pariah. But none of them see the connection.

Sex-positivity is for everybody. It means an approach to sex education that teaches individual people that they have the right to prevent unwanted pregnancies and unwanted sexually transmitted infections, the right to self-respect, the right to say “no, not right now, but maybe later”, and the right to say what they want without fear of being ridiculed or shamed (and to stand up for themselves if they are ridiculed or shamed). It means being aware, up-to-date, and educated about what safer sex means and your individual and general risks of inheriting or transmitting a sexually transmitted infection with any of your sexual partners. For instance, if you aren’t having penile sex, how do you protect yourself (obviously condoms are out) and what is your risk of inheriting or transmitting something like HIV or chlamydia from the different activities you are engaging in? (Hint: enzymes in human saliva eliminate the HIV virus but not chlamydia; some infectious processes such as heat blisters from herpes or aphthous ulcerations from bad oral hygiene or smoking can compromise either your lips or gingiva, increasing your risk of inheriting even infections that your saliva would normally eliminate.) Sex-positivity means not feeling ashamed to be tested regularly for sexually transmitted infections while you’re sexually active (and for a few months after) and even encouraging your primary sexual partner to go with you so you can get tested together (or even immunized where possible and desired, such as for Hepatitis A & B). It also means all sorts of fun stuff like dropping in together at the sex shop down the street from the clinic and picking out a new toy to play with.

Don’t want to be converted? You don’t have to be an anti-poz bigot to reduce your risk of exposure and promote prevention. Both risk-reduction and prevention are critical aspects of sex-positivity. It’s sad that both “sex-positive” activists and the Supreme Court of Canada have left poz people even further marginalized on this issue than they already were. And if you think it’s pretty bleak in Canada but haven’t watched that 8-minute video, I’ve got news for you: it’s so much worse in the states, I might wind up doing a second blog post just about that.


Assuming that someone has nothing to disclose because they didn’t say anything isn’t informed consent. I realize my opinion is going to be unpopular among people who are not poz, but please (everybody). Take some responsibility for what you’re doing with whatever you’re packing between your legs. It’s one thing if you asked and they lied — which I flat-out disagree with and think they should be criminally punished in that case — but it’s another thing entirely when you don’t ask (especially when they used a condom anyway) and then get the person registered as a sex offender because YOU failed to take the same degree of personal responsibility as you secretly expected from them (but only if they were poz, because if they weren’t, then you don’t expect them to take that degree of personal responsibility because you don’t)

THAT’S where the discrimination is taking place here. One standard of behaviour for people who are poz, and another for people who aren’t. Criminal punishment for people who are poz (even with low viral load, non-transmissible status, or undetectable status), but never for people who aren’t. Are people who are poz not entitled to be assured that the person they are about to have sex with is a safe partner, because they’re already poz?

I find this “informed consent” requirement from people who are poz, but not from people who aren’t (because I guess… why… because they have nothing to disclose, and they’re the “victim” here?) motivated by thinking of HIV/AIDS as how the SCC laid it out: threat of bodily harm. Only it’s not that black-and-white. Low viral load, non-transmissible viral load, and even undetectable viral load, do not present threat of bodily harm.


Have you ever had unprotected sex with someone who was not, at the time, a virgin? Congratulations. You’re INFECTEEED with HPV, and your body can now INFECT your future partners with a virus that could kill them with cervical cancer over roughly the same time span in the absence of treatment as untreated HIV typically becomes AIDS and takes a life.

Shouldn’t you be telling all your partners about your status? After all, you’re potentially killing someone by having sex with them.

HPV is even transmitted via skin-to-skin contact, so either one of you wearing a condom doesn’t protect you. And if you think oral sex is your way out, think again. That’s how people get throat cancer from HPV.

Laura Jacobs #fundie quora.com

The Bible clearly states of those who do not believe what it says, Satan has blinded their eyes and muted their hearing (2 Corinthians 4:3-5). Meanwhile, these non-believers brag and make light of the fact that they look forward to going to Hell, where they will enjoy their works of evil without the righteousness of God hovering over them.

The reality is that none of us will ever escape the righteousness of God. The psalmist wrote:

Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there. — Psalm 139:7-8

While we cannot escape the righteous judgment of God, it is also true that God, in His mercy and grace, wants to impart His righteousness through salvation to all people.

Yet there are those who refuse such a gift.

So why do people want to close their eyes to the idea of Hell when the world is talking, blogging, and writing about a literal place that intrigues and inflames such passion? Hell is not an idea, a figment of the imagination, or the setting for a horror movie. It is the hideous reality that awaits those who refuse to let God come into their lives and make them new creations, filled with His forgiveness and love.

Please hear this truth: you will not escape God’s righteousness by going to Hell.

Consider this: Multitudes do not flinch when they condemn to Hell people such as Saudi Arabia’s Osama bin Laden, Germany’s Adolf Hitler, or Cambodia’s Pol Pot; or notorious Americans, such as Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy. Their accusers do not hesitate to suggest that certain people who have “stepped over the line” of what they consider evil will land in Hell when life on earth is over. In the next breath, however, many will say, “I do not believe that God would send good people to Hell.”

Herein lies the problem — we see ourselves as good and refuse to see that we, too, harbor wickedness within. As the Bible says,

The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it? — Jeremiah 17:9

And further:

From within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wicked- ness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man. — Mark 7:21-23

You see, God does not play favorites. The sin of pride is in the same sentence as the sin of murder.

Where do you fit in? Are you like the rich young ruler who declared to Jesus that he had lived a perfect life? Or perhaps you feel only certain sins merit Hell. It does not really matter how we think of it; the truth of the Bible is what matters. And God’s Word proclaims that all people are sinners. God — not man — has set the standard, and we all fall short.

The bloggers I mentioned earlier stated emphatically that no murderer should go to Heaven. The Bible says,

The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful [people], and be crucified, and the third day rise again. — Luke 24:7

Who are these sinful people? You and me. Our sins nailed Jesus Christ to the cross, and we have His blood on our hands. But God wants the blood of His Son to cover the sin in our hearts. This is why He came. Jesus looked down on mankind and said,

“I love you with an everlasting love; repent of your sin and follow Me that where I am going you may also go.”

Many people teach today that the blood of Jesus covers all sin, regardless of whether the sinner repents or not. This is Satan’s great lie. Some believe they will automatically walk into Heaven when this earthly life is over because God is love. That would negate the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross. Don’t be deceived, for God is not mocked. God is also a God of justice and righteousness.

He is not preparing a place in Heaven for unrepentant sinners.

While we have contributed nothing to God’s free gift of salvation, there is a condition to possessing it — we must confess our sin, turn from it, and receive Christ on His terms.

This truth is repulsive to many. The pride that flaunts our self-proclaimed innocence is the very evidence of our guilt. Continuing in rebellion against God, whether the sin be pride or murder, will send souls to Hell. Then there will be no turning back, no second chances. There is no afterthought in the afterlife. Today is the time to decide where you will live forever — either Heaven or Hell. This may very well be an unpopular teaching, but popularity polls do not determine destiny for anyone.

What will be your eternal destination after this earthly life is over for you? Are you going to Heaven — or to Hell? This is the most important question you will ever face.

I pray you will answer it honestly and that you will know the reason behind it. If you say that you will go to Heaven because you are good, the Bible says,

There is none who does good, no, not one. — Romans 3:12

So if no one is good and Heaven is filled with only the righteous, who will be there? The answer is found in salvation — for God desires that all people be saved. Those who repent of sin against God, receive His forgiveness, and live in obedience to Him, God sees through the righteousness of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is preparing a place in Heaven for those who belong to Him. This is the goodness of Heaven.

The doom of Hell was not intended for human beings. God created us for fellowship with Him, though many have turned their backs on Him. Hell was created for the devil and his demons, and Satan wants to take the world with him into this diabolical place.

Don’t think for one minute that Hell will be the “hottest” happy hour of all.

The world wonders about Hell every day. It is one of the most daunting and repeated topics seen in art, read in literature, debated among educators, and heard in music.

One blog took on the subject of Heaven and Hell. As people weighed in, the discussion became a vicious cycle. Finally one commenter frantically typed in, “Could someone please explain how to avoid Hell?”

Another asked, “How do you spell Hell?”
The flippant reply was, “Hoping Evil Lives Long.”
But the Bible spells it this way: Hopelessly Everlasting, Literally Loveless.

You may be thinking, Billy, surely you do not believe all of this Hellfire and brimstone! My dear friends, it is not what I say that counts; it is what the Word of God says. Jesus spoke more about Hell than Heaven. Why? Because of His great compassion for souls. He gave His life to spare you the agony, torment, and gruesome reality that Hell is reserved for those who reject Christ.

I can tell you this: not one word about Hell in the Bible would ever make you want to go there. And no one who understands the peace of Heaven would ever want to end up anywhere else. As Scripture puts it,

He who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame. — 1 Peter 2:6

The world is talking about eternity. It is high time that the true church of Jesus Christ declares to the world the promises God gives in His Word on how to get to Heaven and how to avoid Hell.

The alternative to Hell is the glorious joy that awaits those who will follow Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, to His heavenly home.

Jesus prayed,

Father, I desire that they also… be with Me where I am. — John 17:24

Cubfood.com #fundie cubfood.com

The Bible gives us over 50 descriptions about the people at the time of the end. These fit the people of today perfectly, but did not fit the people of fifty years ago. Here are some:
A. Some would depart from the faith and go into devil worship-1 Tim 4:1. This is perfect.
B. People would mock about the last days and not believe-2 Pe 3:3; Jude 18.
C. People would become lovers of themselves-2 Tim 3:1,2. Remember the TV commercials—"I do it for me"?
D. People would be disobeying their parents-2 Tim 3:1,2.
E. People would be grateful for nothing-2 Tim 3:1,2.
F. Homosexuality would increase-Lk 17:28,30; ref Gen 19:5; Ro 1:24,26,27.
G. People would be without self-control in sex-2 Tim 3:1,2,6; Rev 9:21, Lk 17:28,30; Jude 7. Is this not the great sex generation?
H. People would love pleasures more than God-2 Tim 3:1,2,4. This is true. Shall we go on a picnic, watch football, or sleep. Church?—we can go another time. Our American motto "In God we trust" has become a joke. Remember, these were all predicted centuries ago as part of the signs that we are at the time of the end.
I. People would be taking drugs-Rev 9:21. The Greek word for sorceries, in Rev 9:21, means pharmaceuticals or drugs. God’s Word is 100% right on every one. That’s 6 out of 6. How could you have any doubts at this point?

Maximus Decimus Meridius #fundie returnofkings.com

The Orthodox Church Is The Answer To Reviving Christianity In Europe And Saving The West

Maximus is a Man, capital M, period. Love. Truth. Justice. Liberty. Respect. These are the lodestones pointing true to magnetic masculinity in a polarized feminist west. His goal for writing on ROK is to be the gadfly that provokes thought and counters groupthink. You can find more of his writing at A Dream That Was Rome .

First let us take a look at a Christian faith that is strong, vibrant and alive.

Christianity is a beautiful faith. For all my previous criticism of its intellectual formulation, the one thing it gets 100% correct is that it actually enshrines the nuclear family unit – Father, Son and virgin Mother. In that respect, it is more patriarchal than Islam in overtly formulating The Father as divine authority, The Son as heir to that authority, and the virgin Mary as model all women should aspire to be as wife and mother. The video above is a 26 minute silent reflection on life inside a men’s Orthodox Christian monastery in Abkhazia. The power of the documentary is palpable for its very lack of speech and thus quiet testimony to the essence of Christian truth – the worship of God through Jesus Christ.

After the passionate response to my last essay, I went on YouTube to look up what I could find on the Eastern Orthodox faith. Here is a great video series I would like to share with you all.

For Christianity to return and thrive in Europe & The West, there must be unity.

The single biggest advantage of the Orthodox faith is its unity. There is simply too much division and conflict in almost all flavours of Christianity outside the Roman Catholic Church. Historically, the Orthodox faith does not have a real history of theology (per se). That is, the Orthodox don’t think too much or question too deeply about their faith. They accept. They believe. They practice. Most importantly, they do not allow any change – none – to what they believe is the original church handed down to humanity from St. Paul.

For the Orthodox, it is not about the intellectual foundations (i.e. theology) so much as the community of worshipers and keeping to past traditions. They keep to what their ancestors practiced and see no need to change anything. Doing so would be a grave break and violation of the past, a complete insult to the body of Christ and the family tradition that has been passed down for generations to preserve the faith.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity has kept the original Byzantine rituals and formulations for worship. A good example of its seriousness and unwillingness to change is the fact that they will not let anyone who is not Orthodox to take part in communion. They see communion as a serious ritual, the true taking in of the body and life of Christ, His word, and His salvation. To allow just anyone to partake without proper preparation, proper orientation, and proper intention, is dangerous. The liturgy and hymns are also old. They go back all the way to the original church over 1000 years ago and more. The swinging incense pots is not some ornate flashy thing they do, there is real spiritual purpose and foundation to everything in an Orthodox liturgical mass.

What I have just described is practiced by all Orthodox churches which may strike many American Protestants and Evangelicals as odd. The different designations (Greek, Ukrainian, Russian, etc.) are nothing more than jurisdictional boundaries. If you are Russian, you want to go to mass in your language and with your people. Each church is local and loosely affiliated with the others, but there is no over arching official hierarchy, no Pope as it were for the ENTIRE faith. What unites them as Orthodox is not a single authority ON doctrine (per se), but common faith IN practice (de rigueur).

In many ways, Martin Luther was a revolt against the Pope having authority over how to worship by the local community. His opposition to Indulgences and a paper titled “The Pagan Servitude To The Church” are reminiscent of my own intellectual wrestling trying to understand Christianity. For Luther, it was ultimately about a return of faith to the followers of Christ, not blind obedience to papal authority for which he saw no authority given to it.

@Martin Luther ~ Wikipedia

His theology challenged the authority and office of the Pope by teaching that the Bible is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge from God[3] and opposed sacerdotalism by considering all baptized Christians to be a holy priesthood.

Ironically, in Eastern Orthodox, the power of the church rests in the local faithful and has forever been this way. In one video, a story is told about an Orthodox priest who was invited to a world religions syncretic type seminar where he was quoted at the end of the conference as saying “Yes, there are many paths to God and all are valid.” When he returned to his local church and went to put the key in the door, the local church members had already changed the locks!!! How many Catholics would like to do that to the current Pope?!?! This is why the East rejected authority of Rome over THEIR religion. Christ belongs to the people, from God, and the Eastern Orthodox have protected this faith and non-hierarchical organization since the beginning of Christianity.

Why is it that Eastern Christians are agreeable about this? Why don’t they clamour and agitate for new stuff, for revision, for updating? The reason is that in the East, we expect the faith to actually do something. It isn’t just a matter of having the right institution, or having the right theology, though I believe the Orthodox church does have those things. That’s not what does it, really. It’s that we expect that practicing this faith will change people. And you know what? We see that it actually does. We see it over and over again. We see it in contemporary lives. We see people actually transformed.

To an Orthodox, they practice because it works, not just because it is right.

This… that single statement… would unite all Christianity. Gone would be the divisions, the arguments, the 1000s of flavours of Christ by each Protestant wanting to be a Pope.

If I ever become Christian, it will be in the Orthodox faith. This single video series has proved to me beyond a shadow of doubt that what the Orthodox has works. It works because…

Even after over 70 plus years of Communist oppression & outright murder, the faith has rebounded

Russians are Orthodox because faith in Christ works, not just because it is right. If you have ever known a Russian, you know how much they value what works and not what is bullshit. My intellectualization and analysis of Christianity is precisely the problem in The West. No single Christian tradition in The West, outside of the Catholic faith, can truly claim that what they have works, but they have ALL argued and warred for centuries about being right.

If Western Christianity did work, people would not have left. Leaving aside the massive hurdle of getting Westerners to actually stop being atheists or completely ignoring God, a Christian faith that can actually claim to work is precisely what will get someone like me back in the church. A claim I must repeat, that is actually backed up by evidence, not rhetoric.

The final video I want to close off with is an Orthodox explanation of salvation.

This… brought tears to my eyes. It actually answered one, if not THE, core complaint Westerners have about Christianity as they know it – you are condemned to hell if you reject Christ, and no amount of good works or deeds or repentance can save you if you do not accept Christ, the end. Of importance to note, this priest refers to God only when explaining the Orthodox version of salvation; it is God, not Jesus that is the focus of Eastern Orthodox faith. I suspect this is why the Protestants split from The Vatican and we can see it in their further splintering right up to today; Protestants wanted more Jesus and less God talk from the Pope because it was Jesus that truly saves. (Once again, you can see why a non-Christian starts to scratch his head in puzzlement.)

This Orthodox version of salvation is one I have never heard from any Christian priest or pastor in The West. If Europe, if America, were to hear the message of God in the Orthodox faith, I think you would have a revival like none we have ever witnessed in the past. In fact, the whole Theoria YouTube channel is, I suspect, a production created for just that reason. Thousands of disillusioned Protestants and other long lost former Christians are filling the Orthodox churches. The Theoria video series was created to help orient and guide the newly faithful. Is their any other church outside Catholicism that is seeing this kind of resurgence? (Assuming Catholicism is seeing an influx, I do not know and just speculating because it too has a good history of unity in faith and would be The West’s oldest incarnation of Christianity.)

Conclusion

Putin is demonized in the West for many things, but the one reason “they” hate him the most? Putin and Russia are a walking, talking, living reminder of a faith they thought was all but extinct by their design and command. Putin’s Christian message is not just reaching America, but the entirety of Europe. Note as well that Putin is an astounding example of the claim to proof that the Orthodox faith works.

He has single-handedly inserted himself in Syria and reversed what was not just the holocaust of Syrian Christians, but the globalist plan to balkanize the region with Iran being the last Muslim nation standing in their way. For all those who claim Islam is favored by the elites and want it to take over Europe, just look to Muslim lands where, regardless of how you feel about Islam as a religion, the homeland of Muslim faith is being literally bombed into oblivion in a way Christian “Muslim invasion” Europe is not. Make no mistake, after Islam’s “victory” in Europe, it will be up next for targeted wholesale destruction by they who hate God more than they hate humanity.

I have no doubt that if Europe and The West can find its way back to Christianity, our future will look as bright as Russia’s. From even this most minimal and cursory review of the Eastern Orthodox faith, it is the only path back to Christ in Europe and The West that I can see actually working.

What Christianity needs is unity of faith, unity of belief, unity of practice and unity in God. All of this is found in the Eastern Orthodox church and nowhere else.

[Emphasis original]

Daniel Silva #fundie quora.com

I’ve never been to a country outside of America, yet I continue to believe other countries exist.

Why? Because people who have experiences in those countries have come back and told the detailed stories of their experiences. They tell what they’ve seen and heard, how the people behave, etc. They bring back souvenirs, pictures, etc. (otherwise known as evidence.)

But if I, having no experience in another country, were to tell those people, “No other countries besides America exist!” what do you think they would say?

“You’re crazy! We’ve been there. We’ve seen the evidence!”

If I say, again, from my lack of experience in those countries, “there’s no evidence! It’s all a fairy tale myth!” I might be able to say it in a way that sounds intellectual, but I’m still trying to convince people with an experience that my lack of experience is a more reliable piece of evidence.

It’s silly.

So what is the only way I’ll believe if I don’t accept the stories and souvenirs people bring back as good enough evidence?

I’ll have to go to one of those other countries and see for myself.

When it comes down to it, regarding why I believe, no argument, no matter how convincing, will satisfy the need some people have to see for themselves. Even if I bring back tangible evidence, people will yell “Trickery! You made that in your basement!”

My friends and I used to travel towns and pray for the sick. We would see a lot of miracles happen: Broken bones being instantly put back together, people getting out of wheelchairs, deaf ears opening, migraines disappearing, etc. All the same evidence Jesus brought from his country.

Still, no matter how much the evidence, no matter how many verified doctor reports there were, no matter how many videos we published, there were a ton of people (including Christians) screaming, “Trickery! You’ve falsified those claims!”

Why? Because they lack the experience.

I believe because I’ve seen the other country. I’ve tasted the food. I’ve participated in the recreational activities.

I’ve seen so much evidence that even when I don’t want to believe that other country exists, I can’t stop because my life has been full of the evidence.

I believe because I’ve seen plenty of evidence (too much, if you consider my previous statement). If it’s not good enough evidence for others, that’s their deal. It doesn’t cancel what I’ve seen, heard, tasted and touched.

Infinite Architect & ThyWordIsTruth #fundie youtube.com

(=A comment thread in a Universalist educational video=)

Infinite Architect: You are a false teacher preaching annihilationism which is unbiblical. You will be held accountable for everyone you deceive.? [...] Did you even watch it? He is saying hell is just a temporary place where you get "refined" and you will eventually make it to heaven and the devil is going to heaven too. This is total heresy and sends a dangerous message to lost people because it makes them think they will escape eternal Hell and they can sin all they want and not have to worry. This clown thinks he has stumbled across special knowledge but he is just a fool twisting scripture and preaching some strange perverted form of Universalism. You can follow him into Hell if you want, it's your freewill to do so.?

ThyWordIsTruth: AMEN brother. Here we go again, someone trying to correct the Greek and Hebrew and using their own private interpretation. Now to the OWNER OF THIS CHANNEL, your problem is that you've either been deceived by a reprobate bible scholar or you hate what the word of God says. Revelation 14:11 KJV says: " And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name." Apparently you have more knowledge than 54 of some of the worlds greatest scholars who translated the King James Bible and you obviously believe in a "god" who cannot perfectly preserve his word for future generations. You are a fool and if you don't repent and TRULY put your faith in the Lord Jesus of the BIBLE, you will find out that the lake of fire is a place of eternal torment.

truth96130: @ Infinite Architect Just because people believe that judgment is not forever, that does not mean they will think they can sin all they like with no consequences. There are many crimes that do not have a life sentence.Does everyone think (I think I will commit all those crimes because the punishment is not forever)? Nope.?

ThyWordIsTruth: If you are gullible enough to believe this man than you have a big problem. Not only is he wrong but in denying the TRUTH of eternal hell is to deny a fundamental of the Christian faith! Also it is NOT foolish to believe that the KJV is the perfectly preserved word of God for the English speaking people. Have you heard the saying 'a little Greek is a dangerous thing?' Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.?

truth96130: 1. "He is trying to correct the Greek and Hebrew and using their own private interpretation."-- What part of (the Greek word translated as torment, is touchstone) is a private interpretation ? Look it up before you accuse. 2. "He has either been deceived or hates what the word of God says." --Calling people deceived because they know something you did not know.
does not mean they are deceived. Try to study up on the Greek word they translated (torture) before you falsely accuse someone. 3. "Revelation 14:11" --Is the book of revelation filled with metaphors, symbols and figures of speech? Yes. Does torment have smoke? No. Does smoke rise up forever? No. Can there be a forever after forever? No because the first forever will never end. Can people never rest? Only if they have an infinite amount of energy. Do people have an infinite amount of energy? No. Apparently your taking what is not literal and trying to say it is. 4. "Apparently you have more knowledge than 54 of some of the worlds greatest scholars who translated the King James Bible." Question --If the KJV translators were so perfect in their translation, than why did they give Alternate translations to over 1000 bible verses (in the margins) and many of them had different meanings. If they got (the original one right) there is no need to put another one in the margins. 5. "You obviously believe in a "god" who cannot perfectly preserve his word for future generations." --Are you saying that God will not allow any one to make a miscopy in a bible? A) Yes. B) No. 6. "TRULY put your faith in the Lord Jesus of the BIBLE." --What name is the only one by which we must be saved??

truth96130: 1. Any one that interprets the bible differently than you do are all false teachers? When you become God, than you can assume your interpretation is perfect. 2. He is not deceiving people just because he interprets the bible differently than you do. 3. "This is total heresy." --No, what you were taught is heresy. Because it teaches God is the eternal oppressor and the opposite of the savor to the majority of mankind. 4. "He is a clown because he thinks he has special knowledge." --Personal attacks prove nothing. Back it up with scripture if you can. If you can't than you have no argument.?

Hope Remains: The KJV is just as flawed as any other English version. I have nearly 40 years experience working with scripture in the original languages, and taught Hebrew and Greek for many years. God preserved His word in the original languages. That preservation does NOT extend to any translation. The KJV translators were charged with creating a Bible that would support the teachings of the Anglican Church. As a result, they tampered with numerous verses to bring the Bible into line with church doctrine. Further, KJV, like some other versions, contains a verse the translators almost certainly knew was a fraud. 1 John 5:7, as found in KJV, et al, is called the Johannine Comma. It cannot be found in ANY ancient Greek manuscript of the New Testament, nor in any of the early Latin versions. It first appeared in late versions of the Vulgate, added by some anonymous monk copying over the text. It breaks the sense of the passage, and there is not a legitimate Bible scholar in the world who thinks John wrote it. It did not find its way into a Greek version until the 11th century, when someone scribbled it into the margin of a Greek New Testament. When Erasmus created his Greek manuscript, he revised it to agree with late versions of the Vulgate, which was a huge mistake. The translators of KJV chose to ignore all the ancient Greek texts at their disposal, and used primarily Erasmus' so-called Textus Receptus, a seriously flawed version. There is no real substitute for taking the time to learn the original languages and studying scripture as originally written. 2 Timothy 2:15.?

ThyWordIsTruth: You mean the translators of the KJV chose to ignore the manuscripts that don't agree with one another? So to have the perfect word of God we have to learn Greek and Hebrew, what rubbish. Well go on then take your Novum Testamentum Graece and preach it to people on the street.?

Hope Remains: Hmmm... perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension. There are small differences in all Greek manuscripts. No two agree completely. The KJV translators rejected all the older, more authoritative manuscripts, in favor of a flawed manuscript that was only about 100 years old. Now, if you want to put all your faith in a Bible translated (poorly) from that flawed manuscript, go for it. But don't expect God to applaud that decision. You also ignored the fact that KJV contains a verse that is a proven fraud. I guess you don't care about that either.?

