Similar posts

Feldmarschall #fundie google.no

Adolescents are adults, Adult is someone who is mature, these ‘adolescents’ have matured enough their sexual organs and their cognitive abilities, adolescence has never existed, was created by psychiatrists a century ago, in ancient Rome, ‘adolescent’ was another word For young adults even aged 30 year olds, in no society before the invention of psychiatry was considered the existence of something called ‘adolescence’ for those under 20’s.

5 yrs old are children (an nondeveloped human), 14 yrs old are adults (a developed human, indeed young adult is the biological term, ‘adolescent’ is the false psychiatrical concept), and as an adult must have the same rights and obligations as the rest of adults

Tyler V #fundie rationalists.wordpress.com

[On whether Barack Obama may be an atheist]

Yeah, I’d hope for agnostic. Atheistic leaders dont have the best track record… Stalin, Mao, Hoxsa, Cruschev, Castro… I guess it has something to do with the whole denial of the basis for the universal and inalienable human value, dignity, and rights. Easier to trample all over people when you see them as the “unfit” rather than image bearers.

[“Easier to trample all over people when you see them as the “unfit” rather than image bearers.”
I think you are confusing atheist, with social Darwinist.]

so an atheist can pick and choose when evolution is involved? arent we an evolved species? wouldnt we have fit/unfit species? isnt it in the best interest of the species to eliminate the unfit from the breed? so evolution is the controlling factor of life on earth… except when its not…?

Biblegenderroles #sexist biblicalgenderroles.com

In fact, women occupy the second of three social classes of humanity that God designed.

The Three Social Classes Ordained by God

Contrary to modern Western and American ideals about equality God’s original design of mankind features a social order with three classes of people.

God’s First-Class Citizen – Man as God’s Image Bearer

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Genesis 1:27 (KJV)

There are a great number of Christian theologians that misread this famous Biblical account of the creation of man and woman. This passage does NOT teach that God created “them” (male and female) in his image. It clearly states “in the image of God created he HIM”. Many Christian teachers (even non-feminist teachers) have tried to argue that because “man” can refer to mankind that this can mean “So God created mankind in his own image”. That is absolutely true that sometimes “man” (or Adam as it is in the original Hebrew) can refer to an individual man or mankind in general. The problem with this interpretation in this particular passage is found in the second phrase with the word “him” which is a translation of the Hebrew phrase “eth haa-‘adam” which literally means “this same man”.

So in Genesis 1:27 the Scriptures are telling us “God created Adam in his own image, in the image of God created he this same Adam. Male and Female created he them.”

This passage tells us two very important truths. God created man (male human beings) in his image and also that he created women as well. It does not say he created women in his image, only that he created women.

And if there was any doubt as to the correct interpretation of this passage God gave the Apostle Paul this divine commentary on Genesis account:

“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” I Corinthians 11:7 (KJV)

God’s Second-Class Citizen – Woman the helper to man

“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” – Genesis 2:18 (KJV)

In Genesis chapter 2 we see that God did not want Adam to be alone and so he created a helper for him. Now a helper can be one in authority (like a manager who helps his workers), a helper can be an equal partner or a helper can be a subordinate. So which kind of helper did not create Eve to be? The Genesis account tells us that Adam named her type “woman” and later he even gave her personal name which was Eve. This was a sign that she would be a subordinate helper, not an authority helper nor an equal partner. Throughout the Old Testament this is maintained when we see that men ruled over women and that husbands could override any decision of their wives and fathers could override any decision of their daughters (Numbers 30).

Multiple New Testament passages confirm that woman was designed by God to be a subordinate helper to man.

“Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.” I Peter 3:1-2 (KJV)

“22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” Ephesians 5:22-24 (KJV)

God designed woman to be man’s subordinate helper in many ways. She helps him by bearing and caring for his home and his children (1 Timothy 5:14). She helps him by being a faithful companion (Proverbs 31:11, Malachi 2:14). She helps him by bringing him sexual pleasure (Proverbs 5:15-19). But another way she helps her husband is simply by being “the weaker vessel” (1 Timothy 5:14) and needing his leadership, provision and protection. A man cannot fully image God as he was designed to do without being a husband and father and woman helps him in this way to fulfill image God to his fullest capability.