ThyWordIsTruth: Well don't expect God to applaud a bible like the NIV that says the Jesus fell from heaven and not Lucifer like the NIV in Isaiah 14:12.?

Hope Remains: I am no fan of NIV. There is no fully accurate vernacular Bible. But in NIV's defense, it does NOT say Jesus fell from heaven in that verse. KJV uses the word Lucifer, which is a lousy translation of the Hebrew word Heylel, which means "Daystar." That name was given by God to the devil when he was first created as a cherub. After he fell, God reclaimed the name for Himself, and the former Heylel became known as Satan.?

truth96130: If you want to get technical, it can be a dangerous thing to know no Greek. You said--"You mean the translators of the KJV chose to ignore the manuscripts that don't agree with one another ?" --Thats wrong, in fact they did use manuscripts that did not all agree with one another. That is why they had alternate translations in the margins of the very first KJV bible. I am still waiting for an answer. Question--Is it possible for there to be a miscopy in a KJV bible? A) Yes. B) No. Rather than just accusing him of being wrong with out backing it up, tell us exactly what he said that
was (wrong) and then explain to us the correct way. If you can not do that, than you have no argument.?

JordanHooker #fundie christianteenforums.com

i refuse to ever believe that God would let people even make mistakes in translation of His Word. if you are a Christian and believe that God would let anything corrupt His word, you should go talk to your pastor. if he believes there are errors in the Bible, tell him Jordan sent you and slap him. end topic.

James L. Melton #fundie biblebelievers.com

What if man did establish a lasting world peace? What would be accomplished by this? Yes, it would be great on the surface to live on earth in peace, but what would be the long term effect? Answer: more sin, more rebellion, more infidelity, more atheism, and more apostasy! Men don't seek God during peaceful times. It is during such times that men pursue their carnal and selfish dreams. It is during such times that churches fall into apostasy. War, hardship, and persecution tend to bring out the best in people, while peace and prosperity do just the opposite.

Furthermore, if man were to bring about world peace, God would be declared a liar, and all the false "peace prophets" would be looked upon with admiration. Consider Jeremiah 14:13-15:"Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, the prophets say unto them, Ye shall not see the sword, neither shall ye have famine; but I will give you assured peace in this place. Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart. Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning the prophets that prophesy in my name, and I sent them not, yet they say, Sword and famine shall not be in this land; By sword and famine shall those prophets be consumed." And let's not forget what the Lord Jesus said in Matthew 24:6-7: "And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places." Liberal preachers throughout our land have been preaching peace for decades. These preachers have very liberal views concerning the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the blood atonement, the bodily resurrection, the literal second coming, the reality of hell, the authority of God's word (KJV), the autonomy of the local church and a whole lot more. If their prophesies of world peace were to come true, then Jesus Christ would be discredited, less people would believe the Bible than ever, and true Bible believers would be less believable than ever. The philosophy of the world would be, "You see! Man isn't that bad after all!"

God said that man is bad, and God said that there will be no world peace. Isaiah 57:20-21 says, "But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked." They CANNOT REST, and they CANNOT HAVE PEACE.

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

(Submitter’s note: I edited out a lot of the clubber texts to shorten the guys rant)

A gentleman kindly submitted me a copy of a letter that Paul Harvey read on his radio newscast. It is entitled, "An Open Letter from God" a.k.a. "A Letter from God". I read it with rapt interest for many people had been looking for a copy of it. It is a blasphemy and heresy.
I was stunned by the universalist viewpoint of this letter. Believe me, the true God did not write it. A god of the writer's imagination did. Let's take a SCRIPTURAL look at "A Letter from God" read by Paul Harvey (if you want to read the actual letter read by Paul Harvey go here). In the following commentary, Mr. Harvey's comments are in red...

(Aside: I was recently made aware that "A Letter from God" was a letter anonymously submitted to Mr. Harvey. When I wrote the article that you are about to read, I wasn't sure if Paul Harvey wrote the letter or if one of his listeners did. It didn't make much difference either way because by reading it on his program, it seems that Mr. Harvey put his endorsement to it.)

Paul Harvey says everybody is a child of God.

"My Dear Children...believe me, that is all of you."

Everybody is a creature of God, but not everybody is a child of God. Jesus said that the Devil is the father of those who do not belong to Him:
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
--Jesus Christ, John 8:44

The only way to become a child of God is to be adopted by faith in the blood of Jesus Christ. There is NO OTHER WAY:

Paul Harvey says God used evolution in creation.
"I consider myself a pretty patient guy. I mean, look at the Grand Canyon. It took millions of years to get it right. And about evolution-- boy, nothing is slower than designing that whole Darwinian thing to take place cell by cell and gene by gene."

The Bible says that God created the universe and everything in it in six literal days:
...in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
Exodus 31:17
God made man from the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7), even the Periodic Table shows that. Those who believe the Bible already know that the theory of evolution is a lie. Even a cursory examination of their flimsy "evidence" reveals evolution to be a fairy tale.

Paul Harvey says God didn't author the Bible and you can't trust it.
As you will see below, he calls the books of all religions "bibles." The only "religion" with a book called the "Bible" is the Christian religion. Within the CHRISTIAN religion (NOT the Roman Catholic religion), The Authorized Version of the Bible conformable to the edition of 1611 is the authorized version of the Bible--AND YES YOU ******CAN******** TRUST IT--MORE THAN YOUR TWO EYES !!!!!!!!!!!!! The apostles did not follow cunningly devised fables--they were eyewitnesses of the majesty of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ--



Many people are following the false teachers. They are denying the Lord Jesus Christ today. His blood is the only thing that will save the sinner. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. We need forgiveness of our sins. To be forgiven we must believe in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The reader may wish to see our article entitled, How to Get to Heaven. Men today are blaspheming the name of the Lord Jesus. They are denying him, and they are choosing evil spirits, and idols and images and yoga and meditation and are heading toward hell. And they are speaking evil of the Bible, the word of God.

2 Peter 2:2 AND MANY SHALL FOLLOW THEIR PERNICIOUS WAYS; BY REASON OF WHOM THE WAY OF TRUTH SHALL BE EVIL SPOKEN OF.
Time is winding up and many people are believing the lies and blasphemies of the false teachers--that includes the multitude of fake Christian groups and fake churches.
"Every one of your religions claims... that it's bible was written personally by me, that all the other bibles are man made. Oh, me! How do I ever begin to put a stop to such utter nonsense...I hate to break it to you, but I don't write...so all of your books, including those bibles, were written by men and women. They were inspired men and women...they also made mistakes here and there and I made sure of that so that you would NEVER TRUST A WRITTEN WORD rather than your own living heart!"
This is a blasphemy-packed statement by Harvey's god. We'll look at several things here.
God indeed wrote the Holy Bible using living instruments--these were holy men of old:

The god of Paul Harvey says that we should never trust in a written word. This is a biggie. Without the Bible, we have lies for the Bible IS TRUTH. In one stroke, Mr. Harvey takes away the only source of truth that we have. Jesus said:
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. John 17:17
The written word has always been operative in God's dealing with mankind. The Ten Commandments were written in stone! The Jewish people were the careful custodians of the written scriptures:
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. (Romans 3:1-2)

God has always emphasized the importance of keeping His written word:
This BOOK OF THE LAW SHALL NOT DEPART OUT OF THY MOUTH; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is WRITTEN therein... (Joshua 1:8)
Psalm 119 is the longest chapter in the Bible and it is ALL about the importance of knowing the scriptures.
But what about in the New Testament? Jesus read from the BOOK Isaiah in the synagogue in Luke 4:17.
Paul read the gospel of JESUS IN THE WRITTEN WORD! Listen:

Paul Harvey's god says we should trust in our own hearts. What doth the Bible say about our hearts?

For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. Matthew 15:19
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9

Paul Harvey says God is a Father and a MOTHER.
"All right, listen up now! I am your father and mother."

The Bible NEVER refers to God as a mother. It only refers to Him as a Father. This mother business is some new age mumbo-jumbo and goddess worship.
Paul Harvey says God doesn't want the gospel preached.

"You act like I need you and your religion to stick up for me or win souls for my sake. Please don't do me any favors. I can stand on my own, thank you."
Jesus said to preach the gospel to everyone! His parting words are called, "The Great Commission". Paul Harvey mentions a Jesus in his "A Letter From God"--why? Why? Why? Look at what Jesus said after He rose from the dead:
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:18-20)

Jesus said to go, but Paul Harvey's god says, "Shut up and let people perish in hell! I don't need your help!"

Paul Harvey's god accepts the disobedient, the murderer, liar, drunkard, thief, whoremonger, pedophile, etc. "with no strings attached." All criminals are in good standing with his god no matter what they do--it is the devil that accepts all criminals and sins and false religions that drown men in perdition, but the true and the living God is a good God and he is just and holy. All those that come to him through faith in his Son, Jesus, are helped by him to live rightly and holily. The days filled with fornication, lying, theft, and false worship are over--and God's true people are glad about that--true Christians are not like some kind of penned in dog wishing he were free to do evil. When we are born again, we start obeying God's word and we find that even our very desires change. Paul Harvey's god says, "No strings attached." It is the devil that tells men to do what they feel like doing. The devil is the god of this world (ref. 2 Corinthians 4:4). It is the devil that has seducing spirits and doctrines of devils that entice and deceive people. The true and the living God has holy, righteous commands found in his word.

"...And I love you anyway with NO STRINGS ATTACHED. So, lighten up, and enjoy me. That's what religions are for."
Ah, but there is a string attached--His name is Jesus and without him, a person will NEVER enter glory but eternal punishment in the lake of fire will be his dwelling place. Jesus said (not the Jesus of Mr. Harvey's imagination):
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36
Jesus came to save us from our sins. We are all spiritual criminals.

Paul Harvey says every devil (behind the idols are devils) and false prophet is God.
"And, I am very tired of your main excuse. Do you think I care whether you call me God, or Jaway, or Jehovah, or Allah, Wakatonka, Branda, Father, Mother, even the Void of Nirvana. Do you think I care which of my special children you feel closest to: Jesus, Mary, Buddha, Krishna, Muhammad, or any of the others? You can call me and my special ones any name you choose if only you will go about my business of loving one another as I love you."

The Bible says that there is ONLY ONE NAME THAT CAN SAVE YOUR SOUL

THAT NAME IS JESUS!
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is NONE OTHER NAME under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)

Paul Harvey says there are many paths to God. This is a lie. God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit AND IN TRUTH (see John 4:24)! What is truth? God's word is truth (see John 17:17)! None of this "make-it-up-as-you-go-and-you-will-be-alright." The Bible reveals that this is not so! It will not be alright. I walked that do-what-you-feel-like-doing-path for too long--I dishonoured myself and others, I was on my way to hell, AND MY BABY IS DEAD FROM ABORTION! IF YOU WANT TO LIVE WITH GOD, YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN BY REPENTING OF YOUR SINS AND BELIEVING ON THE DEATH, BURIAL AND RESURRECTION OF HIS SON, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. WE ALL NEED THE LORD JESUS--THAT INCLUDES ALL THOSE THAT THINK THAT THEY ARE "GOOD". ROMANS 3:23 TEACHES THAT ALL HAVE SINNED AND COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD. (How to Get to Heaven)

"Each has a unique style so that people can find the best path for themselves. But my special children, the ones your religions revolve around all live in the same place, in my heart. And they get along perfectly, I assure you. The clergy must stop creating a myth of sibling rivalry where there is none."

This is the essence of eastern mysticism--you can get to God any old kind of way. People operate by absolutes in EVERY area of life--a foot is 12 inches, stop at a stoplight, pay taxes, etc.--but when it comes to the most important thing in the universe all of a sudden people say that they cannot know the truth about the Lord God who created them. The truth of the matter is that people don't like God's requirements (found in the Holy Bible--the Authorized (King James) Version of 1611) so they go off in their own direction and choose what they want to follow. They are rebels. God left his commandments written down on paper so that we can come to faith and not be confused and deceived by deceivers. Many people want to be in God's good graces--but they want to do it their way and do whatever sins they feel like doing.

This will only ensure their eternal damnation. We come to God on his terms. We have sinned and he sent his only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to die for our sins so that we can be forgiven. If we do not repent of our sins and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, we will die in our sins. "There are many paths just find the one that best fits you," is a lie from Satan. Disobedient church people are now basically jumping into the eastern mysticism through the "contemplative prayer" vain repetition movement. It looks like that is going to be the occult devil-worshipping spirituality for these end times.

All the occult traditions/repetitious calling-spirits traditions seem to be coming together--hinduism, buddhism, Roman Catholic mysticism, Greek Orthodox Hesychast, Kabbalism, etc. People are being prepared for the coming of the beast is coming. By peace he shall destroy man. The day of the Lord is also coming. On that day we will all stand before God at the final judgment and the books are going to be opened. We will all be there--including all the dead people...they won't be left out--nobody will be left out.

Paul Harvey says religions get along perfectly--but a cursory look around reveals that that is not true. just look at the writings of each and see that they CONTRADICT each other. Just look at their names--THEY ARE DIFFERENT. DIFFERENT THINGS DO NOT AGREE. The Lord Jesus Christ made known that he is the way, the truth, and the life; NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER BUT BY HIM (see John 14:6, Authorized Version of 1611 of the Bible). Look at Islam's conquest by the sword. Look at the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic "Church" and her torturing and burning people up that do not agree with her. Finally, "the clergy" is not creating sibling rivalry because...

The Bible is what is dividing people and exposing the truth, not the "clergy". Jesus said in Matthew 10:34, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Amen and glory to God. The Word of God is quick and powerful and sharp. Mr. Harvey espouses an imaginary Jesus who does not resemble the real Jesus Christ who is Lord of Lords and King of Kings.

There is no "sibling rivalry" because until a person has been born again, they are not my brother or sister in the faith (in the flesh yes, in the faith, no. We are all children of Adam and Eve and I have had the opportunity to enjoy the fellowship of many different peoples--black, white, Samoan, Japanese, Philippino, etc. but my brethren in the Lord know him.). Any so-called rivalry between the true Christian and the heathen is not rivalry at all. Heathens killing Christians is not sibling rivalry--it is the unrighteous persecuting the righteous (not righteous because we are righteous in and of ourselves but because we are made the righteousness of God in the Lord Jesus--because we believe in him and obey his word). The persecuting non-Christian is offended at the gospel message. This is no surprise because the Bible clearly says that Jesus Christ is a rock of offense to the disobedient: "...a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient..." ( 1 Peter 2:8). Real Christians (there are plenty of fake ones) do not use persecution and force against others.

I have one last comment.

This, "A Letter from God" should be called,
A LETTER FROM SATAN

Craig Biddle #fundie theobjectivestandard.com

Since capitalism is the only social system in which the courts uphold the principles of objective law—since it is the only social system in which the government protects individual rights (including property rights)—since it is the only social system in which people can act fully according to their own judgment and thus live fully as human beings—capitalism is the only moral social system.

But, one might ask, what about the poor, the disabled, and the helpless? How do they fare under laissez-faire? To answer this question, we must bear in mind that very few people are genuinely helpless or unable to support themselves; the great majority of people are capable of acting as their life requires. And if a person chooses to live and is capable of supporting himself, he has a moral responsibility to do so; if he refuses to support himself and, instead, steals, begs, or seeks handouts, he is acting parasitically and immorally.

With this in mind, let us consider the position of the poor, the disabled, and the helpless in a truly capitalist system. But we must take them one at a time, for they are not necessarily one and the same. As to the poor: Capitalism leaves each individual free to think, work, and make as much money as he is willing and able to earn. No other social system on earth does this. In a capitalist society, if a poor person wants to work his way out of poverty—as countless poor people have done—he is fully free to do so. Of course, if he doesn’t want to, he doesn’t have to; the choice is his to make, and no one can force him one way or the other.

Some people are not concerned with being wealthy, but this does not make them immoral. While an artist or a gardener might be financially poor, he is not by that fact less moral than a CEO or an athlete who is financially rich. A person’s monetary wealth does not determine his moral status. His choices and actions do: Are they rational or irrational—life-promoting or life-retarding, selfish or selfless, honest or dishonest? Morally speaking, that is what matters. If having more money is honestly important to a person, he should act accordingly by, for instance, seeking a higher-paying job, investing his money more wisely, or starting a business of his own. And capitalism not only leaves everyone—including the poor—completely free to do so; it also provides an ever-increasing flow of educational possibilities and moneymaking opportunities.

As to the disabled: Capitalism leaves them free to compensate for their disabilities by means of any remaining abilities they might have. Again, no other social system on earth does this. In a capitalist society, if a person lacks ability in some respect but still has abilities in other respects, he is fully free to use his existing abilities to support and further his life—as many disabled people do. For instance: A deaf person might choose to pursue a career in genetics, architecture, or accounting. A blind person might choose to pursue a career in music, radio, or psychology. A paraplegic might choose to pursue a career in law, education, or writing. And today—with the technology made possible by freer markets—even a quadriplegic can learn to support himself; he might pursue a career in finance, economics, or computer programming.

When disabled people are fully free to act on their judgment, there is usually something they can do to compensate for their shortcomings. And capitalism not only leaves them completely free to do so; it also makes available an ever-increasing flow of enabling technology.

Now, as to the helpless: It is crucial here to acknowledge that very few people actually fall into this extremely unfortunate category. At this point, we are talking only about people who are severely retarded, have a totally debilitating disease, or are injured to the extent that they are unable to support themselves by any means. What happens to such people in a laissez-faire society? Capitalism leaves each individual free to offer them as much charity as he is able and willing to offer. Once again, no other social system on earth does this. In a capitalist society, if a person has the means and the desire to assist the helpless—as many people do—he is fully free to do so. Of course, if he doesn’t have the means, he can’t offer them assistance. And whether he has the means or not, if he doesn’t want to, he doesn’t have to; the choice is his to make, and no one can force him one way or the other.

But, one might wonder, what if everyone’s rights are respected, yet no one wants to help the helpless.

As always, to address this concern we must observe the relevant facts. What the helpless need but cannot produce is life-serving values; that’s what makes them helpless. Such values can be produced only by able people; hence the term able. But able people can produce values only if they are free to act on the very thing that makes them able: their judgment. The basic social condition that makes human life possible is freedom—freedom from the initiation of physical force—the freedom of each individual to act on the judgment of his own mind.

Thus, respect for individual rights is as much in the best interest of the helpless as it is in the best interest of the able—if not more so. Think about it: If the able are not free, they cannot live (as human beings); and if the able cannot live, what happens to the helpless? Clearly, if the helpless are to be helped, they (and everyone who cares about them) must respect individual rights—including the rights of the able.

Observe further that while in reality there are very few genuinely helpless people, when individual rights are respected there are plenty of people who are willing and able to help them. Look around: Do you ever see people working with the mentally retarded? Ask your friends: Would they ever donate money to help a poor child with leukemia? Ask yourself: Would you ever offer assistance to a victim of a devastating accident? Consider this: Even in the semi-free, mixed economy of the United States today—in which producers are heavily and immorally taxed—the amount of money voluntarily donated to charity is enormous; in 1999 alone, tax-strapped Americans gave over $190 billion to charity.But, one might suppose, isn’t that because people are partly altruistic and not fully selfish? Why would a true egoist ever want to help the helpless?

To be sure, a truly selfish person would not offer “help” to bums who are in fact not “helpless” but rather choose to be parasites. Only a fool or an altruist would do that. But to answer the question of why an egoist would ever want to help people who genuinely cannot support themselves, we need only consider the alternatives—of which there are two: A person can either help the helpless or not help them. So here is the question every egoist has to answer for himself. Which environment do I think is in my best interest: one in which genuinely helpless people suffer and die in the streets, or one in which I voluntarily contribute some small fraction of my time, effort, or money to give them a hand?

I certainly know which environment is in my best interest, and I imagine you know which is in yours. But this is something every individual has to decide for himself—and no one has a moral right to force him one way or the other. Fortunately, the decision does not require advanced mathematics; it merely requires genuine self-interest, reverence for human life, and basic logic.

Rational egoism, true egoism, does not say: “Be indifferent to other human beings” or “Don’t help people.” It says: “If one wants to live as a human being and achieve genuine happiness, one must observe reality; one must think; one must not accept contradictions; one must pursue one’s life-serving values; one must not surrender greater values for the sake of lesser ones; one must be honest; one must have integrity”; and so on. If a person thinks that helping certain other people is in his best interest, he should act accordingly. And capitalism not only leaves everyone completely free to do so; it also enables people to create enormous amounts of surplus wealth with which to do it.

When people are free to produce as much wealth as they are able and willing to produce—and free to do with their wealth whatever they choose to do with it—many people become very rich. Add to this the fact that truly self-interested people care about human life—they, after all, are the ones who recognize that it is the standard of moral value—and thus do not want other human beings to suffer and die needlessly, and we have a clear answer to the question, “What if no one wants to help the helpless?” The concern is simply unwarranted. The fact is that many people—including presumably the people who ask the question—do want to help the helpless. And in a truly capitalist society, no one would be allowed to stop them.

Adam Ford #fundie adam4d.com

[Transcript of Adam4d Comic]

30 Years ago
Christian: "The Bible is the Word of God and I believe what it says"
Some Guy: "Me too brother"

15 Years ago
"The Bible is the Word of God and I believe what it says"
Some Guy: "Whatever"

Today
"The Bible is the Word of God and I believe what it says"
Some Guy: "Bigot"

How Long?
"The Bible is the Word of God and I believe what it says"
Cop: "Hate Speech"

ALT TEXT: "And when that time comes, they'll still be saying Christians have a "persecution complex".

Happy to Help #fundie christianforums.com

Here's my story.

There's a woman who I met at my old job. She would prophesy to me. Telling me that god says " your time has come my son." She tells me she's really into god and that god uses her a lot. As I start to got to know her more she would eventually tell me god uses her to cast out demons.
Here's her story she told me,
At 19 she had a dream where a beautiful angel came to her giving her a light. She was not sure what it was at the time, so she said just continued to be in the world going out drinking doing all that stuff. But she said ever since that dream she had that she could see right through people. Basically she says she can see their heart. She can see what people are " all about " if they are with god or not. She can even look at someone's picture and know what will happen in their future.i have to add that when I was about 14-15. I played the ouija board inside my bedroom with friends. I didn't know any better at all. For I have just became a christian late 2012

In her early 30s she told me that god punished her for about 7 years because of all the time she spent in the world after receiving that light from the angel. She said god punished her because she lived in a house where a witch lived. She said it was horrible because demons would knock on her door and every Friday the witch would watch a horrible horror movie and put the volume on so loud.she said would always have to walk with her bible and go to church everyday.

Anyway that's the background story I guess, this is my concerns.

Since I was convinced she was serving god I let her pray for me.(she's like 43 now) She lays hands on me and speaks in tongues over me. She told me I have a demon inside of me and that she can see him saying that the ouija board was the cause of this.And when she speaks in tongues that its god speaking to the demon. Every time she prays for me she always spits very bad. Almost to the point of vomiting. It's weird, no one else who serves in my church spits like that. She tells me she spits because that's the way her body reacts to demons and that she's spitting out bad spirits. Also when she prophesies she just looks different and her eyes get really red. She says her eye hurts from all the light she sees. She says that god just takes over and speaks over her using her lips. She also told me in the beginning that there's been a few people who think she's a witch but she denies it. I get a lot of panic and anxiety in my chest. That used to happen before I even met her though.

I had an extremely real dream, where in my dream I actually woke up. It was so real. My dog was next to me and everything just as he was in real life. Then out of a sudden it was like a tornado. I got thrown off the bed with the covers and everything and the book I was reading " destined to reign" by Paul prince was thrown down with me which was also on the bed next to me in real life. I woke up and everything was normal but my body felt so extremely scared. I also had another dream where my little niece was over me and I was on some sort of operating table and my niece was trying to convince me to let her snip with scissors at my insides. And being my niece in the dream I was going to let her so in the dream she said " ok just a little snip here and there" and right before she was about to snip away there was a voice in my ear that was very low almost like a whisper and it said "noooooo" and I woke up right away.

Sorry for the long detailed message. God bless all who reads and will be able to help me. I can answer any more questions you may have. This is really bothering me.

{deleted account} #fundie reddit.com

Recently I tried to convince an atheist of intelligent design. I explained to him how unlikely the probability of life simply developing and evolving in human beings was, and how it is much more rational to assume that an intelligent agent was at work. I explained to him how when we come upon an ancient ruin, our first thought is not "oh this must have resulted from natural causes," but rather "these ruins must have been built!"

I then explained how astronomically more complex life is. At the end of the debate he simply shrugged his shoulders and said, "Well maybe God created the universe, or maybe there's an infinite number of universes and the universe we live in is the only one we could live in, and it's the way it is because out of the infinite number of universes it was bound to happen. I guess we'll never know."

I think this was a very powerful lesson. The truth is that people will believe whatever they want to believe. As Socrates once famously said, "The only thing I know is that I don't know anything." If someone wants to believe something, then they'll find a way to justify their belief. If we could rationally convince people of the existence of God, then He wouldn't be God but rather a man-made idea. God is beyond our mere rationality.

If we could deduce God logically, then there would be no need for faith. People believe what they believe not because it is rationally and logically true beyond a doubt, but because it is useful and convenient. Instead of trying to convince people that we're right, we should just develop our own young earth Biology and Physics that is just as useful as the current old earth Biology and Physics. We can teach both models, since both models are equally effective at making accurate predictions, and let people decide what they want to believe. I think this would be the best approach we can take.

aleskakolja #fundie aleskakolja.tumblr.com


I have been thinking a bit about this, and since we have some numerical data maybe we can put numbers in the issue of “pedophiles genocide”. Maybe seeing the numbers could help to have clearer visions of the implications of some people’s desires and intentions.

So, there are a large part of antis who think that all pedophiles, no matter what, should die. I want to believe that most of them don’t think that for real, that they talk without thinking first and that they aren’t actual genocidals waiting for a chance. But I would like to show the implications of following this sentiment.
The numbers: 


The global population is around 7000,000,000. The number of pedophiles is estimated to be around a 5% (and maybe it could be bigger, since the female population hasn’t been deeply studied and we are talking only about pedophiles, not ALL MAPs. But well, we’ll go with that number. An estimation).

What does this mean? That around 350,000,000 people are pedophiles. 350 MILLIONS OF PEOPLE IN THE WORLD ARE PEDOPHILES.

Think slowly about it. USA population is 323 millions. The whole Europe population is 743 millions. Murdering all pedophiles would mean that you want to kill more than what the USA’s population is. Half of the european population. Can you see it now? Do you have the number and its implications in your head?

But well, we’ll keep going over this. I’m strongly against death penalty. I don’t think we have any right to decide who lives and who dies and I don’t believe in a punitive justice system. That is not justice, that is just revenge. I believe in rehabilitation and reinsertion when it is possible, in turning criminals in good, productive members of society and approach the penitenciary system not as a punishment but as therapeutic, educational system. But I’m going to let this for a moment. We are going to say that we accept death penalty for some criminals and that child abusers get that. By this genocide you aren’t just killing offenders, but millions of innocent people. Gonna imagine that a 25% of pedophiles are offenders in some way (and I’m being generous with the number. Too high). If that is true, you are still mudering 262,500,000 of innocent people. Even if half of the pedophiles where child abusers, that would be 175 millions of innocents murdered. The studies with higher numbers about the nazi holocaust talk about 15-20 millions of victims. When you say you want all pedophiles dead that means that you want a genocide 20 times worse than the nazi one. Even if you are full of hate and approve capital punishment, you should be able to see that the genocide of 350 millions of people, innocent or not, just for a specific and unchosen trait of them is too radical and useless. But I’ll go over this now.
“It is for a greater good”


Ok, just for a second, we are going to pretend that the murdering of innocent people (or just, murdering in general) is justificable in some way, we are going to imagine that there is such a thing as a greater good that is above the most basic human right of millions of people and that makes their murder ok. What would you achive with this? Well, acknowledging that only around 33% of CSA is commited by pedophiles that means that this genocide wouldn’t stop even half of the abuse children suffer. 66% of it would still happen. So we would have millions of innocents dead and children still being abused without no one taking serious actions to stop it, because they have focus all the effort in the murdering of pedophiles.

But that is not all. Pedophiles would keep borning, of course. Because pedophilia is not a choice, an ideology or something you can control. People would still born with this trait and would develop it, so you’d have to keep murdering a 5% of human population every generation. This would include a lot of CSA survivors, of course, that turn out to be pedophiles when they grow up. But since you are killing pedophiles CSA is impossible so there isn’t survivors, right? This approach will just lead to a total invisibilization of CSA, because to justify the genocidal attitude you need to support the idea that only pedophiles commit CSA, so the voices of most victims wouldn’t be hear. 

And of course, if your intention is murdering pedophiles as a “prevention” strategy, it would be the best that you kill them as young as possible, before they can commit any offense. Since most people became aware of their attractions as teens, you would be killing mostly minors. Probably the millions you are killing are all under 16. But that is ok, because it is for a greater good… Or maybe not.

Because by killing all pedophiles you would still have most of CSA happening and you would have to keep an eternal genocide for the rest of the history without any perks coming from it. Because you would see friends, family, neighbours… dying constantly for a trait they didn’t choose and you would have to accept it because that is supposed to make some kind of good for society. This is not effective. This doesn’t save children. This is heinous. There are way better things we can do about this topic.
So, what can we do, then?


We, as a society, have a principal role here. We can prevent CSA before it happens and the way to achive this is not murdering, it’s not genocide, it’s not hate. It is knowledge and understanding. We need to be aware of the risk factors for CSA and treat them as soon as we notify someone has them. Treatment is not murdering, but therapy. And this is not a thing just for pedophiles. This is something for anyone with these risk factors (lack of empathy, self-control…). On the side of pedophiles, literature is clear about it: isolation only hurts and create risk factors. The way to prevent pedophiles from offending is offering them a supportative, open society. If instead of making them feeling like mosters doomed to abuse we teach young pedophiles that they are ok, that they are in control of their actions and that people are going to still love and care about them we are protecting these teens from developing the distortions that can lead to abuse. An open society would mean that pedophiles who need it could go to therapy without fear, learning to accept themselves, to empathize with children, fighting cognitive distortions and developing self-control skills that would prevent them from commiting any kind of offense. This therapy is the way to prevent CSA. And to provide it we need that society stops to hate and demonize pedophiles so they can take this step. But therapy alone is not enough. Human beings need acceptation, need people who show love for them, need to be part of a group and community. That is why you shouldn’t isolate pedophiles. Because it hurts their mental health, because maybe the only ones who show acceptation would be pro-contact communities, because maybe their loneliness pushes them to do something terrible that we all could have prevent if we had had enough understanding and vision for it.
Conclusion


When you say you want all pedophiles to die you mean that you want 350 millions of people dead. These aren’t light words. This is a terrible statement and maybe you should think about it carefully before support it. You should keep in mind that pedophiles are human beings, with family and friends, most of them innocent, and that all this death would bring a lot of pain to the world without actually helping anyone. The dead of pedophiles wouldn’t stop CSA. Most children would still be abused. The way to prevent this is a good konwledge of the causes and risk factors of CSA and early intervention on these. Genocide, demonization or isolation is not the right intervention, it is an useless preventive strategy with a lot of negative impact. If we want to actually help children we should start by understanding what pedophilia is, who are the pedophiles and heping them to remainn non-offending and anti-contact. We should all work together with MAPs, who can be actually the first step in CSA prevention and the ones turning pro-contacts and potential abusers in riskless people, so we can help children. We should guide ourselves by science, by research, by what we learn and not by what we feel or just blindly believe.
Some last reflections for antis


Please, next time you type something like “I hope all pedos die” “I wish you all were dead” “Please, die” “kill yourself” “best you can do is killing yourself” or any form of suicide baiting and death wishing try to think in the effect of your words. Try to think that in the other side of the screen there is a human being, a person with their life, their problems, their suffering. Someone who didn’t choose to be like that and who has to learn to live with a part of themselves that they probably hate way more than you do. The person you are talking to is not your abuser, is not any child abuser. It is another scared person who is seeking a bit of help and empathy from another human beings. It could be anyone. Your best friend, your nice classmate, your parent, your children. Anyone. 

Because when you express this desire you are telling 350,000,000 of human beings that they would be better off dead. And these are strong words, directed towards people with a high suicide risk. With this, you aren’t protecting children, you are hurting them. With this, you are just spreading your rage to feel a bit better about yourself in the most twisted and egoistic way, but you cause harm. Even to yourself, no matter if you can’t see this now. Drowing in hate, rage and such a toxic ideology won’t bring you peace or happiness. You will only feel worse and worse, more full of wrath, until the day you can’t hold it anymore.

Try to be careful. Think in your words, in their true meaning, in society, in what we can do to make this world better. Stop for a moment, breath deeply, ignore the hate, the rage, your pain, and then try to open your eyes and start to learn. You don’t have to agree in everything. You dont’ have to be a MAP supporter. But just stopping to spread a message of hate and genocide and starting researches and discusssions would do a lot of good. For society, yes, but specially for yourself. Because you are the one who is getting more hurt with this. I hope you can think slowly and see this someday. And for that day I’m here. And for the day before too. I want to know you, I want to help you, I want to show you kindness and empathy. I know you are a good person, that you mean well and that someday you could see what was wrong in your actions. Until then, I’ll be here anyway. I’m open to talk, to discuss, to share my sources and research and to give you support when you need it. But please, stop to support genocide. Don’t let yourself to think that the murdering of 350,000,000 can be in any circunstances for a greater good. Never. Genocide is always wrong. 

And if you are an anti who is against cross-tagging, against suicide baiting and death wishes and who believe in therapy even if you don’t like the MAP community, please, try to be vocal about this. Help to make your community less toxic and hateful, help another people to be less dogmatic and more open to talk and discuss in respectful ways, try to make them see why wishing people dead or telling them to commit suicide is wrong. You have a lot of power in your hands and you can stop a lot of harm just by making your community a bit more open, tolerant and safe, by making it less harmful for its members and less anti-science, anti-recovery and anti-therapy. If you believe that something is wrong don’t be afraid and speak up against it. I have talked with antis who only were antis and who wrote hateful stuff because they were scared to be called out and hated for not being like the other antis. That is not good. No one should feel forced to do something they don’t agree with and that makes them distressed just for the fear that their own community causes them. Be helpful, be there for the ones who show more humanity and empathy. Suport therapy and understanding, not genocide, rage and hate. Give everyone a hand.

So, summarizing, if you support the idea of wanting all pedophiles dead, try to think slowly, be aware of the implications, keep the numbers and facts in your mind. Genocide is not an option. If you want to fight monsters, try to don’t become yourself in one.

Syed Hasnain Qadiri-Jilani #fundie yanabi.com

Dear brothers and sisters Aslamoalikum,

Are we made of clay ? what is ment by clay ... this is just one way that people could understand. If it was to tell us the names of all the elements that we were created by what names would the Holy Qur'aan have used when those elements were discovered long after and had not been even named.. for us clay is enough...

We should only accept the Holy Qur'aan and the Ahadeeth on this matter. Our knowledge is not enough to understand everything.

Science is not the the answer to understanding all subjects. History has shown the masters of science have been proven wrong in time.

We must increase our knowledge to be able to understand as to what is ment by those words in context of the subject in the surah.

The Torah has words that at that time applied to people so as to make it simple for them to understand. Had the Holy Qur'aan stated that the Earth was moving then there would have been many who would have not believed it as they would have been able prove just as Ahla Hazhrat (ra) that the Earth is at a stand still...

When the Holy Qur'aan talks about other things that cannot be proven by people to be incorrect, in time they become acceptable just as the verse which states that the male determins the gender of a child at the time of its conception. Until they became advanced in the science of genetics they did not accept the Qur'aan.

Likewise time will prove that the Holy Qur'aan is correct in saying that the Earth is stationary as you would say that the the Earth is still and everything around it moves.

Where does movement time and space originate from ? A person could be standing but still the blood inside him is moving ! The universe is in a constant motion even the sun is moving... But it behaves as though it is stationary...!

As one of the signs of Kiyamat would be that the Sun would come closer to the Earth...!

We accept all that is in the Holy Qur'aan even if we cannot understand it now due to lack of knowledge.

Jane Moss #racist amren.com

I began teaching 20 years ago at a majority-black public middle school. The behavior of the black students was so outrageous, it bordered on unbelievable. Their respect for authority and teachers was less than nothing. They would pull my hair to see if it was real, sometimes standing around me playing with my hair like animals performing grooming rituals. Other times, they would push their faces into my abdomen, take a deep breath, and comment on the way I smelled. I’ve even had students tell me they could smell my “coochie” and shove their hand between my legs from behind.

Their attempts to get me fired were relentless. Students would rock back and forth in their chairs screeching angry monkey sounds in an attempt to trick me into saying the word “monkey” so they could accuse me of racism and end my career. The same tactic was in play when they said “nigger” over and over again. If I asked them to stop saying “that word,” they would reply “what word?” hoping I would repeat it. Of course, they had no real issue with profanity. One of their strategies to break the morale of teachers was to leave little pieces of paper all around the room with only the word “bitch” written on them.

Violence was constant as well. I could list dozens if not hundreds of fights and random acts of brutality. Here are just a few.

Once, a new Haitian student who spoke no English was lured into an unmonitored hallway by three American blacks who then beat her unconscious. They slammed her head against a concrete stairwell repeatedly, fracturing her skull and one of her eye sockets, leaving her with partial, but permanent, vision loss.

Another time, a black girl picked up a chair and swung it into her black friend’s head simply because she “wanted to know what it felt like” to do so.

Perhaps worst of all was the time I saw a group of blacks drag a small white boy into a storage closet, with scissors at his throat the whole time. I nearly lost my job because I used a curse word in order to gain control of the situation, while the scissor-wielding thugs faced no consequences whatsoever. Although the administration was unhappy with my behavior that day, it impressed my students. My quick intervention and harsh language was met with cheers and applause because it was so striking to see a white teacher act so fiercely and decisively. Some students commented that what I had done to save the white boy was “so ghetto,” because I managed to be the dominant figure in the situation. On this occasion, they meant “ghetto” as a compliment. It doesn’t always carry a good connotation, though — the bastardization of my ancestors’ language is fluid.

The victimization of whites by blacks is especially bad in middle schools because black children reach puberty earlier than their white peers, and are therefore much larger. Prepubescent white children generally adopt one or more of these three survival strategies:

Remain small, invisible, and compliant. Try not to speak or be seen. This works fairly well as long as they are willing to periodically do classwork for blacks and not quibble when blacks “repossess” their property. Surrendering candy, sparkly pencils, fidget spinners, and the like are all common ways of paying the informal “white tax” that blacks enforce.

Adopt ebonics and behave in a desperate and exaggerated ghetto style to try to and fit in.

Deny their whiteness. Regularly find ways of announcing that they aren’t really white because they are Italian, or Jewish, or Spanish, or anything else that could possibly be construed as non-white.

These strategies do help, but not that much. In the end, all white students are made to suffer by their non-white counterparts — especially the small and quiet ones.

My proudest accomplishment was helping Michael, an upper-middle-class white boy, escape that middle school. He was only there in the first place because his family had recently moved to the area and enrolled him in the local public school without realizing what that would entail for their son. He was a model student. Every day he would sit quietly doing his assignments, periodically sighing as the rest of the class fought, bickered, yelled, cussed, vandalized, and cat-called one another. One day, I sat down next to him and told him: “Go home and tell your parents to put you in private school, you don’t belong here.” His parents did so almost immediately — I’m so grateful they listened to me and had enough money to do something about it.

Looking back over my career as a teacher, the most striking change I have seen is the demographic one. The high school I teach at now used to be predominantly black, with small numbers of the other races. Now it is only about half black, with a swelling Hispanic population. As I sit at my desk reviewing student data, I see that one of my Latin American students has turned twenty. Carlos is a full grown man, but he is attending public school as a tenth grader to evade immigration enforcement. His presence is welcomed and even celebrated by the school administration and sanctioned by district officials in this large sanctuary city inside a sanctuary state. This high school is fairly large — with over 2,000 students — and there are two others about as big nearby, meaning that Carlos is not the only illegal alien taking advantage of the fact that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) does not raid schools.

Roughly 40 percent of the student population is now composed of “English language learners.” Many of these students are illegals who seem to have been bussed in by some sort of underground network. Most of them arrived in the past two years. Their families receive city services such as welfare, food stamps, and Section 8 Housing. At school, they get free breakfast and lunch and are given backpacks filled with food to take home over the weekend, along with “reproductive services,” psychologists, social workers, and specialized teachers to help them learn in their own language — all free of charge. The adults — parents or otherwise — get free evening classes in the same school to teach them English and how to find resources within the community.

In return for the generosity of the community, the school now has Hispanic students lining the halls making out — and sometimes doing much more than that. The girls all want to get pregnant, and their culture cheers them on, regardless of their age or marital status. The boys carry knives and sell drugs, the stench of marijuana is ever-present in the hallways — which is where Hispanic students spend most of their time, as opposed to the classrooms they should be seated in. They refuse to speak English, claiming not to understand when told to go to class, and cussing out teachers in Spanish whenever they feel like it. Some even try to threaten teachers to get passing grades, making comments such as, “Do you like your car? I need an A.”

Other students rarely attend school but stay formally enrolled so they can be considered “DREAMers.” Their presence on the roster keeps other pupils from enrolling in a class they may need in order to graduate. Plenty of students openly state that they are only in school to get money and benefits, and to eventually take back the country that white people stole from them. Unsurprisingly, all but a few refuse to stand for the pledge of allegiance.

Caamib, Elliot Rodger, various incels #sexist pastebin.com

(Caamib's translation of an article about an interview between him and German news magazine Der Spiegel in 2014)

Male, single, life-threatening

The man who killed six people in Santa Barbara in May, was a member of an obscure community: So-called Incels live involuntarily as single, and some develop a hatred of women, which can be fatal. Who are these men?

Written by Takis Strangler

Marijan says there are people in his community who hate the summer. In summer they have no choice but to see more of the women, their skin, their bare knees, tight clothes and their breasts. Marijan says he does not look at women, and he was trying to avoid places where he has to see naked female skin. He says: "If you're hungry but cannot eat, you're not going into a street fully loaded with cakes."

Marijan, 26, from Zagreb wishes a girlfried, and because he’s unable to find one, he experiences his life as a torment. He is lonely, but in his loneliness he is not alone. His community meets on the Internet.

He belongs to a group of people who answer to the moniker "Incel", which is the abbreviation for the English term "involuntary celibacy”. Marijan frequents forums in which an own culture of solitude has developed.

People who gather there are almost always men, a few hundred in total. How many there are exactly, can be difficult to estimate, there are English, German, Dutch, Australians and especially Americans.

One of them wrote in the past year on an internet forum: "One day the Incels will realize their true strength and number and overthrow the oppressive feminist system. Imagine a world in which the WOMEN FEAR YOU. "

The author of these lines was student Rodger Elliot. On 23 May this year, Rodger (22), from Santa Barbara, California, recorded a video from himself. He put the camera on the dashboard of his BMW and sat behind the wheel.

He said: "This is my last video. Tomorrow is the day of retribution. The day on which humanity will experience my retaliation. Which you all will experience. In the past eight years of my life, since I reached puberty, I was forced to endure loneliness, an existence full of rejection and unrequited desire. All just because women never felt attracted to me. In the last years I rotted in solitude. "

Now and then Rodger laughed in the camera, a handsome young man with black hair and white teeth. Through the window of his car palm trees were visible.

A short time later, he killed three fellow students in his apartment. Forensic scientists examine which weapon he used. The wounds of the corpses are not clear. The police secured fingerprints on two machetes, a knife and a hammer.

When the men were dead, Rodger took his Sig Sauer P226, his Glock 34 and two semi-automatic pistols, and went out in the neighboring community of Isla Vista. He knocked at the house of a sorority. Nobody answered him.

A few steps further on he shot two students. He went into a snackbar and shot and killed a customer. Then he climbed into his car, drove through the town and shot at passers-by, injuring 13 people.

He rammed his BMW into a cyclist, slammed into a parked car and killed himself with a shot in the head. Rodger left a few videos and a 137-page manifesto. In it are phrases like: "Women are like a plague. They are like animals, completely controlled by their animalistic instincts, and corrupt feelings and impulses. "

Many men who became lone gunmen have, as Rodger had, a sick relation with women in general. Eric Harris, one of the boys involved in the 1999 at Columbine High School shooting in the United States, killing 13 people and killed himself, wrote in his diary: "Maybe I just need to have sex. Perhaps that would change this shit. "

And his accomplice Dylan Klebold wrote: "I do not know what I do wrong with people (especially women) - it is, as if they hate me and scare me. "

During a shooting rampage in Winnenden in 2009 Tim Kretschmer killed eight female students, three female teachers and a male student in his former school.

In the same year the American George Sodini shot three women and wounded nine more, before taking his own life in a gymstudio. Previously, he had written in his blog:

"Women simply don’t like me. There are 30 million desirable women in the United States (is my estimate) - and I find none "!

These gunman leave questions:

Why people had to die? Exists there a connection between the murders and the loneliness of the perpetrators? What has this incel community from the Internet to do with the murders?

Rodger can answer no longer, and even if he could, he could hardly give any clear answers. But there are people who understand a few of his thoughts. Because they share his anger at women and his loneliness. One of them is Marijan (not his real name). You can reach him on his blog, thatincelblogger.wordpress.com.

After a few emails he agreed to meet, in Zagreb, Croatia, his hometown.

Before a pizzeria near the Cathedral a handsome young man, tall, with jet black hair and a three-day beard is waiting, he wears a white, loose T-shirt and cropped trousers.

While shaking hands he does not look one in the eyes. As he sits at a table, in the back, in a quiet corner of the restaurant, he says: "I'm going to look bad in the article, but what have I got to lose? "

He says he was angry after Rodgers rampage. The whole world again only talked about tougher gun laws. But no one thought about other reasons that drove Rodgers to his rampage. No one had thought about incel.

Marijan talks much and long. He doesn’t allow a lot of questions. It is less a conversation but rather a series of lectures, which he conducts with great precision.

Sentence after sentence, lecture to lecture, he leads the listener deeper into his world, deeper into the darkness in which there seems to be no happiness, only immeasurable hatred.

Excerpts from lecture one, subject: Women.

Women are simply designed robots with the desire to procreate. Young women in past generations always had help from their grandmother. She helped with finding a man. She said: This is a good type, he will take care of you. These grandmothers were replaced with the magazine Cosmopolitan. Today women want to marry up. They want improve their station. I would not say that we Incels hate women. But if you were rejected 50 times, then you develop negative feelings, which is normal.

Excerpts from lecture two, Topic: seduction game.

Women can now provide for themselves, so their preferences have changed from breadwinners to seducers. A minority of men has sex with the majority of women. The successful men are the Bad Boys. If you want to have a woman today, you need to become a Bad Boy and lose your ethics.

Excerpts from lecture three, theme: a better world.

I want a society in which a group of men cooperates in total trust. Each man gets a woman. The women are fairly distributed. People are monogamous and marry as a virgin. If a man wants sexual diversity, he goes to a prostitute. Feminists would be made prostitutes in this society. When a man tries to seduce multiple woman, he is killed instantly.

Marijan and other Incels meet on various forums on the Internet. the forum, that Elliot Rodger used, is now closed. Another is a relatively moderate forum called love-shy.com. The members speak there about topics such as pick-up lines, plastic surgery and other ways to escape their despair.

The users of the forum had opened a discussion about Elliot Rodger. On the first page a moderator writes that he condemns the deed and that Rodger did not reflect the philosophies of loveshy.com. The moderator announces that all posts glorifying the deed will be deleted.

One user writes on one of the later pages: "I think about Elliot Rodger ... why didn’t he just rape a slut at gunpoint? "

Another user wrote: "I was always taught to respect women and not to be sexually aggressive. That was a bucket full of shit. All what they really want is a muscle man who fucks them in the ass instead of fucking a real person with feelings”

A user writes on one of the last pages about Rodger: "He is a martyr, in the real sense of the word, one must give him that. "

On the forum Marijan calls himself "Dante Alighieri”, as the medieval poet. Dante started his poem “the Divine Comedy” with the words: "Halfway through the path of human life I found /myself in a devious dark forest/ Because I strayed from the right path."

On the morning after the first meeting Marijan wears the same clothes as on the day before. He says he did not sleep well, because the conversation had him stirred. In the café he ordered a chocolate cake and tells his life story.

Marijan grew up in a middle class family, he has a brother, and both parents were employeed. In school he had many years of little contact with girls. As he started to get interested in girls, they were alien to him. He was afraid of them. "My brain has not developed normally, " Marijan says. He was "love-shy". The American psychology professor Brian Gilmartin invented this term in 1987. The men who suffer from this condition complain about their complete inability to enter into a romantic relationship.

Some men report panic attacks, when they are alone with women, some break out in sweat, others can hardly move anymore when they think of a date, to which they look forward to. Marijan developed a morbid fear of women mingled with a steadily growing demand for a relationship with a woman.

He says: "My standards are very low, as long as the woman is not overweight or is unhygienic. And I have trouble with bad teeth. "

At 19, he met a girl through an SMS Chat. She was 16 and said to Marijan, that she wanted to sleep with him. She showed him how she likes to be kissed. The girl became Marijans girlfriend. He was happy for a moment.

Then she went on vacation over the summer to an island. Before parting, Marijan was angry because he did not want her to go, and told her that maybe they should become just friends.

The girl went anyway. Marijan sent her many SMSes and self-written poems. When she returned, she told him that she no longer liked him. Marijan could not cry for three days. Then when he finally cried, he didn’t go to the university for months and stuffed himself full with chocolate. He didn’t get over it, says Marijan. After one year he wrote on an Incel forum on the internet that he was planning on shooting himself and the girl. The owners of this forum contacted Interpol. Marijan got a visit of the Croatian police.

He testified that he no longer wanted to kill. The policemen nevertheless arrested him and charged him with the suspicion of murder threats and put him in pre-trial detention. After a month a judge released Marijan because he hadn’t threatened anyone directly. The judge said, so tells Marijan: "Maybe you’ll meet another woman just outside the court."

It was followed by two years without a kiss.

As Marijan turned 24 years old, he wrote on an Internet forum that he was a male virgin and looking for a woman, that would deflower him. A Croatian woman contacted him, visited him in Zagreb, slept with him and then said that he was pathetic , as he tells it.

In the years after he managed to bed three other women. "One of them was crazy and
a total bitch, "says Marijan. When she left him for another, he remained lying in bed for months, he says. He thought about suicide, and spent five days in a psychiatric ward.

Later he earned a degree in Medieval History at the Zagreb University. But he never wanted to work, because, as he says, he didn’t want to pay taxes that will reward sluts.

Today he says he no longer dates because he never want to feel disappointment again. He’s been alone for a year.

Most gunmen send out signals before their deeds, signals which could have been interpreted as warnings in retrospect. Allusions, threats, videos on the Internet.

Some gunman stuck a note on the school toilet wall, on which was written: "Tomorrow you're dead." Some men start wearing black clothes and leather jackets before they act. Elliot Rodger wrote his fantasies on blogs.