So, if you are asking “Why did God make women to be second class citizens?” the answer is found in a passage we just stated above:

“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.” Ephesians 5:23 (KJV)

Not only was man made to image God and thus bring glory to him but marriage between a man and woman was made by God to model the relationship between God and his people. So, by fully embracing their status as second-class citizens to men women help men to fully image God and also model the relationship between God and his people.

To our equality obsessed world this makes no sense but this is why we as Christians are called to honor women for being the second-class citizens God designed them to be (I Peter 3:7).

Let me put this another way. God could have made a partner for man that was his equal in every way. In fact, God could have created man as a hermaphrodite (with both sexes) and then humans could have just chosen any other human as partners. They could have equally broken up the division of having children, caring for the home, leading, providing and protecting. If what I just said sounds familiar it is because this is exactly what our culture does today. We promote homosexuality and gender equality – both ideologies which are in direct contradiction to God’s Word and his design.

But if humans existed in pair bonded relationships as equals this would not have properly modeled the relationship of God to his people. Only if there were two genders with one dependent on the other for their leadership, provision and protection could the relationship of God to his people be properly modeled.

Hostage #fundie freerepublic.com

[> “If I plate a bacteria out, blot it on ten different plates - then subject it to ten different stresses - I will get a heat resistant strain through evolution, a cold resistant strain through evolution, an antibiotic resistant strain, etc, etc.”]

Yes but you still have bacteria. You don’t have an amoeba and yet left-wing anti-God evolutionists will project frogs and fish from such experiments.

What you are describing is natural selection, a generational form of adaptation.

If I work out passionately with heavy weights I can metamorphose to something in a category more akin to a Mr. Universe.

If I equip a room with heavy weight lifting equipment and teach weight lifting then I am a progenitor of buff persons, a form of natural selection because they came to me of their own will influenced by external causes such as primitive urges to mate with stronger partners (from the physical perspective). But still they are humans.

The evolutionists that stretch natural selection, survival of the fittest and metamorphosis into a theory of ape to man have twisted scientific results to fit their atheistic or satanic beliefs. They are simply against God and want nothing more than to use science to further their anti-God agenda.

“CE”, “BCE”, Remove “Under God” from the Pledge, etc. and “Evolution” are all part of the same schtick of persons who think they are somehow superior and who find Christians to be an easy target to treat with their particular form of torment.

Evolution is not, has never been and will never be proven. The maximum likelihood statistical estimates used to posit evolutionary trees based on any number of observances such as genetic variation or single nucleotide polymorphisms DO NOT ADD UP to any form of proof that God never existed, that Adam was a fable, the flood never occurred or that Christ never conquered death. In fact one could say or think that Christ’s resurrection is a metamorphosis of earthly spiritual death back to spiritual immortality. And if you think things of the ‘spirit’ do not exist, you are blind. Within humanity it is all around you. Spirit and soul are just as tangible as flesh and blood, and are manifested in Good and Evil.

So yes we can go into the lab and perform genetic crossovers or gene knockout/insertion experiments and watch yeast or whatever model transform itself into more adaptable organisms of the same type. We have proved nothing in regards to God except that by concluding from such experiments that God does not exist we merely prove ourselves to be spiritual retards.

‘Spirit’ exists and is just as verifiable as your bacteria. Try doing a little ‘Science’ on the many species of ‘Spirit’ and you will end up in politics. Hopefully you will find the Bible to be your code map. Good luck or should I say God be with you and ‘select’ you to His will, blessing you with real worth rather than leaving you to continue with your effing little pissant rant against Christianity using ‘Evolution’ as your creed.

joy4him2day #fundie rr-bb.com

A few of us have discovered someone in our church who has multiple personalities (demon possession) who is "occupying" and "distracting" people who could be ministering to those who are truly "seeking"........we feel they are being "planted" to keep real work from being done, because they refuse help.....only attention.........