Marijan says: "There are a lot of broken people waiting to die. And he says:" I do not know when I will snap. " This English word "Snap" has several meanings. It can mean break, tear or explode. Marijan says: "I think Incel that can cause people to shoot or kill with a bomb. "

He smiles, it seems as if he enjoy the moment. Psychologists and psychiatrists that deal with school shootings, try to explain why men kill women, but women almost never kill men. Testosterone was one reason, the researchers say, and gender roles are also to blame, since men are more likely to resolve conflict with force and women are more likely to retreat. At the end they still lack a satisfactory explanation.

The FBI, the American Federal - police, writes in a report about shootings at schools that offenders are often focused on perceived injustices. One goes through life and picks out everything, that offends them. Every stupid comments of a classmate is remembered, each breakup with a girl finds his place in the collection of misery, until someone thinks the whole society is against you.

Many gunman also like to play videogames, where it’s the goal to shoot people’s head off. And many suffer from a narcissistic disorder.

But correlation does not equate causation, so no handy formula like this one can be derived: loneliness + computer games + narcissism = rampage. There are many lonely, narcissistic gamers who never shoot people.

In the life of a crazed gunman something happens, that the psychiatrists and psychologists cannot explain. Evil is sometimes greater than a simple explanation.

The assassin who tried in 1981 to shoot U.S. President Ronald Reagan, said when interviewed: "You know a few things about me, sweetheart, for example, that I’m obsessed with fantasy, but why don’t you understand, that fantasy in my world becomes reality? "

Another gunman from the USA heard voices that told him: "You have to kill all. You have to kill the whole world. "

According to Wikipedia: "The trigger of a rampage is a combination of an advanced psychosocial uprooting of the offender, the loss of professional integration through unemployment, demotion or transfer, increasingly experienced insults and partnership conflicts. "

After all, what Marijan tells about himself, he has few friends, no job, no partner, and he experiences his life as an insult, which becomes greater each passing dayl. Those looking for long enough, will realize that the template fits him.

The last meeting with Marijan is in the evening and takes place in a restaurant, again at a table away from the other guests. It is a warm evening, but Marijan sits down inside the restaurant, the place where no one else sits. He says that he wished that women have the right to vote taken away.

Then he says that he once tried to kill himself with sleeping pills, but one and a half days later he had woken up. His eyes light up with pleasure when he takes on the theme rampage. Then he unleashes the bad thoughts from his mind in the world. He says: "I will cause dissatisfaction. I want to make people angry. I do not think that I'm going to kill people. " After a moment of silence, he says: "I want to spread a little panic. "

He again starts talking about similar topics as on the first day, always it comes to women, and always it comes to himself, he says: "I've started to see women as the filth that they are. " A little later he says: "I do not like people."

This article attempts to explain about the Incel community and the research leads to different men, who identify as Incel. One dreams of to find a farm where Incels can live together. The farm dwellers could agree to import women from Mexico and divided them amongst themselves. One sat with radiant eyes in a small German town and told of how he overcame his fear of women by simply spending more time with women. He looked happy and said it was probably a good idea if the Incel forums were monitored by psychiatrists to ensure that the users can find professional help.

Another hopes to, finally, in his mid-twenties, to kiss a woman. A few of these men seem lost. Nobody seems dangerous. And in end it became clear that there is no Incel community. There are only a few lonely men.

Many men from the Incel community can simply find no partner and look for help on the internet. For them the forums can perhaps save them. For other men the forums offer the opportunity to cultivate their hatred in a group.

For 20 years, such people would remain in their hole, alone with their bad thoughts. Probably a man is difficult to love when he is full of hatred. While carrying these thoughts, it’s possible to want to kill everyone around you and yourself. The potential gunman becomes Incel. And not the Incel a potential gunman.

Elliot Rodger was in his mid twenties when he died, he had visited several therapists, he had been bullied at school, he had his own blog on the Internet.

Marijan is mid-twenties, he has visited several therapists, he was bullied at school, he wrote his own blog on the Internet. One was a mass murderer. The other meets with a journalist and eats chocolate cake.

Rodger left us with the question:

Why did six people have to die? There is no logical explanation. His 137-page manifesto that he wrote before he became a murderer, ends raving about the prospect of killing people. It shall be the punishment for not getting a woman who loves him. Rodger has named the work "My fucked-up world ". He writes that he will retaliate and punish everyone. The last sentence of the manuscript is as follows:

"Finally, I can show true value to the world. "And in the penultimate sentence Elliot Rodger, 22, a young man from California, who had his whole life before him writes: "And it will be beautiful."

Marijan wrote recently a new entry on his blog. He analyzed why he is lonely: "I finally understand the depths of madness and sexism in our society. All the betrayal, the whole heartless and horrible behavior of women were seen as my fault. That is hatred. "

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Can Dawkins Disprove God in 5 Steps?

Can the idea of a Creator God be easily dismissed in just five steps? Well, atheist and anti-theist Richard Dawkins certainly thinks so!

He recently appeared on a Norwegian-Swedish television show called Skavlan where he quickly dismissed the idea of God by ticking off on his fingers five arguments for God.

Dawkins starts by equating God with fairies, and then says that “the onus is not upon an atheist to say why there is not something, the onus is on a theist to say why there is.” Well, Dr. Richard Dawkins, the onus will actually be on each person on judgment day when he stands before God. And no excuses will be enough when we stand before Him. In the end, every person will bow before Christ and acknowledge Him as Lord (Philippians 2:10–11). You can either do so voluntarily now or by compulsion later.

Dawkins then says that “there simply are no reasons for the existence of a God.” But, of course, this doesn’t mean there actually aren’t any reasons for God’s existence. It simply shows his anti-God bias. He then mentions a few of the common arguments used to demonstrate that there is a God.

Design Exists Because of Darwinian Natural Selection?

Dawkins begins with the argument from design. Now, Scripture is clear that everyone is without excuse for not believing in God because His creation clearly shows that He exists (Romans 1:20). But Dawkins dismisses the powerful argument from design in nature simply by saying that we should expect design because that’s what Darwinian natural selection does, “it makes them look as though they’re designed.” According to Dawkins, “Darwin has exploded once and for all the argument from design.” Dawkins recognizes that things do look designed, but says that the most likely explanation, a Designer, isn’t the case—natural selection simply does it. But what he never explains is how natural selection—a process that only works by decreasing or re-shuffling existing genetic information—is supposed to add the massive amounts of new information that are required to get the complexity we see today from a simple single-celled organism over millions of years. How do you get from simple pond scum to highly complex people without adding massive amounts of new genetic information? You can’t!

People Hallucinate or Are Fooled?

Dawkins next dismisses personal testimony by saying that people hallucinate or are fooled with relative ease. Now, subjective personal experience does need to be weighed carefully (see 1 Thessalonians 5:21), but what I would like to ask Dawkins is the same question Bill Nye was asked during our 2014 debate: where did consciousness (which is needed for our experiences) come from? Nye was at a loss to explain this “great mystery” as he called it and Dawkins likely would be too.

Of course, God’s Word tells us exactly where consciousness (and everything else!) came from—God Himself (Genesis 1:27, 2:7). And, furthermore, in a godless world, how do you even know what truth really is when you have no objective standard for determining truth? Who is to say who is right and who is wrong? As Pilate asked Jesus, without God and His Word, “What is truth?” (John 18:38). And if we are just random chemical accidents, why should we trust anything that comes from our brain anyway? If Dawkins’ worldview is true, then he can’t trust anything that comes from his brain either! It’s ultimately a self-defeating argument. We can only know what truth is because there is a God and He has ordered this world and has given us His Word.

If God Is the First Cause, Then Where Did God Come From?

Next is the argument of the first cause. This argument, in a nutshell, states that everything must have a cause, including the universe. Now, Dawkins dismisses this argument by saying that if God is the first cause, then where did God come from? Frankly, it’s a silly response. God is outside of space and time—in fact, He created these things. He didn’t have a beginning and He will have no end (Psalm 90:2). And if there was someone who created God, then it would be a bigger God, and then a bigger-bigger God would need to create that God, and then a bigger-bigger-bigger God would need to create that God, and so on to infinity. This is silly. If He needed to be created, He wouldn’t be God. But God doesn’t need a Creator; He is self-existent.

Darwin Explains How We Got Here Without God?

Dawkins then explains that Darwin shows how everything got here without the need for God. But Darwin was simply wrong because everything we see in observational science confirms the history of the universe from God’s Word, not Darwin’s ideas—kinds reproduce according to their kinds; we don’t see new genetic information being added to produce brand-new features; life only comes from other life, never from non-life. Life did not originate by itself; it was created by our all-wise Creator.

Pascal’s Wager a Silly Argument?

Lastly, Dawkins addresses the so-called Pascal’s wager, which says that it’s better to believe in God, live a godly life, and be wrong when you die than to reject God and die and go to hell. He says that this is a “silly argument” and that there is no way of knowing if you’ve bet on the right god or not. But I submit that only the God of the Bible makes sense of this world. God alone has left us a coherent Scripture that does not contradict itself and is historically and scientifically accurate in all it says.

But Dawkins does get one thing (sort of) right in his short video in reference to Pascal’s wager. He says that perhaps the God of the Bible would not prefer someone who “slavishly pretends to believe something.” Scripture is clear that God sees the heart, not external signs of worship or belief (1 Samuel 16:7). No one will get to heaven by “slavishly” pretending to believe in God. Salvation only comes by truly believing and trusting in Jesus Christ and His work on the Cross to pay for our sin debt (Romans 10:9–10). That’s the good news of the gospel—salvation is a free gift to those who will put their faith in Christ.

My heart breaks for people like Dawkins who are utterly lost and who, unless they repent and believe in Christ, will face an eternity separated from God in hell. All of their seemingly clever arguments against God will amount to nothing when they stand before His judgment throne. If you are like Dawkins, or even if you believe in God but have not trusted in Christ for salvation, I encourage you to listen to the good news and believe in Christ and be saved.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

Dreams of Dunamis #fundie dreamsofdunamis.wordpress.com

Your words can also be very weak. When you say words in an evil way, you are saying weak words, as far as the Spirit and the Kingdom is concerned. When you cuss or say these cuss-like words, the demons will hear. When people use a certain word as a swear word, over and over again, that word becomes known as a cuss word, or what is known in this age as a swear word. Demons memorize these words, (some are even their names,) for these words call them to the person who is speaking them. (This is why it is less painful to hear them over the television set, than when a friend says them.) When one cusses, they are sinning and calling that demon into them. Then once inside of you, demons can easily influence you to sin more. The swearing gives the demon a doorway to hit you with more sin, so then it can eventually take you. If you say such a word in a non-evil/not with evil intent, through you are not cursing, the demons will still listen and come, but they can not enter into you. No doorway or opening was made, so they do not have a free way to attack you.

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

It is very simple to be saved and takes only a minute to explain. Please let me show you how to get to Heaven from the Bible, God's Word...

Man is a Sinner in the Eyes of a Holy God.
Isaiah 53:6, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
Romans 3:19, “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.”
John 3:3, “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Romans 3:10, “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.”
Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”
There is a Price For Our Sin―Burning in Hell Forever.
Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Romans 5:12, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.”
2nd Thessalonians 1:8, “In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Revelation 20:15, "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”
Revelation 21:8, “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”
Jesus paid that price by dying on the cross and shedding His blood; Christ was buried and bodily rose again the third day!
Romans 5:8, “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
1st Timothy 1:15, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.”
1st Peter 1:18-19, “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ...”
1st Corinthians 15:1-4, “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.” This is the Gospel.
By faith in Jesus Christ ALONE we are immediately saved.
Galatians 3:26, “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”
John 11:25, “Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.”
John 6:28-29, “Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”
Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
John 14:6, “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
John 6:40, “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”
Mark 1:15, “And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”
Acts 26:18, “To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.”
Romans 10:13, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
1st Corinthians 3:11, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
Galatians 3:26, “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”
Salvation is NOT found in a religion or good works, but in a Person... The LORD JESUS CHRIST!

Simply BELIEVE the Gospel and You Are Saved!

The Heresy Of Having To “Pray” To Be Saved

Fundamentalist Heresy! (In this awesome sermon by Pastor Jack Hyles, he explains that prayer, turning from sins, inviting Jesus into your heart, and other popular clichés are not necessary to be saved. They are not wrong to do, just so long as you don't do them to get or stay saved!)

My friend, for most of my Christian life I have led people to pray a sinner's prayer to be saved. Although this is not wrong to do, it is an extra step that the Bible does NOT require, which may confuse some people. You don't have to “ask” Jesus to save you, because God has already promised “TO SAVE THEM THAT BELIEVE” (1st Corinthians 1:21). We read in John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IN HIM should not perish, but have everlasting life” [emphasis added]. The way to be saved is to BELIEVE THE GOSPEL!!!

Do you admit that you are a GUILTY sinner, under the condemnation of God's LAW, deserving of Hellfire?

Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God (God in the flesh) who died upon the cross, sacrificing His precious blood to pay for your sins? Do you believe that Jesus was buried and bodily resurrected three days later? This is the Good News of the Gospel... Jesus DIED ON THE CROSS, He was BURIED and He is RISEN! Believe it friend, make it your only hope for eternal life, and you are saved!!! Amen!

To be saved you simply come to God by faith, as a guilty sinner, and BELIEVE the Gospel.

You must know that you are a sinner. No man ever got saved who didn't know that he is a sinner. Repentance is that thing when you come before God and see yourself as you are, and see Him as he is, and say with Isaiah “Woe is me, for I am unclean!” Repentance is simply a change of mind, where you admit that you are a woeful sinner totally incapable of saving yourself. Thus, you believe the Gospel (Good News) of the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved.

Perhaps you'd feel comfortable praying a sinner's prayer as did the publican in Luke 18:13... “And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto Heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.” It doesn't matter exactly what you pray, because you're saved by BELIEVING, not by praying. But if you'd like to pray as an expression of your faith, you could pray something like this. ...

Dear Jesus,
I admit that I am a sinner deserving of Hell. I am guilty for breaking your holy commandments. I believe that you died on the cross to pay for my sins, were buried, and bodily resurrected three days later. Please forgive me of my sins and take me to Heaven when I die. I now believe upon You alone, apart from all self-righteous works and religion, as my personal Savior. Thank you. Amen.

Just as you were born physically to your parents, so you were born spiritually into the family of God when you received Jesus! John 1:12-13, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

Again, please understand that we are not saved because we pray a prayer, but because we BELIEVE upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is certainly appropriate to ask the Lord in prayer to forgive and save us, but it is our faith which prompts us to pray. You could just as easily believe in your heart upon the Lord to be saved, and not pray at all. Salvation is of the heart, as we read in Romans 10:10, “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness...”

Likewise, it is an extra unnecessary step in God's plan of salvation, to require a person to walk down a church isle to be saved. Why cannot people be saved right there in their pew seat? They certainly can! Only God knows how many millions of people have gone to Hell, because they didn't want to walk down a church isle to find out how to be saved. Preachers should always give people a chance to be saved right there in the privacy of the pew. If they hear the Gospel preached and gladly receive (believe) it, they are saved (Acts 2:41).

It's not what you're doing that gets you to Heaven, it's where you're looking. Look to Jesus!

You do NOT have to be water baptized nor doing anything to get to Heaven other than trust upon the Lord as your Savior. Romans 4:5-6 proclaims... “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him (Jesus) that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God Imputeth Righteousness without works.” What a wonderful truth! Our faith is COUNTED for righteousness! God's righteousness is IMPUTED (transferred) to us, and our sins are IMPUTED to Christ.

There is NO self-righteousness (human effort) involved in salvation. It is the gift of God. You see, we have no righteousness of our own to offer God. No amount of good can undo the bad we've done. Jesus paid a debt that He did not owe, because we owed a debt that we could not pay. Salvation is receiving, not giving. We are sinners and Jesus is the Savior. Jesus is precious! We are saved by trusting, not by trying.

And please BEWARE my friend of the horrible heresy of WRONG REPENTANCE that says you must turn away from your sinful ways to be saved, because THAT IS NOT A GIFT! Of course God wants everyone to turn away from sinful behavior, but only because YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN, and not to BECOME A CHRISTIAN. The purpose of God's LAW is to give men the KNOWLEDGE OF SIN, to bring us to Christ (the Gospel of GRACE).

Unbelief is the only sin which can keep a sinner out of Heaven. But remember, faith is not the absence of doubt, but the presence of trust. Even if you have 99% doubt, it is nothing less than 100% faith if you call upon the name of the Lord (Romans 10:13). To “call” means to place your complete confidence in the Lord's death on the cross, burial and resurrection to be saved. We are saved by completely resting in the Good News (i.e., Gospel) of Jesus Christ.

Just take God at His word and claim His salvation by faith. Believe, and you will be saved. No church, no lodge, no good works can save you. Remember, God does the saving. All of it!

Trusting Jesus is meaningless without the cross. You must believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins. 1st Corinthians 15:1-4 teaches that the Gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

God's simple plan of salvation is: You are a sinner. Therefore, unless you believe on Jesus Who died in your place, you will spend eternity in Hell. If you believe on Him as your crucified, buried, and risen Savior, you receive forgiveness for all of your sins and His gift of eternal salvation by faith.

You say, “Surely, it cannot be that simple!” Yes, that simple. It is scriptural, it is God's plan. My friend, believe on Jesus and receive Him as Savior today.

If you've never been saved, then now is the time to believe upon the name of Jesus, the Christ, that your sins will be blotted out forever and you can know that your name is written in Heaven. Salvation is not doing your best, it is having Christ's best put to your account through receiving Him by faith. God will not save anyone who is trying to be saved, He will only save those who are trusting to be saved.

Christ died for your sins. You are a sinner by nature and by choice. Jesus took your sins and charged them to His own record. He went to the cross and paid the penalty for your sins. He says if you're willing to receive Him in faith; He will transfer His payment to your debt, and His righteousness to your sins. He will impute to you His goodness, and impute to His own record your sin; if you in faith will trust Him as your Savior.

Romans 8:34, “Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.”

If you would like to search for a good church where you live, CLICK HERE.

Kindest regards, your humble servant in Jesus Christ...
David J. Stewart

His4ever #fundie boards.straightdope.com

[To people who've had Near Death Experiences in which angels told them you only need to be fairly good to get to Heaven]

Of course, you've already told me that you will never consider my beliefs to be truth. It really saddens me to see you deceived in this way by these "beings of light" and "spirit guides". They give you these wonderful feelings of love love love and make you feel good so you believe whatever they tell you. It's even sadder that people will read the things you say and believe them without seeing what God has to say about it. But, then, that doesn't matter to you either because I remember you told me that the Bible isn't the authority for your life. I've said this to NDEers before and I'll say it again. Any being of light you see in an NDE that tells you anything that contradicts the word of God, does not come from Him but is a deceiving, lying spirit. The reason? To get you to think that you're okay, you're going to heaven no matter what so there's nothing for you to do. You can ignore most of that stuffy old Bible just practive love love love. You don't need Christ. That is an out and out lie, Lekatt! If you refuse to accept the Way that God has provided for you (and that Way is Jesus Christ and His death for you) I can tell you on the authority of God's word that you'll never ever see heaven. I pray your eyes will be opened one day, sir, before it's too late.

Shakespeare Authorship Coalition #conspiracy doubtaboutwill.org

To Shakespeare lovers everywhere, as well as to those who are encountering him for the first time: know that a great mystery lies before you. How could William “Shakspere” of Stratford have been the author, William Shakespeare, and leave no definitive evidence of it that dates from his lifetime? And why is there an enormous gulf between the alleged author's life and the contents of his works?

Present-day doubters include many more prominent individuals, numerous leading Shakespearean actors, and growing numbers of English professors. Brunel University in West London, and Concordia University in Portland, Oregon, now offer degree programs in authorship studies. Yet orthodox scholars claim that there is no room for doubt that Mr. Shakspere wrote the plays and poems traditionally attributed to him. Some say that it is not even an important question.

We, the undersigned, hereby declare our view that there is room for reasonable doubt about the identity of William Shakespeare, and that it is an important question for anyone seeking to understand the works, the formative literary culture in which they were produced, or the nature of literary creativity and genius.

Many people think that Mr. Shakspere (a frequent spelling of his name, used here to distinguish him from the author) claimed to have written the works. No such record exists. The case for him as the author rests largely on testimony in the First Folio collection of the plays, published in 1623, seven years after he died. However, nothing in the contemporaneous documentary evidence of his life confirms the Folio testimony. If Mr. Shakspere was the author, there should be definitive evidence of it from his lifetime. There is none. Not that there are no reasons to think that Mr. Shakspere wrote the works, but we find them inconclusive.

There are four main reasons to identify Mr. Shakspere of Stratford with the author William Shakespeare. First, the name “William Shakespeare” (often “Shake-speare”) appeared on the title pages of many of the poems and plays published during his lifetime. Second, Ben Jonson wrote a key phrase in the First Folio referring to the author as “Sweet Swan of Avon,” and Leonard Digges refers to “thy Stratford moniment.” Third, fellow actors Heminges and Condell, mentioned in his will, point to him as the author in the Folio. Fourth, the effigy and inscription on his Stratford monument suggest that “Shakspeare” had been a writer. These four reasons would seem to amount to a prima facie case for Mr. Shakspere (evidence sufficient to establish a presumption of fact, unless rebutted by other evidence); however, each of them is problematic.

1. It is not certain from the title pages that the name printed on them necessarily refers to Mr. Shakspere. Mr. Shakspere's last name was spelled numerous ways, even after many of the works had been published. The name on the works was virtually always spelled one way, “Shakespeare;” but it was often hyphenated — a rarity for English names at the time. Scholars have no definitive explanation for the hyphenated name. Mr. Shakspere's name was never hyphenated in other contexts, such as his business dealings in Stratford. On his baptismal record, even on his monument, Mr. Shakspere's name was spelled with no “e” after “k.” The same is true of its three appearances in his will, twice spelled “Shackspeare,” and once “Shakspeare.” Some think that it may have been pronounced with a short “a,” like “Shack,” as it was quite often spelled.

2. The First Folio testimony does point to Shakspere as the author, but should this be taken at face value? It is very unusual that the identity of such a great writer would depend so heavily on posthumous evidence. Neither Ben Jonson, nor Leonard Digges, ever wrote a personal reference to Mr. Shakspere while he lived. Not until the year Shakspere died did Jonson refer to “Shakespeare,” and then only to list him as an actor. Other than their two brief allusions, neither Jonson nor Digges offered any further identifying information — not his dates of birth and death, or names of any family members, or any revealing episode from his life. Short on individualizing facts, they gave us generalized superlatives that describe the author, not the man.

3. Perhaps the strongest link to Mr. Shakspere is the apparent testimony of actors Heminges and Condell. Neither of them was a writer, however, and several scholars doubt that they wrote the passages attributed to them. Some think their Folio testimony sounds like a sales pitch, urging undecided readers to purchase. Most orthodox scholars are untroubled by the lack of corroboration, limited specifics, ambiguities, puffery and unclear role of Mr. Shakspere's fellow actors. Skeptics ask why the Folio is not more straightforward, and why such a great outpouring of eulogies only occurred following seven years of silence after his death.

4. Yes, today the Stratford monument effigy clearly depicts a writer; but it does not look the same as the one erected in the early 1600s. A sketch by a reputable antiquarian in 1634 shows a man with a drooping moustache holding a wool or grain sack, but no pen, no paper, no writing surface as in today's monument. Records show that the monument was “repaired.” Apparently the effigy was also altered to depict a writer. The monument's strange inscription never states that Mr. Shakspere was the author William Shakespeare. For anybody living in Stratford, who may have known him, the epitaph could appear to say no such thing. It neither names, nor quotes from, any of the works; and it never mentions poetry, plays, acting or theater. Most orthodox biographers have little to say about the inscription, and some even describe it as enigmatic. Epitaphs of other writers of the time identify them clearly as writers, so why not Mr. Shakspere's epitaph?

If the case for Mr. Shakspere were otherwise sound, the problems in these four areas would hardly matter. Unfortunately, once one looks beyond them, one finds no contemporaneous evidence that Mr. Shakspere was even a professional writer, much less that he was the poet-playwright William Shakespeare. Further, much contemporaneous evidence that has come to light seems at odds with his having been Shakespeare. Of a few great writers, like Homer, we know nothing at all; but there is only one great writer about whom the more we learn, the less he appears to have been a writer. How can this be for England's Shakespeare?

Not one play, not one poem, not one letter in Mr. Shakspere's own hand has ever been found. He divided his time between London and Stratford, a situation conducive to correspondence. Early scholars naturally expected that at least some of his correspondence would have survived. Yet the only writings said to be in his own hand are six shaky, inconsistent signatures on legal documents, including three found on his will. If, in fact, these signatures are his, they reveal that Mr. Shakspere experienced difficulty signing his name. Some document experts doubt that even these signatures are his and suggest they were done by law clerks. One letter addressed to Mr. Shakspere survives. It requested a loan, and it was unopened and undelivered.

His detailed will, in which he famously left his wife “my second best bed with the furniture,” contains no clearly Shakespearean turn of phrase and mentions no books, plays, poems, or literary effects of any kind. Nor does it mention any musical instruments, despite extensive evidence of the author's musical expertise. He did leave token bequests to three fellow actors (an interlineation, indicating it was an afterthought), but nothing to any writers. The actors' names connect him to the theater, but nothing implies a writing career. Why no mention of Stratford's Richard Field, who printed the poems that first made Shakespeare famous? If Mr. Shakspere was widely known as William “Shakespeare,” why spell his name otherwise in his will? Dying men are usually very aware of, and concerned about, what they are famous for. Why not this man?

Mr. Shakspere grew up in an illiterate household in the remote agricultural town of Stratford-upon-Avon. There is no record that he traveled at all during his formative years, or that he ever left England. Both of his parents witnessed documents with a mark; but most surprisingly, neither of his daughters could write. One poorly-executed signature exists for his daughter, Susanna, but it only suggests a functional illiterate. His younger daughter, Judith, twice signed with a mark when witnessing a deed for a Stratford neighbor. Mr. Shakspere may have attended the Stratford grammar school, but records to confirm this do not exist. Records do survive for England's two universities at the time, but no record places him at either of them. Most orthodox scholars make no claim that he ever attended any university, inside or outside of England.

Some say that the Stratford grammar school would have provided all the formal education Mr. Shakspere would have needed to launch him on a trajectory consistent with the author's literary output. We disagree. The works show extensive knowledge of law, philosophy, classical literature, ancient and modern history, mathematics, astronomy, art, music, medicine, horticulture, heraldry, military and naval terminology and tactics; etiquette and manners of the nobility; English, French and Italian court life; Italy; and aristocratic pastimes such as falconry, equestrian sports and royal tennis. Nothing that we know about Mr. Shakspere accounts for this. Much of the knowledge displayed in the works was the exclusive province of the upper classes, yet no record places Mr. Shakspere among them for any length of time. The works are based on myriad ancient and modern sources, including works in French, Italian, Spanish, Latin and Greek not yet translated into English. How Mr. Shakspere could have acquired knowledge of these sources is a mystery.

The gap between Mr. Shakspere's youth in Stratford and the first record of him in London is known as the “lost years.” But for a few church records, the first twenty-eight years of his life could be described as lost. Scholars know nothing about how he acquired the breadth and depth of knowledge displayed in the works. This is not to say that a commoner, even in the rigid, hierarchical social structure of Elizabethan England, could not have managed to do it somehow; but how could it have happened without leaving a single trace? Orthodox scholars attribute the miracle to his innate “genius,” but even a genius must acquire knowledge. Books were expensive and difficult to obtain during those times, except at universities or private libraries. No book that Mr. Shakspere owned, or that is known to have been in his possession, has ever been found. Academic experts on characteristics of geniuses see little reason to think that Mr. Shakspere was a genius.

No record shows that any William Shakespeare ever received payment, or secured patronage, for writing. After dedicating his first two poems to the earl of Southampton, Shakespeare issued no more dedications. Why would any writer motivated by profit, as we are told Mr. Shakspere was, not visibly seek patronage? Some scholars claim that the earl of Southampton was his patron, but no record shows that they ever met. A phrase in one of the dedications (“The warrant I have of your honourable disposition… ”) suggests not. Not only did prominent patrons of other writers not support Mr. Shakspere, they did not comment on him. Up until 1623, those who commented on the author, or on his works, never indicated that they knew him. Shakespeare, the author, wrote no commendatory verse, and nobody addressed any to him while he lived.

Contrary to the traditional view that the author became a prominent public figure, there is no record that he ever addressed the public directly, either in person or in writing (other than the two early dedications); and no record shows that either Elizabeth I, or James I, ever met Shakespeare, or spoke or wrote his name. Even after one of his plays was performed as part of the Essex rebellion, Shakespeare was not mentioned. Almost uniquely among Elizabethan poets, Shakespeare remained silent following the death of Elizabeth. Early in the reign of James I, records place Shakspere in Stratford while plays were staged in London for the Court. Why was the popular playwright and leading actor of the King's Men not part of such events?

It is not that there are no documents for Mr. Shakspere; there are close to seventy, but all are non-literary. They reveal a businessman of Stratford, plus a theater entrepreneur and sometime minor actor in London. A few records show him delinquent in paying taxes, and he was cited for hoarding grain during a famine. A William Wayte, evidently threatened by him, sought “sureties of the peace against William Shakspere.” In 1612, allegedly at the height of his fame, a London court called him simply a “gentleman of Stratford.” He sued over small business matters, but never once objected to an unauthorized publication of the works. The orthodox see nothing unusual in the lack of documentation for Mr. Shakspere's ostensible career, but he is the only presumed writer of his time for whom there is no contemporary evidence of a writing career.

Stranger still, this alleged prolific writer is said to have retired in his late-forties, with his faculties intact, and returned to the same market town from which he came, never to write a play, a poem, or even a letter. There is no record that he ever put on a play in Stratford, or that any of its residents viewed him as a poet. Several people who knew the man, or knew who he was, seem not to have associated him with the author, including his son-in-law, Dr. John Hall, poet Michael Drayton and prominent historian William Camden. Nobody, including literary contemporaries, ever recognized Mr. Shakspere as a writer during his lifetime; and when he died in 1616, no one seemed to notice. Not so much as a letter refers to the author's passing. If Mr. Shakspere was Shakespeare, surely something dating from 1616 should mention the author's death. Even Heminges, Condell and Richard Burbage, whom he mentioned in his will, had no recorded reaction. Nor did those who held rights to previously published editions of plays or poems rush new ones into print.

Scholars have found few, mostly dubious connections between the life of the alleged author and the works. Why are virtually all of the plays set among the upper classes, and how did the author learn of their ways? Why is only one play set in Mr. Shakspere's Elizabethan or Jacobean England? Why are so many in Italy? How did he become so familiar with all things Italian that even obscure details in these plays are accurate? Why did he never mention Stratford, and never write a play that seems to reflect his own life experiences? While pouring out his heart in the Sonnets, why did he not once mention the death of his 11-year-old son? Perhaps a few apparent incongruities could be explained away, if taken in isolation; but there are so many! Sam Schoenbaum, among the most-quoted traditional Shakespeare biographers, after decades of research, wrote that, “Perhaps we should despair of ever bridging the vertiginous expanse between the sublimity of the subject and the mundane inconsequence of the documentary record.” (Shakespeare's Lives, Second Edition)

Finally, Hugh R. Trevor-Roper, Regius Professor of History at Oxford University, found Shakespeare's elusiveness “exasperating and almost incredible … After all, he lived in the full daylight of the English Renaissance in the well documented reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James I and … since his death has been subjected to the greatest battery of organised research that has ever been directed upon a single person. And yet the greatest of all Englishmen, after this tremendous inquisition, still remains so close to a mystery that even his identity can still be doubted.” (“What's in a Name?” Réalités, November 1962.)

We make no claim, in signing this declaration, to know exactly what happened, who wrote the works, nor even that Mr. Shakspere definitely did not. Individual signatories will have their personal views about the author; but all we claim here is that there is “room for doubt,” and other reasonable scenarios are possible. If writers and thinkers of the stature of Henry James, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, Mark Twain and all the rest of the outstanding people named above, have expressed doubt that Mr. William Shakspere of Stratford wrote the works attributed to him, why is it even necessary to say that there is room for doubt? There clearly is doubt, as a matter of empirical fact — reasonable doubt, expressed by very credible people. Reasonable people may differ about whether a preponderance of the evidence supports Mr. Shakspere, but it is simply not credible for anyone to claim, in 2007, that there is no room for doubt about the author.

Therefore, in adding our names to those of the distinguished individuals named above, we hereby declare that the identity of William Shakespeare should, henceforth, be regarded in academia as a legitimate issue for research and publication, and an appropriate topic for instruction and discussion in classrooms.

Robert Lyte #fundie robertlyte.blogspot.com

I See young people, they are more interested in having chat times with all their young friends than they are to actually following Jesus. They are too busy being silly with each other than they are to be following Jesus. They are not serious. They are just following the world. They love the world and all the wonderful sins of youth which are passing anyway and fading away very quickly. Dear friends, we cannot be like this. We have to have ourselves absolutely and completely separate all the time from those silly paths. Young people have to be separate. No time to just hang around with your friends and be stupid together. It is time to separate ourselves to the Lord and become his follower where we actually do walk the narrow way like the disciples did.

The foolishness of youth isn't worth missing out on the eternal kingdom of God. We can put aside the foolishness of youth so we can enter the kingdom. We cannot enter the kingdom while we are just laughing at the jokes the world laughs at. While watching the same TV the world loves. While we are following the sports the world chases after. One champion rises, another one falls. One is winning, another one is losing, it doesn't matter, it's world. Why do we care about those things? We are here for the kingdom of God not for these worldly things. Many Christians adamantly come against me if I say these things. It is because their hearts are dark and they're loving the world, and they don't want to turn away Sent from my iPhone

I can do it, so can you. While people just follow their foolish youthful ways, there is no way they're going to be able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. What's the point of just having all your cars, and having all your fun, and talking on all your mobile phones, and having good times with all your friends everywhere, when you just simply don't follow Jesus? This world is completely deceptive. If you live in Babylon like the big Babylon cities of this world, like New York, or any of these big cities, you're going to be amongst all this rife, foolish, worldly paths like Lot was. It will be very hard for you to enter the kingdom if you are following them. So we got to be separate.

We got to be separate from all this whole system of sports and attainment, parties, and worldly chasing, and being your 'best person now.' Thrill seekers say to live life to the fullest. Some die trying. Some of them say to live life to the fullest or die trying. Some do die trying and somebody says at least they died doing something they love doing. Fool! They ended up in hell. In hell they are crying out, “Please warn my family that living a foolish life like that ends in hell!” Like the rich man did, and Abraham answered the rich man saying, “Son, they have the prophets in the Bible to listen to,” Moses and Elijah, about hell and Jesus. “If they can't listen to them, they won't even listen to anybody sent back from the dead.”That is what Abraham was saying. And the rich man in hell was crying out in torment saying, “Please, please, please warn my people.” They didn't know that a thrill-seeking life just ended in hell so suddenly. So on earth the people are saying, “He died doing something he loved doing,” and all are happy about it because they are so deceived. And then under the earth in hell that very same person is crying out in torment now, his chances are over. No more salvation for him. He can't be saved, finished. Done. His foolish life ended in smoke. 

You know, there is a verse in the Bible that says that the folly of the fool is destruction. Fools folly is destruction. You live a life of foolishness with the foolish youth of this generation, your folly will be destruction. That's what it comes down to. You go join them, you will join them in hell too. Who are we going to join?Are we going to join them and end up in the same fire that they are headed to? Or are we going to walk the narrow way and be separate away from the ways of this generation! Christians are so busy being on the broad path and being blinded by this world and by satan, that when they hear these truths they cannot accept it.

They say, “I can watch my baseball, I can watch the footy, I can go and join in on soccer there is not sin in that.” But that's because they're following the Broad way and everybody's on the Broadway to destruction. 

Jesus said, “Broad is the way that leads to destruction and many are those who go by that way, and narrow is the way that leads to life and few go that way.” It is because few will decide to do the words of Jesus. And what did he say? He said, “Deny yourself, pick up your cross, and follow me.”Jesus even said if anybody loves his life on this earth he will lose it, but if anybody loses his life for my sake he will find it. Do you hate your life for the sake of the kingdom? or do you love your life?What is it with you today? 

Most Christians love their life too much. They love their footy. They love their soccer. They love their baseball and love the Super Bowl. They love all these sports.They want to turn the TV on and want to love all the ungodliness that this generation talks about and say it is not sin. Well, guess what dear friend, it is sin, because it's on the broad path of destruction. And you also, if you follow them, are on the tide with the world to hell directly, Christian or not. And that's where they want to believe all the deceived preachers who say, “It is all find, you are saved brother, because you believe in Jesus.” And then they end up in hell just like the rich man.And who's going to be laughing then? the devil or you? The devil will laugh at you. That is why we have to be completely separate and not be deceived. Instead of mocking the preacher who tells you to leave your sports and all your ways of the world, you should be accepting what he says and believing that these words Jesus said are true: “If you love your life you'll lose it, but if you hate your life for my sake you'll find it.” They are true. 

Just supposing those other words are true as well where Jesus said,“If you love your life on this earth you will lose it, but if you hate your life for my sake you will gain it.” Just supposing Jesus is speaking the truth when he says in Matthew: “If anybody wants to follow me, he must pick up his cross, deny himself and follow me.”

Just supposing that's true! Just supposing the words of Jesus are true where he says: “The person who hears my words and doesn't do them is likened unto the man who built his house on the sand, and the winds come and the flood comes and the destruction of that house is great.”Just supposing the words of Jesus are true where he says, “The man who does my words when he hears them, he does put them into practice, he shall be the one who built his house on the rock and his house shall not be destroyed.” 

ChristinaAnn #fundie en.wikipedia.org

[On Pat Robertson’s claim of being able to leg-press 2000 lbs.]

ok, all of you making these assumptions obviously do not have strong faith in God what so ever. did not God give the judge Samson enough strength to tear down a stone pillard building with his bare hands when he was blind, beaten, and hindered with shackles? He was at an old age too, and had been working by grinding grain. If you don't believe this then you can read Judges 16:21-31 in the Bible. Now, Samson was not ever considered a "superhuman", yet i'm sure he could've leg pressed way more than 2,000! How is it not possible that God has given this same strength to another faith filled, believing Christian. ANYTHING is possible with God if you enough faith. The Bible says, with enough faith, you can move mountains. Pat Robertson has enough faith to be given enough strength to leg press 2,000. Besides, this whole thing happened 3YEARS AGO! This is old news, and the media had no new dirt to bring up on him, so they went searching his sight and found this small detail. Robertson certainly does not make this truth into a well known thing obviously, because he has kept it quiet for 3 years until the media decided to hunt it down. You have no basis to say "his ego is totally out of control to make such a claim." So i'm tired of you people who think you know everything to give this man a break and worry about the problems in your own lives that are much more important. If i had not been with him and seen it myself then i would have no basis myself to share this truth. But i was and so was his doctor, Dr. W, who has sworn through his profession that he would not lie. but regardless of this, please think about the powerful of God and His miracles before you completely disregard this truth!

DarkAngel #fundie darkangel.mydeardiary.com

I really hate it when atheists I know try to act like they look down on me for believing in God. Saying shit like they didn't know I was one of those weak minded people who needs to cling to some imaginary God for strength. Fuck that, and fuck anyone who thinks that. You know what I think? I think it shows MORE strength of character to hold onto your belief in things unseen, like God. It takes more will and mind power to believe in something purely on faith, something that CAN'T be proved, to stand up against science and atheists and anyone else who says your wrong. If you don't believe in God, and you believe in science...WOW, you believe it because science says it is so and there's all this proof. You need to see to believe -- you have no faith. Isn't that weaker? Isn't THAT the real lacking, to not be able to believe in something without seeing it yourself.

That's just an answer to all the people who come at me like that. Personally, I really don't care what anyone else believes. You have your beliefs, I have mine, and as long as your beliefs aren't detrimental to my life or the lives of others, go on with your bad self. But do me that same favor, leave me to my beliefs without your snide little comments or condescending attitude.

Lady Checkmate #fundie disqus.com

justthinking:
I do not understand why you banned me? I simply presented my thoughts, you warned me and I gave you my reasonings and then you banned me. Why? I told you that I was going to not say anything anymore. This is unfair treatment and I am very annoyed that you would do so.

Lady Checkmate:
Hi JustThinking. Previously you were informed that we're a Christian community, but that all are welcome to participate a long as they comply with our community guidelines. You were also asked to read and comply with our community guidelines. However, you returned and insulted Christians and Christianity again (and posted blasphemy):

Justthinking:
It seems that many Christians like to point their finger at Muslims yet they don't point their fingers at themselves? Why is that, do we understand what Muslims really believe? DO we even care? Did you know that they worship the same God as the Jews and Christians do? They believe that Jesus was a great teacher. They are not one and the same as Islamic extremists.

I responded with another request that you read our community guidelines (which if you had as you said you did, then you knew that off topic comments are not allowed and questions and/or concerns should be addressed here on this channel), but you chose to continue off topic on F&R:

Lady Checkmate:
You're incorrect again. We do not worship the same God. I've asked you before to please read and comply with our community guidelines. We're a Christian community. All are welcome as long as they comply with our guidelines. Do not attack Christians nor Christianity here. Consider this a final warning. Thanks.

After my request (you walked through my warning), you responded off topic (stating you'd read the community guidelines) a clear violation.
Thread jacking is not allowed. If you can't participate in a Christian community without insulting Christians, i.e., you can't comply with our community guidelines, then its best that you move on to a channel that is a better fit with you.

justthinking:
I consider myself to be a Christian though and you deem me as not one. I am simply raising a point and I said that the God of Abraham is the same God (Yahweh) that the Muslim people serve. I only said that because I know that the Bible tells me that Ismael was blessed by Abraham and he became the father of the Arab people. Why is that wrong to point at historical fact? I did not walk through your warning, I was simply responding to your threat to ban me. I believe that your actions towards me were a bit extreme especially when I promised to you that I would not say any more. I do not understand your logic, I am a Christian, hun, this is simply not very fair. I am very saddened that you would judge me as an unbeliever and all because I am just trying to ask questions and to encourage conversation.

Lady Checkmate:
"I am a Christian, hun, this is simply not very fair. I am very saddened that you would judge me as an unbeliever and all because I am just trying to ask questions and to encourage conversation."

First, please post the comment where I stated what you believe. If you can't do that after making that statement, you're trolling and making false allegations, which I will not entertain. Its not "fair" that you walk through my requests, our community guidelines and my warnings, but expect a free pass.

Second, I'm not here to debate your beliefs. You're entitled to believe whatever you want. However, (and again), regardless to what you believe (or disbelieve), I must ask that while in our community you comply with our guidelines or please move on. There are other communities where you can blaspheme and attack Christians and be celebrated for it, just not in our communities.

Finally, this is a problem resolution channel, not one to debate your beliefs. Either you can comply with our community guidelines while in our community (regardless of your beliefs) or you can't. I'll be closing this in 15 minutes if I don't receive a response from you in that time. I have other channels to mod and other responsibilities. Please do not open anymore discussions on the same topic as this is settled.

justthinking:
I do not understand your reasonings one bit. I specifically told you that I would not even say anything, yet you still banned me. You want me to post where you stated what I believe? You said, "we're a Christian community" and "do not attack Christians or Christianity here". That insinuated that I was not a part of this Christian community although I was and I am still today. I am not here to debate your beliefs either but we are here to share and discuss issues, even if we don't see eye to eye. Where is the love and compassion that we are all supposed to have in common? You accuse me of being a troll, I am not at all. I did not blaspheme anyone, where do you get that out of what I said? Now I am a blasphemer? You judge me and why? You say that I attack Christians when I do not, instead I am called a liar by others and they get a free pass to speak badly about me without regard to how they are behaving on here.
Please know that I am not blaspheming my faith or attacking Christianity. Again, this is just simply not right at all and I am very disappointed and frustrated with how a sister in the Lord is treating me. I am not the enemy yet you paint me as one. I do not know what else to say. I only ask that you reconsider your decision to ban me, I will not raise any more viewpoints that you might deem as controversial. I had made friends here, please understand that I was simply asking questions.

Lady Checkmate:
Thats not true (you sent three comments after my request that you comply with our community guidelines, not just the one you admit to because you think it makes you look good. Why not post the others that you sent after my request and warning), but since you've lied more than once, we're done. You could not prove that nor produce a comment from me stating your "beliefs," yet you attacked me and played victim while lying. Again, since you refuse to address the fact that the issue is compliance with our community guidelines, and you can't seem to do so, I wish you well in other communities. Enjoy your day.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

Please do not be deceived. Many Catholics are dying in Sri Lanka, but they are NOT Christians. The U.S. media is really promoting the killings, which makes me very suspicious. Any time that the mainstream media shoves something in my face, over and over, I am doubtful and suspicious. Why are they promoting this? I did read that some liberals and leftists are calling fun stricter gun control in Sri Lanka, which is ALWAYS a really bad idea! Citizens need guns, without which we have no way of defending ourselves against government tyranny. IT CAN HAPPEN HERE! Never let the government take your guns! Never!!!

I am leery about anything and everything that I hear from the newsmedia nowadays. Pastor Jack Hyles used to wisely say that the only thing you can believe from the newsmedia is the date! That is so true! America has been under demonic attack for decades, and we are losing the war! Thankfully, Jesus told us in John 16:33 to, “BE OF GOOD CHEER,” because He has already overcome the world, and we have a beautiful unshakable hope in the blessed Savior, which the world does not! If you are a Roman Catholic, I am sad to say that you are going straight to burn in Hell the moment you leave this earthly life. And then you will also die the second death according to Revelation 21:8, “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.” Many beautiful people have come and gone, rich and poor alike, but they all went to either Heaven or Hell. The choice is yours alone to make my friend. It's either the Good News of Jesus Christ crucified, buried and risen (without works), or the tormentuous fires of Hell forever! The “Gospel” is only truly Good News if you believe it apart from all human effort, religious devotion and works!

For years now I have been researching famous people and their religious beliefs, out of curiosity. It is truly sad how gullible people are. The sad thing is that if you ask people why they believe what they believe, most of them cannot tell you, except to say that it was the tradition they grew up with, or it makes sense to them, or some other lame excuse. Forget all that! I believe what I believe simply because I have it IN WRITING in the inspired Word of God! I have something solid to base my beliefs upon, besides manmade tradition, family tradition, it feels good, or it makes sense. A lot of people don't even have a reason for their beliefs, except that they simply choose to belong to a particular fun or interesting group, like Seventh-Day Adventists. The group are big on taking care of your physical health, which greatly appeals to a lot of people. They are also big on music, another strong attraction. SDA's also deny a literal burning Hell, which appeals to a lot of unsaved people who are intimidated by truth-preaching churches. In a creepy way, Seventh-Day Adventists are almost synonymous with Bob Jones University today and their shallow graduates who priority music programs over Bible-preaching and truth. I've never seen such horrible pastors as I have in the Pensacola Christian College and Bob Jones University camp!

It is interesting that both myself and Pastor Steven Anderson felt compelled to comment about the religious killings in Sri Lanka. I started to write my article yesterday and found Pastor Anderson's video today. I agree fully with Brother Anderson's analysis of the matter. I am leery that the media is paying so much attention to the violence in Sri Lanka. And now I find out that Hillary is also weighing in on it, exploiting the situation for her own benefit. Catholics are NOT Christians! I am saddened any time I hear about people suffering and dying, but I am not “praying for the Christians in Sri Lanka.” I don't let the ungodly newsmedia tell me what to pray about! I pray for the people in my daily life, that I see, and know are for real, and not a media scam, like so much of what we are told nowadays. You just don't know what is or isn't true with the lying media. They lie so much that they're like the foolish boy who cried “wolf” to tease the village. So when the wolf really came, no one believed him, and the wolf ate him! I stopped believing the media long ago, and ultimately they will reap the eternal damnable rewards of their lying and ungodliness!

Liptusg #sexist reddit.com

Many incels are neurally incompatible with the female personality

This is a topic which has earned some coverage in a lot of the 'proto-blackpill' manosphere communities of their day, and some which relate to it here, but I think it might be worth encapsulating into a more poignant declaration. That is, to address the seeming disparity ( From an outsider's perspective ) between the idealistic yearning to the harsh reality and bring them into reconciliation.

And that is, many of the men who are in the incel demographic ( And I say many because you can still be incel and possess a heavily neurotypical mindset or adhere to certain Bluepilled doctrines ) are both neurodivergent enough, introspective enough and wise enough ( regardless of cognitive ability ) to automatically set themselves completely apart from the spectrum of coexistence with femininity. More succinctly, hypergamy and unattractiveness aside, they just don't have what it takes to put up with the myriad faults of female nature and wouldn't actually be able to find common ground with women even while passing initial mate selection, despite instinctively yearning for the sex or affection.

In a Chad's body, they would be forced to emulate the lifestyle of the exalted Redpiller ideal, the plate-spinner, who pumps and dumps yet never settles down because he is disillusioned with women's behavior as people ( for good reason ) and can't really tolerate all the nonsense or immorality that comes with 'committing' or trying to love one. The 'girlfriend' of his dreams his a mirage, an organism that does not actually exist on earth, a unicorn that acts like a man, not like an actual homo sapiens female.

But let's elaborate more on what that female personality is, and why most of the incels who are, and I'm searching for a term which is actually hard to put into words here - who are ruminative ( a synonym of wise, actually ), not as impulsive, who find themselves operating in a mindset of taking a few minutes in any new situation to existentially ponder the meaning, consequences and rightfulness of their own decisions and those of others ( Something which is predominantly an atypical masculine and non-feminine approach by the way, just look at the gender of most philosophers ), if you find yourself resonating with that, then it is very likely that you will not resonate with femininity under any circumstance.

Any so-called 'potential partner' is going to be predictively broken up with just by witnessing her actions for a minute, before it even has to come to it physically, just like a calculator has the results to your math equation before you even finish going through the motions. The gap between masculinity and femininity is wide enough that keep in mind, even among NPC's, normies, with only a tinge of 'positive masculinity' at it's finest and a flat 0 at Wisdom score, it is still the number 1 factor in the breakup rates of couples and why they change relationships like socks. Whether it be the man realizing he's being used as a status object and getting sick of it or the woman deciding he isn't good enough for her anymore, they just either didn't have the foresight to see it or they never actually cared and well long-term plate spinning ( Or Chad-fishing ). Look at how surprised some of the participants in say, Jersey Shore are, when their relationship which was built on superficial normie trash breaks down over superficial normie trash. Does it surprise anyone else? Here's a secret for the smug women and bluepillers reading this - you are merely one level above them. Your superficial relationships founded on social status, body language, 'ambitions' and looks ( as much as you hate to admit it ) are just one tiny iteration above tan spray and club swagger.

Now let's elaborate more on what is female personality and why it's so discordant to any man who can't bring himself down to it's level. First of all, when I say female personality, I mean it - there is literally just one, it is, contrary to all protestations, a monolith. You know who's the chief proponent of this theory? Women. Every time a woman tells you "You don't understand what women want", or "No woman is ever going to touch you with a 10-foot of stick if you do X" and "Women like a man who is BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH" and "You creep women out when..", they're all confirming it. I bring it up to them every single time that they make an affirmative statement about women, and they always remain speechless.