Linda Cebrian #fundie rhobserver.com

It started as a plea for societal tolerance. Over 40 years later, it has become a demand for advocacy – by minor children.

On April 19, student members of pro-homosexual clubs in public high schools may remain silent for the entire school day to entreat sympathy for students affected by same-sex attraction and/or gender confusion. This “day of silence” seeks to promote the LGBTQ image as normative adolescent sexual development, thus encouraging a “gay” identity at an early age. Meanwhile, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports the cold fact that 2 percent of the U.S. population engaged in homosexual sodomy in 2010, resulting in 62 percent of all new HIV cases that year.

Schools and parents who allow this event are doing a disservice to our youth. “LGBTQ” is not ontological. No one is born/created that way. Does it make sense to advocate for a lifestyle choice proven to shorten one’s lifespan?

Interestingly, as this “day of silence” stumps for sexual minorities, it does not acknowledge or affirm former homosexuals. So Parents & Friends of Ex-Gays has developed a handbill for students and their parents promoting recognition of ex-gays. (http://pfox.org/school_resources_handout.pdf)

Linda Cebrian
Rhinebeck

pdance #conspiracy youtube.com

Evolution is the scientific basis for atheism and for the secular society that many politicians want to build. If evolution can be proven wrong, then the whole secular model falls with a loud crash. That is why so much money is channeled into evolutionist research. Dont be mistaken, your government want you to believe in evolution, rather than in God, simply because it is much easier to control a secular society where the prime minister is the ultimate authority.?

Mike King #conspiracy tomatobubble.com

Enter the word "appeasement" into a Google Search browser, and then click on "Images". You will see image after image after image of UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, whose very name is synonymous with "appeasement" and weakness in the face of a bully.

As the tiresome cliched story goes, Chamberlain "appeased" Hitler at the Munich Conference (September 1938) by handing over Czechoslovakia to his domination. War was thus averted, but Hitler was now emboldened by Chamberlain's "appeasement."

That's the official moronic fairy tale; a fable that has been recently resurrected and repeated to wrongly describe the CIA's manufactured crisis in Ukraine and the dangers of "appeasing" Putin.

NOW, ONCE AGAIN, THE REAL STORY!

At the conclusion of World War I, the victorious allies rewrote the map of Central & Eastern Europe. The artificial state of "Czechoslovakia" was pieced together in 1918, combining Czechs, Germans & Slovaks under the new state. Additional minorities of Romanians, Hungarians, and Poles were also forced to live under this 'Frankenstein' state. The German portion (formerly part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire) was a long strip of northern territory known as "Sudetenland."

During the mid 1930's, a closet Communist named Edvard Benes is President of Czechosolvakia. Under his regime, Germans endure brutal attacks and oppression at the hands of Marxists. The 3,500,000 Sudetenland Germans wish to join their German brothers under Hitler's Reich, but are denied the right of self determination by the pro Stalinist Benes government.

During this time, Jewish & Globalist warmongers in Great Britain are maneuvering Britain into a war against Germany. The Czechoslovakia-Sudetenland controversy is the perfect "hot spot" to get the war started. In an attempt to force Hitler's hand, Czech Marxists intensify their abuse of the helpless Germans.

Hitler is pushed to the brink by the deliberate abuse of the Sudetenland Germans. He threatens to liberate the Sudetenland by force, a move that could lead to war with Britain, France, and the USSR. In an 11th hour attempt to avoid war, Hitler invites three European leaders for a conference in Munich.

The Munich Conference is attended by four European heads of State. Hitler, Mussolini of Italy, Daladier of France, and Chamberlain of Britain meet in good faith for the purpose of resolving the crisis triggered by the artificial gangster State of Czechoslovakia.

The parties agree that the Sudetenland should rightfully be united with Germany, and that the Slovaks should also have their own State. (Slovak Republic 1939-1945).