Liking one horror movie over the other or preferring hiking over Netflix, being a ballerina or psychologist, wearing this crop-top instead of those short-shorts, political alignment, religion, none of these are necessarily core personality differences. You could manufacture a robot that does all of the above combined, programming to vote and to recite lines from books ( AKA female ideology and spirituality ) included. When it comes to truly 'groundbreaking' distinctions, AWALT. All the female dating profiles on reddit might as well be procedurally generated templates of each other, starkly separate from the male ones. When it comes to opinions, when is the last time that the women of AskWomen, of TrollX, of IT, of CreepyPM's, of Tumblr, anywhere, had a major debate or fracture over something to the extent male demographics do? What's the number of women coming here, or to ForeverAlone, or to Men'sRights ( While there are female MRA's like the HoneyBadgers, check out the ratio between female MRA's to male feminists ) or to MGTOW in order to get our perspective things in a non-confrontational way to the same extent men visit even the most radical female spaces to offer their whiteknighting support? When was the last time female IT users disagree with each other about men's role in the universe? When was the last time a woman went 'Nobody wants to date an X' and instead of getting 5000 upvotes and 'yu go gurl' from other women, got a debate from other women instead, similarly to how there are always men who would be willing to say they wouldn't mind something in a woman that even most people would, including extreme insecurities or mental illnesses or weight or clinginess or what have you? Ein gender, Ein matriarchy, Ein hamster.

Well, is the unified female monolith at least a force of goodness? It is not. Let us actually skip over the known and rehashed attributes of hypergamy, superficiality, manipulativeness, capriciousness, solipsism and frivolity which have earned femininity the scathing rebukes it's received from pretty much almost every society to ever walk the earth until the point where they leveraged sex in order to shame everyone from even thinking about doing it. Let's focus on how women perceive themselves to be on their 'best behavior', which, you might be surprised to find out, is not at all working in their favor coming as it is from a brain so philosophically bankrupt and so out of tune with the evolutionary higher faculties of ( And I don't mean intelligence, that is what they think it means, because they can't grasp it ) mankind that it doesn't realize why would anyone reject it's framework.

Pardon me in advance for the upcoming rant, but one can't really enter the female mindspace properly without it - "I want a man who has his shit together! You better have some ambitions, you better have some accomplishments if you want to be with me! I WANT ( I want I want I want I want I wannnnnnt ) a guy who isn't afraid to take what he wants, who is assertive and dominant and aggressive when he needs to be, don't be a fucking doormat, don't be NEEDY ew, although I myself am insecure about my body and need someone to motivate me for the gym and baby me in my DD/lg fetish teehee, oh and for god's sake have some SOCIAL GRACES. Be confident and charming, don't you know how important social graces are? I want a functional man, not a boy, you have to know what you're doing."

Speaking of the monolith, can you find any female profile on r4r which isn't like that in whole or in part, in spirit if not in the explicit and intentionally highlighted priorities? Try it. Now, the average woman looks at the above and thinks to herself "Yass queen SLAY", this is peak performance to her. She considers this to be the most wholesome, deep, reasonable attitude humanly attainable. Thanks to the decadent evil empire and gynocentric atmosphere that we've been under the spell of for a long time now, maybe even you might fail to see the absolute sewage that underlines the gung-ho tirade at first glance.

You know what I see? I seen an application for a sycophantic leech, not a love interest. A total obsession with materialistic, external pursuits and one's position in the societal rat race due to incapability of actually loving anyone for who they are as opposed to what they do, and seeing them as 'success objects' in the same vein that women complain of men only evaluating them as 'sex objects'. I see a total bratty, undeveloped obsession with one of philosophy's biggest vices ( Big surprise, remember the role of women in morality and philosophy? ) - judging a book by it's cover rather than it's content and caring to an extreme length about how someone says something as opposed to what they're saying, which is part and parcel of hindbrain herd behavior. Women are under the impression that their fanatic obsession in that regard is a virtue, and that a good man is one who adapts to it rather than discounts it. It is not, there's a reason why it doesn't figure so prominently in men's dating profiles. And finally, yet another glaring whimsical and infantile female habit which they credit to their superiority - the lack of willingness to give someone any leeway or acceptance whatsoever, to put principle and ideal above ego and feelings, once again, a cornerstone of advanced morality. And once again, something that almost every man instinctively does for women. Put aside the 'muh social skills' ( Or more correctly, women skills, because they're the only ones demanding all the crazy eggshell-stepping ) and 'muh assertiveness', and put themselves in the shoes of the other side, and try to find goodness at the most fundamental level that it really matters, because they have this non-Darwinian sensation and guideline deep down inside of "I should be magnanimous moreso than I am judgemental". Does that ever happen? You can tell from the dating profiles, the answer is obviously not. And that's what makes the female personality what it is.

And this is just one sliver of the grander shit-show. Plenty has been written about the shit-tests even once you're already in a relationship, the double standards, the branch-swinging if you ever fail the shit-test, the mental games, and all for what - the craved female submission state, which let me emphasize, is not 'love' in any sense. The condition which is reached whereupon the female has deemed you to be a successful status/gene leeching target and begins feigning ( Naturally she'll say it isn't feigned, until you stop being Chad to her, and become her "abusive and toxic ex" ) all the sticky affection and sexual favors associated with the 'positive' aspects of female personality, like a colorful and inviting carnivorous plant attracting a fly inside. But any incel which understands the entire process, upon it's carnal pros and philosophical cons, is also one who will never be compatible with a woman, even if he attained physical desirability.

DispensatinalJim #fundie hannity.com

IF I WERE SATAN...

Of course, I would NOT want people to believe in God, but I especially would NOT want anyone to be "saved." So, if folks tended to believe in God for some silly reason (maybe because they actually believed the Bible), I would figure out a scheme to convince people that there is no God. Possibly some concept that says the universe and the earth and the people on the earth just came about by accident. I could say that man slowly evolved over millions of years and I'd call it "Evolution."

I would try to get the educational systems of the whole world to teach this brilliant theory of mine to the young folks as FACT so they would accept it without question. They would, of course, then presume that since there is no God, there is no higher authority to which to answer and no real reason to behave in some socially acceptable way. That evolution idea would claim they came from monkeys, so they could begin to act like monkies!

Ken Ham #fundie blogs.answersingenesis.org

As you continue to watch the video of Bill Nye telling an obvious fairy tale, you will hear him explain how “imperfections” are what enabled life to evolve more “complicated things!” Explain to your children that only slight imperfections in our genes (because of the effects of sin) can cause major problems! Think about some of the sad consequences of imperfections in human genes that result in disabilities, degenerative diseases, and so on. In other words, Bill Nye is claiming that life was built on a series of imperfections—this is nonsense! Imagine a child being told that the more mistakes they make in mathematics, the better their math scores will be!

Notice that he says the key to evolution is time. He states, “The key to this is time, time, time, time . . . ” This is why he goes on to dismiss that the earth can be young and makes a claim that it’s 4.54 billion years old. You can explain to your children at this point that really the belief in billions of years is part of Bill Nye’s worldview—or religion. You see, children can easily see that complicated life can’t be built up on the basis of mistakes, and also that life just can’t come from non-life. So how does Bill Nye even try to get people to believe his fairy tale? Well, he has to get people to believe in billions of years. You see, to believe a process that is unbelievable, you have to get people to believe that given enough time, “somehow” (that’s the word Bill Nye used) it could happen.

Bill Nye is really saying that “somehow,” given his belief in billions of years, life evolved.

And then he states, “Get a mirror, take a look at yourself. We are all a result of evolution.” In other words, he wants kids to look in a mirror and say something like, “I’m a result of billions of years of processes involving imperfections that ‘somehow’ made me by natural processes and there is no God involved.”

Steven Gray #fundie youtube.com

Rebuttal to Joel Richardson on Flat Earth

Greetings in the NAME OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST. I have recently watched your videos and heard your comments as well as Dr. Heiser on the topic of Flat Earth and is it’s the Biblical view, on what is now becoming a main stream topic in both the Christian and secular world. Before I begin I would like to think both of you for your work it has been most helpful. However I would exhort you to pay very close attention to what I have been impressed to write to you both. I take issue with you on the following statements you have made in regard to the Bible GODS WORD.

1) You Sir stated in your 1st video that the THE BIBLE DID NOT TEACH A FLAT EARHT, WHICH I TELL IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE. A FLAT EARTH VIEW WAS THE View AT THAT TIME OF EVERY CULTURE. Dr. Heiser in a video state if you were to take the BIBLE literally that it did in fact state a Flat Earth as well as on your show episode 74. You Also rebuked all Christians and demanded them to repent for trusting in GOD and HIS WORD. I would have expected more from you sir and would exhort both of you to seriously pray and study the issue with an open mind and reexamine all that you have been taught. It is you sir who said you must take the full council scripture and the full council of scripture holds to the doctrine of flat earth as is the popular term.

2) Both you and Dr. Heiser stated that this Flat Earth is by those who would believe GODS WORD AND TAKE IT AS GOD HAD HIS PROPHETS Write it. That we who believe are conspiracy theorist and should not be taken seriously.

A) Allow me to inform you that most people do not challenge what they are taught but believe blindly accepting what they are taught to be true by people claiming to be experts in their field of study and many have been deceived about a great many things even in the Church. This is historical fact. Would you not agree?
B) In order for a lie to be considered truth and flourish you need only a few conditions blind faith, lack of knowledge in the area one is to be deceived in, and one of fair speech to color a lie with a little truth to paint a believable allusion. Would you not agree?

3) Both you and Dr. Heiser have been so bold to state even to the point of a rebuke to GOD AND HIS HOLY PROPHETS THAT GOD COULD NOT INPART THE TRUTH OF THE WORLDS TRUE SHAPE THAT OF A SPHERE OR A PLANE. AND THAT THE PROPHETS WROTE DOWN THEIR OWN WORLD VIEW AND NOT WHAT GOD TOLD THEM TO WRITE DOWN. THESE PROPHETS SUCH AS ISAIAH WHOM GOD GAVE THE PROPHESY OF KING CYRUS 156- 256 YEARS BEFORE GOD USED HIM TO CONQUER BABYLON ALLOW THE JEWS TO REBUILD THE TEMPLE.

ISAIAH 45:1) Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;

Truly are we to believe that GOD can speak things to his prophets not yet seen but he GOD CAN NOT BE TRUTHFUL TO HIS PROPHETS ABOUT THE TRUE FORM OF THE WORLD WE LIVE IN THAT HE CREATED!

Now let use touch on a few scriptures that cannot be argued with in relation to the full council of scripture that upholds the EARTH AS A PLANE. That you and Dr. Heiser conveniently fail to mention due to the fact that it does not support your man-made world view as both of you are greatly deceived because you have not really questioned and searched the mater out.

GEN1.16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
GEN1.17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, GEN1.18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
GEN1.19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Are so called science tell us that the sun was first.

GOD TELLS US THAT HE CREATED THE SUN AND MOON ON THE FORTH DAY AND THAT SEAS AND THE DRY LAND WERE CREATED ON THE THIRD DAY. I ASK YOU IS GOD A LIER AND IS MAN SPEAKING TRUTH. I KNOW GOD IS TRUTH AND HIS WORD IS TRUTH AND LET MAN BE A LIER.

NEXT LET US GO TO JOSHUA 10: 12-14)

JOS10.12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
JOS10.13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
JOS10.14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.

THE WORD OF GOD STATES UNAPOLOGETICALLY THAT THE SUN AND THE MOON STOOD STILL, NOT THAT GOD TOLD THE EARTH TO STAND STILL. YOU CAN NOT INTERPRET THE SCRIPTURES ANY OTHER WAY UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO LIE!

The science of man tells us that the earth spins at 1000 mph and That we orbit the sun on and axis. Is mans so-called science true and GOD A LIER?

Answer me this when you fly on a plane going say 500 mph hour and the earth Is spinning 1000 mph how do you get to your destination and how do you land on a moving runway? You can’t fly faster in passenger jets than the earth spins!

If the earth is a globe can you walk on walls and ceilings as flies do. Do the laws of physics apply where you live only?

Let us look at the book of ISAIAH 38:7-8)

ISA38.7 And this shall be a sign unto thee from the LORD, that the LORD will do this thing that he hath spoken;
ISA38.8 Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.
HOW WILL YOU EXPLAIN THIS PORTION OF GODS WORD AWAY, YOU CAN NOT. IT STATES WHAT GOD DID HE MOVED THE SUN BACK 10 DEGREES. DO YOU BELIEVE GOD IS LIER AND THAT THIS IS AN AMBIGUOUS STATEMENT OR HYPERBOLE? I THINK NOT GODS WORD IS TRUTH.

MR. RICHARDSON, I HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF RESPECT FOR YOU AND I PRAY THAT YOU WILL LOOK AT THIS MATTER IN PRAYER AND SUPPLICATION BEFORE GOD AND DO YOU OWN RESEARCH AS GOD LEADS. I WROTE WHAT I FELT GOD LAY ON MY HEART TO SAY TO YOU THOUGH MY SPEECH WAS HARD. AND I TELL YOU THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER FOR YOU NOT TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE IN THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU DID THAN TO MAKE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST GOD AND HIS PROPHETS AND TO PUBLICLY REBUKE THOSE WHO HAVE RIGHTLY BELIEVED AND PROVEN THE WORD OF GOD TO BE TRUE AND THE WORLD HE CREATED TO BE AS IT IS WRITEN IN HIS HOLY WORD TO BE A PLANE AND NOT A GLOBE.
I GIVE YOU THE FOLLOWING REFERENCES TO GET STATED WITH AND FOR THOSE WHO ALSO DON’T BELIEVE.

1) TERRA FIRMA: THE EARTH NOT A PLANET; PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE, REASON AND FACT BY DAVID WARDLAW SCOTT
2) ZETETIC ASTRONOMY: EARTH NOT A GLOBE BY SAMUEL BIRLEY ROWBOTHAM
3) ZETETIC COSMOGONY

I WILL BE HAPPY TO HELP YOU IF YOU LIKE ALL YOU NEED DO IS EMAIL ME I HAVE PURCHASED MANY BOOKS FROM YOU.

AND TO ALL THOSE WHO HAVE CURSED YOU AND THREATEN YOU THEY SHOULD SEEK GOD FOR FORGIVENESS, FOR WE HAVE ALL BELIEVED THING THAT WERE NOT TRUE AND ACCORDING TO GODS WORD AND WE ALL HAVE MUCH TO LEARN IF WE WILL ONLY LISTEN TO GOD.

Sincerely in CHRIST OUR LORD AND SAVIOR,

S. K. GRAY?

Harry A. Gaylord #fundie sunandshield.wordpress.com

They accuse us Christians of having blind faith when the evidence we have for our beliefs goes above and beyond the false evidence for theirs. I would even go so far as to say that if anyone can be accused of having blind faith, it is the agnostic, and atheist, and humanist.

So why do they cling to their false religions? For the same reason that Lucifer and his angels rebelled against God, for the same reason Noah’s great- grandchildren created false religions, and for the same reason the people of Israel who witnessed firsthand God’s miracles rejected the prophets and the Messiah. They lacked faith. Even though they knew God did wonderful, miraculous things, they refused to have faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God and those who are truly just, live by faith.

So we see that for all the arguments the God-hating agnostic, atheist, or humanist holds to about the importance of science, we see that in the end it is not science that is of the ultimate importance because if it were, they would believe in God given the scientific evidence. It is FAITH IN GOD that has the ultimate importance and that will always trump science.

Lisa & Hope #fundie thecallofthebride.com

Who will actually be on earth during the Millenium? - 06/05/14

Ok..so here is where I am at…I feel God STRONGLY pointing out verses that if you OVERCOME, ENDURE to the end…then you will reign with Him and be a priest and king..(Rev 5:10) (overcome till the end 2:26-27, Rev 3:21, others as well) IF you read Rev 20:4 it sounds as though ONLY the ones beheaded during the tribulation will reign with Him a 1,000 years….BUT we know some of us will as well..those that were faithful and have overcome..ENDURED till the end..
If you read Rev 20:5..it says "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection." THEN Rev 20:6….Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years….
In other words, what I feel God is ‘showing me’ is..ONLY some that are raptured (and even dead) will rule and reign with Him, ONLY if you were Faithful, and overcome and endured..I don’t know if that would refer to the ‘Bride’ only I know there will be a lot of people that will be in Heaven (AND someone like the thief on the cross, he made it…but only by the hair of his chinny chin chin..and was NOT TRIED AND TESTED and REMAINED FAITHFUL!) Well those people would be part of the rapture, BUT I don’t believe part of the Millennium, because they have NOT be tested and overcame, and endured and REMAINED FAITHFUL!! So Jesus will have no use for them during the 1,000 years, they have not been tested, tried and trusted!! I believe He is showing me ONLY those that have ENDURED will be kings and priests will Him during that time.

More on Life in the Millenium - 06/04/14

One thing I wanted to know about is animals during the Millennium period…I know animals in Heaven will be tame and not die, but I didn’t know about the Millennium….God showed me ALL will be restored as it was for Adam and Eve. The animals will not have a need to eat each other, nor will we kill and eat animals…I see children riding, playing, rolling around on the grass with big animals we would not be able to do that with now. Food will not need to be prepared in these communities like we do now, but some will enjoy preparing and doing it for fun…plants will grow with food (not the amount of time it takes now..ALOT SHORTER) but those of us with glorified bodies will be able to put our hands out and produce say a turkey.

I do not see temperature changes being drastic, but there is a place we can go where there is snow and skiing and sledding and such. The people that are still in their flesh bodies (they made it through tribulation or were born after) will depend on the communities head (or leaders) for food and supplies they need. The people in the communities all will have a role or function to make things work…they will all be self dependent communities and have no need for outside resources. The people in their flesh can leave these communities, but from what I see most everyone is happy, content and gets along…there is a great amount of love between them.

Life in the Millenium - 05/31/14

Vision 5/30…. God has been showing me more of the Millennium, when I see Heaven, there are still many people there (during the Millennium) Hope said she thought we could go back and forth (those with a glorified body) and sure enough God showed me that we will…Those that are His Bride will rule over communities. These are like large Amish communities where everyone works together to make it run…There will be large meeting halls (like the ranch in the earlier vision) for people to be taught and fellowship, a lot of community meals together. Technology will be very limited for the duration of the Millennium. A lot of our technology was created by demons to pull us away from God (distract us) and we will go back to a simple life. I even see the way the Amish travel as the way most will get around. I do not see extremes in weather, if there is seasons they will be very mild (at least where I can see) there seems to be so much peace and harmony I can’t imagine people will turn from God after this..(remember there is no satan or his influence because he is bound for the 1000 years) The people born during this time WILL KNOW JESUS is the truth, we will give accounts of Heaven and what awaits them…STILL there will be so many during this time that follow satan when he is released it will be as the number of whom is as the sands of the sea!! Rev 20:8. This is the last rebellion against God in history. Many of those born during the Millennium evidently choose to reject Christ’s visible lordship and choose instead satan and his lie. From what I see during this time I don’t understand! (But just as the angels in Heaven CHOSE to follow satan and turn from God…so will many of these)
I see so many children running and playing!!! (those in glorified bodies) there are some that want to be part of a family and God gives them that. There will be rewards, and levels you achieve here on earth that will last for eternity. We can learn more in Heaven, (or even during the Millennium) but it will never count as a reward and change your standing. The way we live here on earth determines the level of glory you receive in Heaven. Where you will have access to…what assignment you will get, how much you are given….if you are a good steward here with what He has given you, He will reward you with much there!!

Update - 05/30/14
He was showing me that the Earth will be restored to original Garden of Eden…for the 1000 years, then at the end the new Heaven will come down (or new Jerusalem) and that is when things change here…from ‘the Eden’ to Heaven on Earth…I question because I know the Mansion I see in Heaven is different from the ranch in the millennium!! So I am busy trying to see when the changes take place…He is revealing…but it is like I am getting puzzle one at a time!!!
(Hope note - I told Lisa that from all my research, it appears that we will be able to go back and forth from earth to Heaven since we will have glorified bodies. Normal humans that survived the Trib and those born during the Millenium, will not have glorified bodies and will not be able to go back and forth)

Questions - 05/28/14

I am asking Him silly things and waiting for Him to answer like...will the animals die during the 1000 years…will the people that made it through tribulation die and then will they go up to Heaven if so, will there be some in Heaven while some are down on Earth or will it just be God and angels in Heaven…

Weather - 05/27/14

I have had a vision or 2 but God is piecing things together…just showing me more clearly the difference between Millennium and Heaven, when and how things will change over..and stuff like that…I have asked about seasons..I don’t see big weather changes…He keeps showing me like Eden…I don’t see snow..or really cold, or really hot…more mild year round..(maybe that is just the area I will be in though, I don’t know..)

From a vision 11/05/13 - Children

Babies and children in Heaven....I have 3 grown children of my own...BUT in Heaven I get more...there are SOOOOO many babies and children!! If you would like you can raise some. There will be NO diapers, accidents, sickness, preparing food (unless you want to) so only the good enjoyable part will be there. If you had a miscarriage that baby will be waiting...at whatever age you want them to be. If you have lost a child they will be waiting (unless they were over the age of accountability and not a believer) I also see my oldest daughter with about 10 kids run around her legs...(she has never been married or had kids yet @ 27) Some kids will just always be around Jesus, some others who have passed on take care of them, (like a big group home/nursery) Some I don't know if they desire a family or what the difference is but some will be adoptable is the best way to put it I guess. No supervision needed in Heaven. So they can freely play and we don't need to worry about them.

Liberty Counsel for Flogging of Deceased Horses Award

"We'll Sue You In England"

Colonel-Knight-Rider #fundie #racist #homophobia change.org

Have you ever had anything you've said on the Internet misconstrued as racist, sexist, homophobic when you know you're not any of the three?
Have you ever been labelled a dangerous fundamentalist or religious "fanatic/nut" for innocently saying that God has a romantic match for you?
Have you ever been called harmful to society even if you've never intentionally mistreated someone of another skin color, someone of the opposite sex, someone with a different orientation than yours, or someone with a different faith than yours?
Have you ever been insulted for how you choose to present yourself online when you adopt a creative alter ego to do so?
Have you ever been accused of a god complex for paraphrasing cartoon Batman to both describe your current mood and make your dearest friends who know you well laugh?
Have you ever had personal identifying information (PII in legalese) that you've put on the Internet shared on another site without your permission so the person who steals your information can encourage others to mock, demean, defame, or otherwise indirectly harass you, only to have the harassers claim that they have the right to mock you because it's public?
Have you ever been mocked for choosing milk over alcohol?
I have. And, if any of the above applies to you, you're likely a victim of the aptly-named Website "Fundies Say The Darndest Things," too. They have been monitoring my every move on DeviantArt since early June this year, continuously waiting for me to post anything they disagree with or they believe they can ridicule and persecute, and refuse to cease and desist.
People of faith outnumber those without faith in the real world. However, since the dawn of the digital age, militant anti-theists (not to be confused with more pacifistic atheists and agnostics) have ruled the Internet with an iron fist, seeing as the Internet is a new, virtual territory previously unclaimed by any religion, culture, or nation. They have robbed ordinary, innocent people of all faiths of our right to free speech and tearing down everything we say based on the belief that only they should have fun and our lives should be a living nightmare. "Fundies Say The Darndest Things," which singles out ordinary people of faith and gangs up on them for their beliefs, only adds to the problem. For 16 years, they have reigned unopposed, taking our social media activity at random out of context to mischaracterize us all as racists, sexists, homophobes, and fundamentalists—allegedly for "fun"—when we know that being any of the four would violate the teachings that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and most other leading religions were founded on. It's fair to say that they do sometimes find people who legitimately belong to the aforementioned hate groups, but those aren't most people of faith, and they know it, even if they refuse to admit it.
They are also guilty of confirmation bias—I once wrote an extensive rebuttal to their claims that I'm "racist," which they honestly requested, but they only quoted the parts they felt they could attack and ignored anything they could not.
Worst of all, they have willingly dug into my past DeviantArt journal entries and posted some of what I consider to be PII, including autobiographical information about me and my immediate and extended family, to encourage others to indirectly harass me. As a resident of California, I can honestly say that this is ILLEGAL per California Penal Code 653.2 PC.
In sum, FSTDT is a criminal syndicate that uses unethical and illegal means to accomplish a nihilistic goal that only worsens relations among people with and without faith. Despite their claims of innocuousness, the majority of FSTDT users has no respect for others' rights to their faiths. They will never post anything positive about whomever they choose to attack. Their entire business model is centered on tearing people down, and they continue to harass targets for as long as said targets continue to post anything that contradicts what FSTDT's populace believes, seemingly never losing interest in their targets. They are serial cyberstalkers who represent the very basic problem with the Internet and social media: a lot of times, we think we know someone we've never met in the real world, but we don't. And although I admit to making this mistake, too, at least I try to get to know the truth when I realize I've done wrong. FSTDT refuses to do likewise because they are mindless sociopaths who can neither feel guilt nor control their animalistic impulses. They are an infinitesimally small but obnoxiously loud group of Internet users hopelessly addicted to finding things they disagree with to fuel the hatred off of which they thrive. Therefore, unless they learn to agree to disagree (which they have told me to do but have made no effort to practice themselves), they must be vanquished from the Internet. In the meantime, you are advised to take extreme caution when dealing with FSTDT—they could distort literally anything you say. And don't be surprised if you find this petition posted on their Website and see them tearing it down. That's just their customary addiction at work.
And remember: the Internet has no real power to define who you are. You have the natural right to define who you are. Do not let hatred on the Internet destroy you in the real world. You are not racist. You are not sexist. You are not homophobic. You are not fundamentalistic. You do not have a god complex. You are loved. Because you are loved, no hatred can touch you. Internet negativity against you is not a power. It is nothing to fear. It is a direct insult to true strength which is bound to destroy itself.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

I believe the message of the AiG ministry has been very “prophetic.” Even when I began teaching on creation vs. evolution back in 1975, I was already asserting that atheistic evolution and morality were connected and that, over time, immorality would grow as people rejected God’s Word and accepted evolution.

I taught that the more people believed that life arose by natural processes, the more they would also believe that life was ultimately meaningless and purposeless—and morality could be whatever a person determined. Or, as Judges 21:25 states, when there was no king (or absolute authority) in the land, “everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” The late Dr. Henry Morris (considered the father of the modern biblical creation movement) had also been writing about this connection between evolution and morality in most of his early books.

Over the decades, evolutionists have often mocked me for tying evolution to morality. They claim that evolution has to do with “science,” not morality. But notice that as generations have been indoctrinated into believing naturalistic evolution, Christian morality has declined. Armed with so-called “science,” secularists have become bolder in opposing Christian morality.

In our Western world, we are seeing more and more people (like Bill Nye “the Science Guy”) who boldly claim that evolution is “science” and are using it to promote an anti-Christian worldview. More than ever, secular activists are vehemently opposing Christian morality, such as marriage being between one man and one woman and abortion being murder. And we are seeing very amoral and immoral behavior growing across the culture, especially, it seems, among the millennial generation. While we do not argue that evolution directly causes immorality, people can use Darwinian thinking to justify their behavior.

Now, it’s a challenge to read Charles Darwin’s books like On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man. His writing can be very convoluted and difficult to follow. But what is clear is that Darwin believed humans are not special as the Bible states (i.e., made in God’s image), but just animals. As a result, he declared that morality was a result of evolution, shaping man into a highly social species through the process of natural selection. In The Descent of Man, Darwin wrote, “Nevertheless, the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind.”

My point is that there has always been a connection between evolution and morality. Over the years, I’ve heard many evolutionists (like Bill Nye) and even some Christians claim that evolution is all about “science.” They vigorously rejected my insistence that evolution involved a worldview that helps build a relative/subjective morality. That’s why many people were shocked (though I wasn’t at all) when Bill Nye released his new series on Netflix that pushes shocking immorality and is sometimes anti-Christian.

Kids and adults enjoyed Nye’s TV series years ago where he did lots of fun things to teach science. Even if you watched his series back then, you would have noticed how he promoted evolutionary ideas in biology and geology. But he did it in such a way that most children would not have really noticed—and many parents probably didn’t see those pro-evolution sections. But kids were subtly indoctrinated. Even before his famous “Science Guy” program, Bill Nye had his television debut when he performed a comedy routine. It included a number of sexual innuendos.

For the many of you who saw my 2014 debate with Bill Nye (available uncut online or as a DVD), you will remember how I emphasized that the creation vs. evolution issue was actually a clash of two worldviews. Nye rejected this, of course, claiming I was the one who was talking about religion, but he was all about “science.”

In that debate I revealed the connection between naturalistic evolutionary beliefs and morality. Nye totally rejected this view. But people are now starting to see that what I stated in the debate is now being played out before their very eyes.

A recent article in the Christian Post reported (please excuse the crudeness):

On his Netflix show “Bill Nye Saves the World” on Sunday, the man famous for his 1990s series “Bill Nye the Science Guy” cheerily featured “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” star Rachel Bloom performing a lewd number called “My Sex Junk” and a video called “Ice Cream Sexuality,” a clear derision of Christian sexual ethics.

Nye’s new show occasionally references science and scientific language with the purpose of promoting left-wing causes.
Michelle Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians, told the Christian Post, "These sad videos prove that atheistic Darwinians are so committed to blind faith that they very well may be invincibly ignorant.”

But really, this is what the belief in naturalistic evolution has always been about! I’m sure many of you have heard of the book Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. He was an English novelist and grandson of the famous contemporary of Darwin, Thomas Huxley. Thomas Huxley was known as “Darwin’s bulldog,” who, as an aggressive secular humanist, heavily promoted Darwin’s evolutionary ideas. He clearly saw Darwin’s naturalistic evolution as a justification for his secular humanist worldview.

Encyclopedia Britannica states the following about Brave New World: “The novel presents a nightmarish vision of a future society in which psychological conditioning forms the basis for a scientifically determined and immutable caste system that, in turn, obliterates the individual and grants all control to the World State.”

In 1937, Aldous Huxley made this statement in his book Ends and Means:

For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality.

We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted) of the world.

There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever. We’ve often said that this worldview struggle is ultimately one that started in the Garden of Eden over 6,000 years ago. It’s a battle between God’s Word and man’s word—a battle between two worldview religions. Answers in Genesis has been involved in this struggle for 23 years. It’s the battle our Creation Museum and Ark Encounter are engaged in.

And the only way to ultimately win this struggle is for people to be redeemed by the blood of the Lamb: “knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Peter 1:18–19).

This is why the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter exist. As we answer questions that will point people to the truth of God’s Word, we also clearly present them with the gospel. We’ve never hidden the fact that evangelism is our ultimate purpose—which is why we receive so much opposition from secularists. At the Creation Museum we present the saving gospel in different ways. That includes the stunning movie The Last Adam and the powerful new exhibit Christ, Cross, Consummation. We also make evangelistic tracts available free to our guests.

At the Ark Encounter, the gospel is featured in a number of ways including through the new movie As in the Days of Noah. The gospel is also powerfully shown in the massive exhibit Why the Bible Is True, with a graphic-novel approach. In that exhibit, we walk guests through the various “doors” of Scripture and then challenge visitors to go through the most important “door,” the Lord Jesus Christ.

We have just created a new gospel-witnessing tract on the “doors” of Scripture. It has been produced in conjunction with our new Ark exhibit, and we freely offer it to each guest who wants one at the Ark Encounter. I’m very excited about this new resource. It’s one more evangelistic tool to share the gospel at the Ark Encounter. And now you can order this “Doors of the Bible” tract from our online store and share it with someone who needs to hear the gospel.

I ask that you pray for the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum outreaches. Everything we do at Answers in Genesis is for the ultimate purpose of sharing the life-changing message of the gospel. And it is through your prayers and support that you are enabling AiG to continue all its many vital outreaches—to impact millions of souls for the kingdom of Christ while countering anti-Christian influences, like Bill Nye.

John C. Wright #fundie scifiwright.com

I am more than a presumably rational individual, I am a champion of atheism who gave arguments in favor of atheism so convincing that three of my friends gave up their religious belief due to my persuasive reasoning powers, and my father stopped going to church.

Upon concluding through a torturous and decades-long and remorseless process of logic that all my fellow atheists were horribly comically wrong about every basic point of philosophy, ethics and logic, and my hated enemies the Christians were right, I wondered how this could be. The data did not match the model.

Being a philosopher and not a poseur, I put the matter to an empirical test.

For the first time in my life, I prayed, and said. “Dear God. There is no logical way you could possibly exist, and even if you appeared before me in the flesh, I would call it an hallucination. So I can think of no possible way, no matter what the evidence and no matter how clear it was, that you could prove your existence to me. But the Christians claim you are benevolent, and that my failure to believe in you inevitably will damn me. If, as they claim, you care whether or not I am damned, and if, as they claim, you are all wise and all powerful, you can prove to me that you exist even though I am confident such a thing is logically impossible. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation in this matter, John C. Wright.” — and then my mind was at rest. I had done all I needed to do honestly to maintain my stature as someone, not who claimed to be logical, objective and openminded, but who was logical, objective, and openminded.

Three days later, with no warning, I had a heart attack, and was lying on the floor, screaming and dying.

-Then I was saved from certain death by faith-healing, after which–

-I felt the Holy Spirit enter my body, after which–

[description of ecstatic visions and personal encounter with Jesus edited for space]

I was converted.

So I was prepared to say adieu to logic and reason and just take things on faith, when I then found out that the only people who think you have to say adieu to logic and reason in order to take things on faith are crackpots both Christian and atheistic.

Every non-crackpot thinks faith is that on which you rely when unreasonable fears tempt you to disbelieve that to which your reason has consented. If your father says you can dive off the high dive with no risk of death, and he has never lied in the past, and your reason tells you to trust him, it is rational to take his word on faith and jump, and it is irrational to let your eyes overestimate the danger poised by the height.

I then discovered that the Christian world view makes sense of much that the atheistic or agnostic worldview cannot make sense of, and even on its own philosophical terms, is a more robust explanation of the cosmos and man’s place in it, answering many questions successfully that atheists both claim cannot be answered, and then, without admitting it, act in their lives as if the question were answered, such as how to account for the rational faculties of man, the universality of moral principles, the order of the cosmos, how best to live, etc.

Turning to my atheist friends, I then discovered none of them, not one, could give me even so reasonable an argument as I was expert in giving in favor of atheism.

They reasoned as follows: “God cannot possibly exist. Therefore any evidence that you encountered that God exists must be hallucination, mis-perception, faulty memory, self-deception, coincidence, or anything else no matter how farfetched and absurd. Since any evidence that you encountered that God exists must be hallucination, mis-perception, faulty memory, self-deception, coincidence, or anything else no matter how farfetched and absurd, therefore none of your evidence proves God exists.”

I found their perfect, childlike faith touching.

No matter what they saw, no matter what they heard, no matter how the world was against them, they would go to the lions rather than look at the evidence, lest their faith in their faithlessness be shaken.

Derrick Jensen #moonbat deepgreenresistance.org

Q: If we dismantle civilization, won't that kill millions of people in cities? What about them?

No matter what you do, your hands will be blood red. If you participate in the global economy, your hands are blood red because the global economy is murdering humans and non-humans the planet over. A half million children die every year as a direct result of so-called "debt repayment" from non-industrialized nations to industrialized nations. Sixty thousand people die every day from pollution. And what about all the people who are being forced off their land? There are a lot of people dying already. Failing to act in the face of atrocity is no answer.

The grim reality is that both energy descent and biotic collapse will be ever more severe the more the dominant culture continues to destroy the basis for life on this planet. And yet some people will say that those who propose dismantling civilization are, in fact, suggesting genocide on a mass scale.

Polar bears and coho salmon would disagree. Traditional indigenous peoples would disagree. The humans who inherit what is left of this world when the dominant culture finally comes down would disagree.

I disagree.

My definition of dismantling civilization is depriving the rich of their ability to steal from the poor and depriving the powerful of their ability to destroy the planet. Nobody but a capitalist or a sociopath (insofar as there is a difference) could disagree with that.

Years ago I asked Anuradha Mittal, former director of Food First, "Would the people of India be better off if the global economy disappeared tomorrow?" And she said, "Of course." She said the poor the world over would be better off if the global economy collapsed. There are former granaries of India that now export dog food and tulips to Europe. The rural poor the world over are being exploited by this system. Would they be better off? What about the farmers in India who are being forced off their land so that Coca Cola can have their water? What about those who are committing suicide because of Monsanto? A significant portion of people in the world do not have access to electricity. Would they be worse off with grid crash? No, they'd be better off immediately. What about the indigenous peoples of Peru who are fighting to stop oil exploration by Hunt Oil on their land, allowed because of United States-Peruvian trade agreements?

When someone says, "A lot of people are going to die," we've got to talk about which people. People all over the world are already enduring famines, but for the most part they are not dying of starvation; they're dying of colonialism, because their land and their economies have been stolen. We hear all the time that the world is running out of water. There is still as much water as there ever was, but 90 percent of the water used by humans is being used for agriculture and industry. People are dying of thirst because the water is being stolen.

When I asked a member of the Peruvian rebel group MRTA, the Tupacameristas, "What do you want for the people of Peru?" his response was, "What we want is to be able to grow and distribute our own food. We already know how to do that. We merely need to be allowed to do so." That's the entire struggle right there.

I used to think it's true that the urban poor would be worse off at first, because the dominant culture, like any good abusive system, has made its victims dependent upon it for their lives. That's what abusers do, whether they are domestic violence abusers, or whether they are larger scale perpetrators. That's how slavers work: they make enslaved people dependent upon them for their lives. One of the brilliant things this culture has done has been to insert itself between us and our self-sufficiency, us and the source of all life. So we come to believe that the system provides our sustenance, not that the real world does.

But I recently asked Vandana Shiva if the people of Mumbai, for example, would be better off quickly if the global economy collapsed. She said yes, for the same reasons Mittal did: most of the poor in major cities in India are there because they've been driven off their land, with their land stolen by transnational corporations. With the global economy gone, they would return to the country and reclaim the land. Given the option between getting their land back and staying in the city, nearly all would want to move back to the country.

This is a huge number of people we are talking about. Most of the urban poor are people who live in third-world slums. That's more than a billion people, and, if trends continue, that will double in two decades. Many of these are people who have been forced off their traditional land. The poor will be able to take back this land if the governments of the world are no longer capable of propping up colonial arrangements of exploitation.

I have another answer, too. As this culture collapses, much of the misery will be caused by the wealthy attempting to maintain their lifestyles. As this culture continues to collapse, those who are doing the exploiting will continue to do the exploiting. Don't blame those who want to stop that exploitation. Instead, help to stop the exploitation that is killing people in the first place.

The authors of this book are not blithely asking who will die. In at least one of our cases, the answer is "I will." I have Crohn's disease, and I am reliant for my life on high tech medicines. Without these medicines, I will die. But my individual life is not what matters. The survival of the planet is more important than the life of any single human being, including my own.

Since industrial civilization is systematically dismantling the ecological infrastructure of the planet, the sooner civilization comes down, the more life will remain afterwards to support both humans and nonhumans. We can provide for the well-being of those humans who will be alive during and immediately after energy and ecological descent by preparing people for a localized future. We can rip up asphalt in vacant parking lots to convert them to neighborhood gardens, go teach people how to identify local edible plants, so that people won't starve when they can no longer head off to the store for groceries. We can start setting up neighborhood councils to make decisions, settle conflicts, and provide mutual aid.

wetwareproblem #fundie wetwareproblem.tumblr.com

I’ll say this again. I’m a Behavioral Therapist for children with autism and much of this information is highly inaccurate.

Every single one of the parents that I work with love their kids so much. They listen to them, they are kind to them, and they treat them like REAL PEOPLE. They listen to them when they say they’re sad. They comfort them and love them and care for them just like the do with their other kids. The parents I’ve seen care about their kids possibly more than any other parent I’ve ever seen (including parents with neurotypical children). These parents are willing to do whatever it takes to make their children be their unique selves and 100% HAPPY with themselves as well.

ABA therapy doesn’t tell kids to look happy when they’re sad inside, it teaches them FUNCTIONAL communication. Aka saying “I’m sad because…” rather than screaming incoherently. It teaches them to communicate with people by verbalizing their emotions rather than acting them out in forms of stereotypic behavior (tantrums, self injurious behavior, elopement, etc).

And for your source about the JRC. Those places are terrible. THOSE places are shit. They HAVE tortured people with disabilities. But there are companies and organizations that have paired together with places like the JRC that you SHOULD avoid.

The link to the people who have experienced ABA therapy MOST LIKELY experienced it from those places similar to JRC.

I have NEVER restrained a child. I am NOT allowed to restrain a child (with the exception of emergency situations like a child is about to run into a street or something). I do NOT teach my kids to hate themselves. I do NOT believe in negative reinforcers. I have NOT ONCE hit, yelled at, verbally abused, physically abused, emotionally abused or even electrocuted any of my kids.

I have to shadow one of my clients at his school and his teachers are completely rude and treat him like a literal piece of shit. But you know what happens when they’re rude to MY client?? I call them the fuck out for it. I tell them that they wouldn’t say rude shit like that to their other kids, so why this one? I make SURE that people treat my kids LKE REAL PEOPLE. And if ANYONE dares to even think about disrespecting any of my clients they will definitely be hearing it from me.

I love EVERY SINGLE one of my clients like they are my own children. I would literally risk my life to save theirs if the situation ever occurred. I can’t believe that this post is going around spreading information like this. It literally hurts me to believe that people think I ELECTROCUTE my kiddos.

Yes there are really REALLY shitty places that do evil things to people with disabilities.

But there are places that take care of them and love them as well.

OP, I am not trying to speak for you. I believe that your voice SHOULD be heard. But please be specific and do no generalize the therapy as a whole. Call out places like the JRC, but do not blame it on ABA. Speak about your experiences and WHICH SPECIFIC places other autistic effected families should avoid. But also, please do some research and spread information about places that are beneficial to kids with autism.

ABA is not bad. The way certain places use it are.


All right, here we go again. Warning: Shit’s gonna get real and pretty dark here. TW for abuse and rape.

First: “much of this information is highly inaccurate.” Citation sorely fucking needed. I sourced all of my shit in depth; exactly which of these sources are you claiming is lying, and on what points?

Second: Either you live in a blessed land of fairies and unicorns, or you’re making shit up. It is the extremely painful experience of literally thousands of auties - no small number of which have spoken about it at length - that people are only willing to listen to us when we speak in ways that they are comfortable with, expressing thoughts and feelings that they are comfortable with. This all too often includes our parents. Hell, “Autism Parent” is a fucking meme in autistic culture.

The fact that you don’t know this speaks volumes about your willingness to actually listen to us.

Third: I’m a little less concerned with what any individual parent - hell, what any individual therapist - might think than I am with the foundation and structures of the practice. And guess what? That foundation is in a view that we are not people. (Did you even click the links?) It is built on abusing children into feigning normalcy. The seed of modern ABA practice was literally the same doctor bringing the same mindset to the “problems” of “making auties into Real People” and “making gay and bi boys and trans girls into Real Men.”

It has, as its explicit stated goal, the elimination of behaviours deemed “unsightly.” Do I need to quote the fucking defining papers? You say “verbalizing rather than stereotypic behaviour,” and we hear “force you to communicate in our language, no matter how difficult that is for you, instead of taking the time to learn yours.” We hear “prevent us from stimming, no matter how important that is to us as a regulatory tool.” We hear “Quiet hands.” You want to know why places like the JRC happen and keep happening? Why this is a huge, widespread fucking problem? It is because one of the core tenets of ABA is that you do not and will not listen to us unless we communicate in the ways you deem fit. And that doesn’t just mean “use your words,” it very often means “tell us what we want to hear.”

You do not know whether you are teaching your kids to hate themselves. You do not and cannot know that, because what ABA teaches us is how to recognize and present the expected signs regardless of what is happening in our heads. What it teaches us is how to mask and cover like abuse victims. And you should take a really fucking good look at why that might be.

You say “There are ABA centers that love their patients and take care of them.” You say “I love every single client like they are my own children.”

I hear my mother, desperately trying to make sure I would grow up happy in a world full of cruel people, telling me not to fidget, glancing around to see if people are giving us That Look again. I hear “something is wrong with your body language; hide it Or Else.”

I hear my mother, my loving mother who is trying to take care of me, telling me that I need to stop talking about my special interests because I’m boring people. I hear “Nobody cares what you have to say.”

I hear my mother, trying to keep me from having problems, telling me it can’t possibly be that bright and I need to take my sunglasses off or people will make fun of me. I hear “Your pain is less important than keeping up appearances, and literally anyone and everyone will punish you if you don’t comply.”

I hear my mother, my sweet loving mother who wants what’s best for her child, going about her business as though everything is perfectly normal while I’m dying inside, because I no longer have any way to tell her what a hellscape my head has become. My ways of conveying this are Unacceptable and Lashing Out, not Communication, and I might have been taught the words for “I’m sad,” but not for “Everything is Too Much” or “nothing makes me happy any more” or “I hate myself and I don’t want to.” Eventually, she will see the scars left by what coping methods I have. She will put me into well-intentioned but misguided psychiatric care. They will listen to what their forms tell them over what I am saying - because I still don’t have the words - and medicate me into a suicide attempt. This will result in traumatic institutionalization, and I will restructure my entire life and personality around the core tenet of “never let anyone see the pain or they will hurt you worse.” I now have people who will provide what comfort I need when I need it on my terms - but they still have to learn to read from the tiny cracks in my many, many masks, because over 90% of the time I still cannot bring myself to say “I need help.”

I hear my mother, speaking over me countless times without noticing, teaching me that she (as the Authority Figure) always knows best even when it makes no sense to me. I hear “You just don’t know any better; what the authority figure says is correct.” Later, when authority figures blame me for basically being weird enough to get beaten, I learn that violence is an acceptable response to failure to conform and comply. When my rapist tells me that a vague unspecified They will hurt him if I don’t do what he says (even though it feels Wrong and Bad), I believe him, because this is the world I have come to know.

I hear my mother today, so many years later, responding to any attempt to explain any of this by crying and telling me what a horrible parent she was, and lamenting how she could have done things differently If She’d Only Known. But she never listened.

I hear myself consoling her, reassuring her that what she did to me wasn’t so bad, that she acted out of love using he tools and information she had. Because by now I have well and truly learned that my pain will never matter as much as anybody else’s.

That is what I hear when you claim to love your clients as your own children. And while the details of my story might be unique, the general arc of it is not. That is what thousands of us are hearing. We are hearing all the people who claimed to love us over the years, bending and sawing and chipping and breaking us so we fit into an Acceptable Mold.

And when you tell me that it is our fucking job to find ABA centers that are somehow - despite the entire thrust of ABA - not doing this, and spread the word about them instead of about the countless places that have done this to us?

Well, that’s an outright demand for “Hey, it’s not so bad. You’re doing the best you can with the tools you have.” It is yet another in the endless series of demands faced by autistic people - say what I want, not what matters to you. It is an outright and explicit prioritization of the appearances and reputations of allistic people over the ongoing pain of autistic people. It is the latest chapter in the story I just told.

It is not our job to reform ABA. It is yours. Autistic people are not the ones responsible for how allistic people treat us. My voice is my own, and I will speak the truths I want to speak - not the kind, soothing lies that absolve you of all responsibility to do better.

Michael Snyder #fundie thetruthwins.com

The theory of evolution is false. It is simply not true. Actually, it is just a fairy tale for adults based on ancient pagan religious philosophy that hundreds of millions of people around the world choose to believe with blind faith. When asked to produce evidence for the theory of evolution, most adults in the western world come up totally blank. When pressed, most people will mumble something about how “most scientists believe it” and how that is good enough for them. This kind of anti-intellectualism even runs rampant on our college campuses. If you doubt this, just go to a college campus some time and start asking students why they believe in evolution. Very few of them will actually be able to give you any real reasons why they believe it.

Most of them just have blind faith in the priest class in our society (“the scientists”). But is what our priest class telling us actually true? When Charles Darwin popularized the theory of evolution, he didn’t actually have any evidence that it was true. And since then the missing evidence has still not materialized. Most Americans would be absolutely shocked to learn that most of what is taught as “truth” about evolution is actually the product of the overactive imaginations of members of the scientific community. They so badly want to believe that it is true that they will go to extraordinary lengths to defend their fairy tale. They keep insisting that the theory of evolution has been “proven” and that it is beyond debate. Meanwhile, most average people are intimidated into accepting the “truth” about evolution because they don’t want to appear to be “stupid” to everyone else.

(...)

In order to believe the theory of evolution, you must have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself. Do you have that much blind faith?

For years, I have been looking for someone that can explain to me the very best evidence for the theory of evolution in a systematic way. My challenge has been for someone to lay out for me a basic outline of the facts that “prove” that evolution is true.

Perhaps you believe that you are up to the challenge.

I’ll even get you started…

If you think that you can prove that evolution is true, please leave a comment below with your best shot.

Or if you would like to discuss additional evidence for why you believe that the theory of evolution is false, please feel free to share it by posting a comment below.

Keymaster #sexist mgtow.com

I need to buy a vowel because O….. MY….. GAWD. You just triggered a hundred memories.

That’s exactly what it’s like. And I have been in that room!
(“Sugar and spice and everything nice” my ass)

While an EPIC find… I am not at all surprised. I’m sure the rest of you are yawning here too. It serves as a good reminder though. I got a front row seat into the TRUE female nature and behavior when I moonlit as a part-time bartender (during my early-mid 20s) in nightclubs and various first-run establishments – including a brief stint as a relief bartender in a male strip club. The stories I have about that would turn your hair white.

But first… NO. I wore a shirt and tie at all times. So don’t get any ideas.

I knew what was up before most guys did. I remember thinking their boyfriends and husbands would PUKE if they knew. Women would come in in groups and they would be the type who would be THE LAST YOU WOULD EVER EXPECT to demonstrate the kind of behavior I saw. Chicks with Mary Tyler Moore haircuts that looked like bank tellers…. like the kind of “average” women you would expect to see in a female talk-show audience. Just plain Janes and average chicks who (within an hour or less) were shrieking and behaving like the most vile and ill-mannered and sluttiest of sluts. Like they had COMPLETELY been deceiving themselves (and everyone else) all their lives, and THIS evening, they were gonna let their hair down because their boyfriends and husbands weren’t looking.

And take my word for it. They were NOT just being someone else when they went out on this night, they were “being someone else” in their everyday lives. This was a consistent observation of hundreds of screaming women every weekend. Some of the groups would get called up on stage by the MC and be asked what they were celebrating tonight. Guess how many times the Queen Bee would say “MY DIVORCE!!!”…. and all of them would join in and shout “WOOO!!! WOOO!!!”.

You’ve heard of “woo girls”, yes?
I mean, I can understand “celebrating” a birthday, or an upcoming wedding.
But gathering all your “friends’ together to go out and “celebrate a divorce”?

There is something not right in the f~~~ing head with that.

There was a female strip club downstairs and it was always quiet. Guys would come in , clutch a beer or three, clap at the end of a set, slip the girl a couple of bucks, maybe get a table dance – strictly hands off or they would get booted. The men downstairs were TRULY “gentlemen” and ANY mis-behaving would have them escorted out. NO bulls~~~.

But the male strip joint was an eye opener free-for-all FREAK SHOW like you would not believe. I wore EAR PLUGS. I could go on about this for a week, but remember what brought them in was usually a birthday, or one of them was getting married the next day (or the following weekend). These “women” (I use the term loosely) would pay a stripper for a table dance in a private booth – with their fiancees credit card!! – and these poor suckers would also innocently pay for her entire evening, her “bachelorette” evening – including all drinks – and MORE.

On a nightly basis, a male stripper would give a table dance for $20 per song in a private booth. Typically 3 for $60. (About 15 minutes). The girl would get turned on, and ask to BLOW HIM. He said sure but it costs more. No problem . Her future husband is paying! So these girls would suck stranger stripper dick, AND SWALLOW.

She didn’t want a mess you know. She got all tarted up for this, so no facial with her friends around. So they just swallow! (you think she swallowed her fiancee’s load lately?)

Then the stripper says “that’s $160”.
The women would say “WTF?? I just sucked you off and swallowed!”
(they actually thought they wouldn’t have to pay him now. Typical.)

And he would say “Yeah. Thanks! But, what if the next chick wants the same thing? You owe me $160.”

Then these girls would add it to “the tab” and pay with their fiancees credit card….
and marry him the following week.

But that’s not all. Sometimes sucking him off was not enough. They would bend over and ask to be penetrated right in the ass. And they loved every second of it. Didn’t always happen in the booth, either. Sometimes it happened in the bathroom – with her bent over the f~~~ing TOILET.

Needless to say, I didn’t last long there. I couldn’t take it. I was a good private school boy with a classical education who made $300 a night in this s~~~hole. That was enough to finance my life quite nicely on top of my day jobs and that’s why I did it. $300 a night when you are 22 is not bad cash! But one day, I had seen enough and couldn’t unsee it. I didn’t feel right watching these unknown guys PAYING for the most animalistic, sick behavior I could imagine in my wildest nightmares. Or maybe the screaming noise just got to me one night.

So I took my cash register, handed it to the manager and walked out one night in the middle of the shift.
I walked ALL THE WAY HOME – about 4 hours – and thanked my personal God the whole way, it would never be me.

I wish to thank VileNord for posting this series of insights – directly from the source – as evidence that every word I just told you is true.

Jesus Admirer #fundie bibleforums.org

Question: How much faith would it take to believe that a puddle of primordial soup eventually grew into living organisms, which adventually evolved into male and female human beings?(The myth & faith of evolutionists) To believe that a puddle of primordial soup would become living cells and organisms would require a leap of faith in the first place, but then for these simple organisms to evolve into complex cells and organisms would require another giant leap of faith, but then to believe these complex organisms divided themselves into male & female organisms, which is required to produce new life would require gigantic leaps of faith, which is what evolution really is based on by many atheistic Scientists who don’t want to be accountable to a Creator, whether there’s a Creator or not. Evolution has failed to explain how life is made up of male and female species, which requires both to reproduce, which makes life impossible to spring forth from primordial soup as evolutionists believe with their gigantic leap of faith in the religion of evolution.

jeremyjimmy #sexist reddit.com

(Note: This is an amalgam of three different comments)

You'd think that people from IncelTears would be more angered by these. They're complaining about their privilege.

Also what happened to them being able to gauge personality? I'm not an incel but the blackpill idea is like 90% dead on. I don't know why people are so dishonest and want men to be so unprepared as teens entering the dating world by feeding them endless lies about female nature. Women are completely prepared for what men will want from them and what drives them. Meanwhile the second anyone with any experiences starts to nail down female sexuality the entire western media starts bucking like a horse with a rubber band around it's balls.

edit: Also I haven't seen anyone make this point before but extremist feminists have done everything that they claim to hate about incels. Yet why aren't they going after them? There have been feminist murderers, terrorists and sites actually full of women aborting their male babies, planning evil shit to do to their male children and on and on it goes. I mean out in public women were saying "kill all men" on Twitter. Nobody really cared. In fact from my experience feminists have done a lot worse than incels. Most incels are just harmless guys venting about the lies they were told as children.

.
.
.

I know from personal experience about all this shit, then I found incels and saw that they have it all down to a science. I guess I'm "chad lite" on the ratings scale so even with crippling social anxiety would get girls and even my friends girls kept trying to fuck me which started to make me look down on them. (You hear comedians and musicians talk about this, married women trying to fuck them and just saying "so?" when they say "but you're married".) Then I went through a stage where I got really sick, lost all my physique and looked terrible. I'm not exaggerating when I say that women started treating me COMPLETELY different. They'd actually give me looks of disgust. My friends noticed too.

Then I got better, worked out, got everything back to how it was and suddenly strange girls are being nice again. One who was horrible to me even suddenly started asking a friend if I was single. It turned me into a complete pessimist. But if someone would've told me when I was younger the truth about female sexuality it wouldn't have bothered me at all. Girls being attracted to me would say I was funny and they liked that I had various talents. Meanwhile when I looked like shit they stopped laughing at my jokes and didn't care about my talent or intelligence. Weird huh?

Male sexuality is well known, it's part of our culture to understand it. Meanwhile female sexuality is shrowded in mystery and called "complicated". We're animals. It's not complicated. I fucking can't stand how men can't explore and discuss this stuff without all being called terrorists or something insane like that. Meanwhile feminists say "kill all men" feminists make bomb threats, murder people, cut men's dicks off and if you group them in with feminists you get the old no true Scotsman fallacy. "They're not true feminists." Oh right, then that one guy who said something about incels online isn't really an incel. It's all so frustrating. Yet they sit there with these puzzled looks, wondering why men are suddenly all being so mean. If it was women rising up like this they'd try to understand, look for the root cause and fix it, the cause of negative female behavior is always external. (Abusive father/husband/single motherhood is tough!) With men it's always internal. (Toxic masculinity/he's just evil/a psychopath etc.) But if it's guys then it's just inherent as if men can't be influenced by the outside world.

It's all so fucking petty and will have to come to a head somewhere. Things will HAVE to start moving back the other way because they're becoming too unstable. I was honestly stunned when I found out about groups like Incel Tears. They've found some of the most lonely, depressed people on Earth and are attacking them for making some offensive jokes. People in terrible situations cope with dark humor, it's pretty much well known. It really is just an excuse to bully these guys. I think all of this is instinctual and that people try to rationalize it afterwards. This is the case with almost all beliefs and behavior. People react based on emotion and animal instinct and then try to act rationally after the fact. People HATE weak guys, they mock them, people want to help weak women and women in need.

Like I remember asking a feminist what she thought about a 14 year old guy whose teacher raped him, got pregnant and had the child. He then had to pay child support at age 18. If he DIDN'T PAY HIS RAPIST HE'D GO TO PRISON. I got called a rape apologist. There's zero sympathy for men. Meanwhile Muslim women who get raped and imprisoned on the technicality of adultery are seen as victims who need to be saved. I want to save both yet I'm the fucking rape apologist. I'd love to know if there's any kind of science exploring how people react to men and women in various situations because I'm convinced that all of this insane behavior is to do with reproduction and protecting offspring in the past. None of it makes any sense in today's culture but it just FEELS wrong to say that so people hang onto it. It's all a fucking mess.

.
.
.

True. And those in the center just learn to become content with their existence and make themselves as busy as possible. It's like with depression. Depressed people perceive reality FAR more accurately then regular people. I guess the black pill would be depressed people and the blue pill regular people.

I think you might be right about things going too far. What I should've said is that if they don't move back they'll probably collapse which will fix things anyway. Awareness can still be raised, we see groups like MGTOW growing and also a curious thing that people overlook is a lot of chad lites and "normies" joining incel forums just to be able to post. There's a good reason for that, because most people have noticed this stuff but either haven't been able to put it into words or they feel like they have nobody to talk to about it.

You're right about experiencing both sides. I'd never really thought about this stuff until I got those disgusted looks. I guess it's similar to that experiment where that woman disguised herself as a man for a year or something and suddenly found out that most of what we're told about guys is bullshit and that she was treated like shit on sight by most women. I think she actually had to go to therapy afterwards lol.

I've been thinking of making a Youtube channel for a while. I've been interested in this stuff for years among other subjects so I might give it a go. I think I can present it in a way where regular people won't instantly switch off.

Jonathan Gardner #fundie fwcon.wordpress.com

I have to wonder what is going on here. If homosexuality is perfectly normal, why would anyone be ashamed to be caught kissing another member of the same sex? Or do people who are homosexual not truly believe it is normal? When they try to convince us that it is normal, maybe they are simply trying to convince themselves.

Let me explain. I do things that are different from others. Some of them I am quite proud of, and even if I were the last man on earth doing it, I would continue doing it. If I were discovered, even if I tried to keep the act hidden, I would not be ashamed of doing it. If people ostracized or abused me or even threatened my life because of my behavior, I would feel a bit sad, but I wouldn’t stop doing the behavior, and I certainly wouldn’t commit suicide.

The reason why is because I believe the behavior is fundamentally right and good and honorable. My view doesn’t depend on what others think of me or my actions; I have made a conscious decision and that’s what I have decided is right.

I get the feeling that the suicide problem in the homosexual community is not because there are people who think it is odd or unnatural behavior, or even because some people think it is sinful behavior. Instead, I believe the reason why homosexuals tend to commit suicide when they are discovered or mocked is because they know the behavior is wrong, and have no self-control to correct their behavior to match what they believe to be right. In the end, when people point this out through ridicule, they are incapable of dealing with the cognitive dissonance and are lead to believe that only suicide can help them escape the anguish of that state of mind.

In other words, they aren’t committing suicide because of the actions of the people around them; they are committing suicide because of what they believe on the inside.

OnlyTheGhosts #wingnut deviantart.com

OnlyTheGhosts: That's an interesting claim BUT WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

An assertion without evidence is nothing more than baseless accusation.


I believe the count is around 600+ attacks by loony leftist nutters on Trump supporters. Maxine the loon has called for mob violence against Trump's side too. So has Hillary Clinton with her call for "uncivil" action. Unlike you, I can cite evidence
[a bunch of links]

Girl-called-Lola: "That's an interesting claim BUT WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

An assertion without evidence is nothing more than baseless accusation."

Don't you read the news? Here ya go, sourced from all those totally unbiased news sites you like:
[more links]

Want some more reading?

"From 2008 to 2017, the study found perpetrators from all streams of right-wing extremists to be responsible for 71 percent of the extremist-perpetrated killings in the United States, followed by Islamic extremists at 26 percent and left-wing extremists, including anarchists and black nationalists, responsible for 3 percent of deaths."[another link]

OnlyTheGhosts: Great, so how does any of that excuse the hundreds of innocents attacked by Leftists, many bashed to the point of nearly dying?

I already cited links too. You ignored them.

Girl-called-Lola: It doesn't excuse anything Antifa does. My point is that people like you continually bitch and moan about Antifa 'acts of violence', yet you remain silent when a Trump supporter drives his car into a crowd of people. A Trump supporter killed an innocent women at a protest but you're more concerned that a "Dad Dares Daughter To Knock Off Guy’s MAGA Hat For 100 Bucks. She Does It"

"I already cited links too. You ignored them."

I didn't ignore them. What were you expecting? Am I supposed to comment on each one?

more repliesOnlyTheGhosts: Wrong, that's just YOU projecting and pretending people are saying shit which they are NOT saying. Stop making crap up and pretending other people are saying it. You do it because you can't cope with the logic and what they are REALLY SAYING. You can't make a decent argument, so you rely on insults and stupid claims pretending people are saying things WHICH THEY ARE NOT SAYING, YOU LIAR.

Trump supporters have rarely been violent in comparison the Leftists. That's why I posted those links WHICH YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE.

You make a big fucking deal about ONE GUY - and ignore EVERYTHING ELSE.

It's just luck that none of these victims of Leftist thuggery died;
[more links]

There have been hundreds of acts of extreme violence by Leftist idiots against anyone and everyone who disagrees with them, or even just happens to be in the wrong place when these Leftist twits decide to play thuggery again. They lie all the damn time about their motivations, lie about what they do, and try to excuse their shitty attitude by screaming about white supremacy, or patriarchy, or some other made up nonsensical ideological bullshit that has zero relation to the real world.

Grow up.

Millions of other people are starting to actually wake up from the bullshit you continue to defend

Girl-called-Lola:"Wrong, that's just YOU projecting and pretending people are saying shit which they are NOT saying. Stop making crap up and pretending other people are saying it. You do it because you can't cope with the logic and what they are REALLY SAYING. You can't make a decent argument, so you rely on insults and stupid claims pretending people are saying things WHICH THEY ARE NOT SAYING, YOU LIAR."

Jeez calm down. What exactly am I lying about?

"Trump supporters have rarely been violent in comparison the Leftists. That's why I posted those links WHICH YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE."

I looked at your links. Fact is a Trump supporter killed a innocent woman. That is a big deal.

"Millions of other people are starting to actually wake up from the bullshit you continue to defend"

And there's a twitter page called Trump Regrets - people who regret voting for Trump: [link]

OnlyTheGhosts: Waiting for you to deal with REAL VIOLENCE BY LEFTIST FUCKWITS.
[A heap of links]
IT IS NOT GOING AWAY. Answer it, deal with it, stop pretending it isn't there. You're defending thuggery.

Twitter has lots of fake accounts too. It's just text. Paid for clickers and bots easily do it. You can't debunk the thousands upon thousands of people who marched awhile back either.


DC Walkaway March to Civility
Brandon Straka speech
Stacey Dash - "It's not about the colour of our skin, it's not about our gender"
#WalkAway

#WalkAway is accelerating
And it's absolutely fascinating to watch as larger numbers of people are awakening. They've started researching and thinking for themselves, risking enormous personal loss, as they begin to see through the lies of the Democrats, Establishment mainstream media, and the regressive Leftists deceitful narratives.
[many, many links]

Fact is ONE VICTIM IS FAR OUTWEIGHED BY THOUSANDS OF VICTIMS. You keep pretending that a single deranged loon is some kind of representation that makes it okay for THOUSANDS OF OTHER ACTS OF VIOLENCE against innocent people. Your moral compass is broken; get it fixed.

Girl-called-Lola: "Waiting for you to deal with REAL VIOLENCE BY LEFTIST FUCKWITS."

I'm not defending Antifa, they're a bunch of violent morons. When are you going to own up to the fact that right wing groups are also violent? When are you going to denounce them?

"Twitter has lots of fake accounts too. It's just text. Paid for clickers and bots easily do it."

Right, so everyone who says they regret voting for Trump is a bot? Weren't Trump supporters laughing at Leftists for making the very same claim?

"Fact is ONE VICTIM IS FAR OUTWEIGHED BY THOUSANDS OF VICTIMS. You keep pretending that a single deranged loon is some kind of representation that makes it okay for THOUSANDS OF OTHER ACTS OF VIOLENCE against innocent people. Your moral compass is broken; get it fixed."

My moral compass?! One dead victim far outweighs death threats on twitter, harassing someone wife at restaurant, sticking fingers in their salads, throwing chocolate milk at College Republicans, or someone getting their fucking hat knocked off.

[Note: It doesn’t stop here. The argument keeps on going.]

TimeToTurn #fundie #moonbat fstdt.com

Time for some takedowns:

[121: He very explicitly stated that people should not be free to practice their religion. He never mentioned removing special protection for religious practices that violate human rights.]

The people and groups and followers of them I mentioned certainly don't deserve to practice their religion. I've said it myself--the scariest people in any video of Steven Anderson's sermons isn't Pastor Steve, it's the congregation cheering and shouting "Amen!" at his statements.

[Mister Spak: Do you realize that makes you like the Wahabi?]

I'm right, and they're wrong. That's the difference. Basic philosophy--the ends justify the means. Very little can be done in the name of justice that leads to justice that is actually wrong.

[Doubting Thomas: Here's the major problem, TTT, if you legislate freedom of religion away, then the government is going to be in charge of your religious beliefs.]

Sounds good to me. Ideas like the French Cult of Reason or the Soviet concept (sadly never put in place) of God-Building sound like an ideal state religion.

[Anon-e-moose: And it's precisely because of their homophobia that DOMA was declared unconstitutional, Prop.8 was repealed, culminating in the 26th June SCOTUS decision. Thus fundies don't have a legal leg to stand on, re. LGBT people, any more.

And it's precisely because of their fundieness.

No WBC here in the UK. Section 5 of the Public Order Act may have something to do with that. And - in both 2012 London & more recently in 2016 Rio - why didn't the devout Muslim Mo Farah, after winning the 5,000 & 10,000 Metres in both Olympics, parade round the stadium with an IS flag...?]

But you took away their freedom. Since western society has such a huge basis in "no tolerance for intolerance", as evidenced by prohibitions on hate speech, etc., it's incredible that people haven't taken it to it's logical conclusion and started intolerated the hives of it like the individuals mentioned above.

[Psycho Tits (1): That's really dumb, TTT, and I'll tell you why in simple, blunt terms: When you fuck with fundamental freedoms such as religion (or speech or assembly, both of which are so tightly allied with freedom of conscience that to attack one is to attack all three) then that fuckery of yours WILL--count on this -- find its way back to you and it will devour your freedom along with the freedoms of the people you hate.]

[Psycho Tits (2): For fuck's sake, NeoMatrix - freedom of religion shouldn't - and really can't (ask the Soviets) - be "legislated away" at all. And if there ever comes a time when religion is 'too weak to resist,' why would you hit a minority - religious believers - with punitive actions when they pose no threat?]

It worked to a pretty big degree. The Russian Church was brought to its knees. The biggest flaw was not constructing a new religion to replace it. Religion is a great brainwashing tool, but it is true that many religious people have their actions checked and modified by their beliefs. Hence a system like the Russian God-Building would encourage positive beliefs even if the majority of people never thought of it.

[Salami: The problem with removing freedom of religion is that it eliminates the protections keeping minority religious groups from being systemically oppressed. Imagine if some fundie turned the repeal on Muslims or Jews, deciding that they aren't worthy of being tolerated anymore and passing laws that keep them from having a good quality of life. Or outlawed sane Christians and only tolerated the most intolerant of views. I don't think anybody here would like that very much, but it could very well be possible if the government doesn't go out of its way to set limits on actions against religions.]

That's why you don't define the action itself as evil. If I shoot a guy trying to a rape a woman, that would be pretty good, obviously different than if I shot the woman and thanked the rapist for cornering her. Persecuting Jews (besides some Jews like the Haredi) or whatever sane Muslims are out there (I know they exist) is therefore different than persecuting religious nuts. Even if the same techniques are being used.

[SpukiKitty: Haredis, Barabbans, Wahabbis, Hindutva, Saffrons....They're ALL THE SAME....Evil authoritarian jerks who use religion as a tool of Fascist control rather than a path of spiritual growth and humanitarian love. Screw them and send them to Inferno for a long (but finite) period of Pineapple-Butt purgatorial punishment purification!

The folks who want to ban religion/spiritual faith completely (like NeoMatrix) are just as stupid. Are you willing to ban my egalitarian, pro-freedom, pro-gender-equality, pro-LGBTAQ, pro-democracy, pro-sexuality NeoPaganism, too?

Look! Spiritual faith HELPS many people cope with life. It has helped me! You may say "It's a crutch" but I say, "Some people NEED crutches. Crutches are not evil!"

I believe that life continues after death. I see that as absolute truth! The spiritual is REAL & PLAUSIBLE to ME!

I respect an Atheist's right NOT to believe! I am all for an Atheist's right to be fully welcomed and respected in society! I feel that when Religion & Government mix, BOTH become perverted into something horrible! Religion is only bad when it gets Frummy and is combined with Government. Keep it out of Government and reject the Frums and Faith is great.

Anti-Theists, while well-meaning, are misguided and they're just as irritating as the Religious nuts! They're Frums on behalf of Atheism. Should they take over the government they would be just as bad as the Religionists!]

Ugh, American progressivism. Trump only exists because they spend all their time race baiting and engaging in identity politics instead of focusing on the issues.

The idea is phase religion out sooner or later--let it rot. But there are ideas for those who need religion as a crutch--Cult of Reason, God-Building, other such ideas. I've praised the Soviet anti-religious campaign before (the Russian church had spent centuries asking for it), but Lenin's emphasis on atheism (in opposition to worship of man) was pretty stupid, and they should've taken the church infrastructure and turned it to the worship of humanity. I'm not an atheist nor an anti-theist (I can't hate something that doesn't exist)--if there was position I would be, it would be the worship of humanity's possibility. But I suppose I have a bit of crusader spirit and am willing to unleash it on the injust in the best way I can--through words.

[Hasan Prishtina: Constitution of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania 1976, Article 55 banned religious freedom, just as Time to Turn wants. Ask the Albanian people how that legislated haters away and everything was peace and light thereafter. Ask them also why they got rid of this article the moment they could and why they hate authoritarian socialists.]

Now a few generations under that, what might happen? Seems like an interesting possibility. Lots of good ol' Abrahamic religions in Albania...

Leodigario #fundie news.yahoo.com

If their dating and their DNA test are accurate or near accurate, they must be up to the DNA of some superior human race: one who has not yet degenerated to what the humans are like now. That is before humans became so inferior not only morally but physically as they are right now,

We read in the only account of man's origin that human beings were created by his Creator to last endlessly or eternally without aging, but that was interrupted by man's disobedience to his Creator, However a default system was set in place that would restore humans to that original purpose of the Creator..

But the moral, intellectual and physical degradation of mankind was not sudden. Human's first parents live nine centuries according to biblical record. Then six centuries, then four, until Abraham who lived 175 years, until the time of king David who lived 70. Since then man's life expectancy remained 70 until now. This disprove Darwin's evolutionary theory.

If we will need biblical faith to believe biblical account of man's origin, we likewise need faith, a darwinian faith, in order to believe Darwin's evolutionary theory. But I would rather believe biblical account using biblical faith rather than darwinian faith to believe darwinian theory of evolution.

If scientists will only make objective studies rather than do studies influenced by biased subjective instinct to exclude their Creator from their investigation, it will not be long and their mind will come in contact the Great Creator.

Sven Longshanks #racist dailystormer.name

Back when Christianity was first becoming known in Britain, there was no conflict between it and the so called paganism that had gone before. The people at the top of British society, the Arch Druids, became the Arch Bishops of the Celtic Church. Christianity was looked upon as the natural evolution of the British people’s spiritual doctrines. The idea that Christians would be opposed to Druids because the Druids were ‘Pagan’ was not something that was even countenanced. The Druids and the Christians were the same people, obeying the same laws and part of the same society. If Christianity had meant one half of society being against the other half, it would never have been accepted in the first place. As it was, it was decided to change from being a ‘Pagan’ nation to a Christian one in the second century in Britain and the idea for that came from the King and his Druid advisors and was warmly welcomed by the people. This would not have happened if it had not been seen as a positive development.

People that wish to denigrate Christianity or attack it as being foreign really have no faith at all in their own abilities as White people, or even in their own ancestors. White people pick up lots of things from around the world and if they are useful, then they get appropriated and adapted to White people’s tastes and needs. There is no way that our ancestors would have accepted a foreign religion and no way that after being a White religion for 1500 years, it would not exclusively show the spirit of the White man within it. I say 1500 years as it was after that time that the Jews started to have an influence on it from within, culminating in the hideous monstrosity that goes by the label of Judao-Christianity today.

National Socialism saw that Jewish influence, recognised it for what it was and sought to fight back by promoting what they called Positive Christianity. This meant accentuating the parts of Christianity that were most relevant to the struggles that the nation were involved in at the time. That meant concentrating on the Jews being the children of the Devil and the Antichrist and the Aryan qualities of Jesus, who Adolf Hitler spoke about, as a role model for Aryans, as he knew full well that Jesus was not a Jew. He spoke about the way that Jesus heroically threw the Jewish usurers out of the temple, highlighting the courage of this act and the way that the Jews reacted to it.

Today it would also mean concentrating on the Biblical laws against race-mixing and sodomy, both of which were nowhere near as prevalent in the early 20th century as they are in the 21st. Today’s Churches try to pretend those laws do not exist or that they meant something else, in the same way as they have twisted the love for your neighbour law. It goes without saying that love for your neighbour and being prepared to die for those you love had always been interpreted to mean love for your nation and being prepared to die defending it, up until the modern church twisted it to mean love for the Antichrist and his army of barbarians.

All the best of our earlier beliefs were incorporated into Christianity, giving rise to much of our Christian customs and iconography, as well as our festivals. The ancient gods began life as our ancestors and we never stopped honoring them until today. Christianity commands us to honour our ancestors and it helped keep them alive for us by recording their exploits so that they could be passed down to later generations. Christian monks would painstakingly copy out the classics of our past, documenting our previous beliefs so that we might remember the early years of our race. They educated the people so that they might understand our history and contribute to the continuing story themselves.

Attacking Christianity does not help our cause. It shows a lack of knowledge about our first millennium history as recorded by our own people and shows a great disrespect to our ancestors who lived and died for it. It inspired them to create the most amazing works of art and architecture, some of the finest high culture that the world has ever seen. Its laws formed the basis for our societies and enabled them to become stable enough for us to form world conquering empires. Now we have rejected it our people lack the faith to wish to die defending their homeland. They lack the love for their own people that should have prevented the Muslims from ever setting foot on our shores. They lack the moral fibre to stand up against the promotion of homosexuality and promiscuity. Without it our nations have become weak and easy prey for the Jews and the hordes of untermenschen that they have invited in.

The whole Pagan against Christian mind-set is a distraction from what really matters and is like arguing over who was better, you as a child or you as an adult. There is much that is inspiring about the Pagan myths and that is because they are ours, the same as Christianity is ours. Just like Christianity is being warped and universalised, our Pagan myths are too, with the gods being turned into gay transvestite comic book characters and Jesus being turned into a Negro. This is unacceptable, both are a part of our history, both belong to us and came from us and both need defending from the dogs and the swine seeking to trample them. To join them in attacking our heritage like that is to go against everything that made us what we are today.

Instead of attacking Christianity, we should be promoting the parts of it that are most needed in our struggle, just as the National Socialists did. To do anything else means accepting defeat and handing our inheritance over to the enemy.