The fake Czechoslovakian state is disolved and Germany establishes autonomus protectorates over what remains (Bohemia and Moravia). Without a shot being fired, Germans are welcomed into the Reich, while ethnic Czechs and Slovaks also get their own states. Even the minority Poles and Hungarians then join their respective father nations. The Munich Agreement is a win-win-win-win--win for all 5 of Czechoslovakia's ethnic groups!

The rat Benes soon exiles himself in London, where he resumes plotting with the Jewish warmongers who welcome him with open arms.

Upon his return to Britain, Chamberlain is greeted by jubilant crowds. He applauds the Munich Agreement as "peace in our time". All throughout Europe, Chamberlain is praised for his calm diplomacy.

Meanwhile, the degenerate, drunken, cigar chomping Winston Churchill denounces Neville Chamberlain, "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Churchill said.

British historian David Irving later discovered that the warmongering Czech government had been secretly funneling money to the warmongering Churchill, who was plotting to replace Chamberlain.

Upon his triumphal visit to the liberated German Sudetenland, Hitler receives a hero's welcome.

In the summer of 1939, the Globalist warmongers manipulate Poland (which also holds an oppressed German minority captive) into provoking Hitler, exactly as Czechoslovakia had done in 1938. Once again, Hitler calls for an emergency conference.

But by this time around, poor Neville Chamberlain's hands have been tied by the powerful pro war forces in Britain. Less than 1 week before the conflict erupts, Chamberlain had been manuevered into signing a military defense pact with Poland. There will be no peace talks!

By September 1 of 1939, the killing of Germans at the hands of Polish-Jewish Communist militias becomes so widespread that Hitler is forced to invade. Britain and France immediately declare war upon Germany. The gloating Churchill boasts of how his self fulfilling propehecy regarding the danger of "appeasement" has come to pass.

Thus was born the FABLE of Neville Chamberlain's "appeasement"!

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Is BioLogos Promoting Heresy?

BioLogos is an organization that is using millions of dollars (including considerable funding by the Templeton Foundation) to try to convince Christian leaders, Christians, and churches to adopt the ideas of evolution and billions of years into the Bible. On their website we read:

BioLogos invites the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.
One of their core commitments states:

"We affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years."

But are they just trying to impose evolutionary ideas onto God’s Word? No! It’s much more than that—they are trying to impose what I believe is really a heretical view of God’s character and the gospel. Can I justify this? Well, you judge for yourself.

On February 15, 2016, BioLogos posted a video by Rev. Leonard J. Vander Zee, who has an MDiv from Calvin Theological Seminary, and is a former pastor of South Bend (Indiana) Christian Reformed Church.

The president of BioLogos, Deborah Haarsma, is former professor and chair in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where BioLogos is currently located. She stated this about Reverand Vander Zee’s presentation.

"He began to preach an amazing visual sermon, spinning a tale of wonder and beauty about “the true story of the whole world” (as N. T. Wright calls the Bible). Len brought the key events from billions of years of natural history right alongside the biblical narrative, with scientific images and beautiful artwork. My jaw dropped as he described the scientific wonders of the Big Bang as a reflection of the joy of the Trinity—God the Father, Son, and Spirit. He told the story of the evolution of plants and animals as an expression of God’s creativity, something we celebrate at BioLogos. He told of the development of the first humans and of how our sin tore us away from God’s intended path. He brought us on a journey through God’s plan for salvation in Jesus Christ and finally to the end of all things in God’s restored creation."

Now the entire almost 12-minute video is on the BioLogos website and on YouTube. It’s nothing more than taking the secular/atheistic evolutionary views and attributing every aspect of evolution and billions of years to God!

I encourage you to watch the entire video later, but first watch these segments I have selected:

(Video clips on website)

So, Reverend Vander Zee attributes millions of years of evolutionary processes (that involve death, suffering, disease, and bloodshed) to God—which itself is an attack on the character of our Holy God. But obviously he has no place for a literal Adam and Eve and literal Fall. He implies that there are more than two humans that evolved and that the whole universe and all life are in this continuous evolutionary progression.

Now watch this segment where he mentions sin—seemingly as something that is part of this evolutionary progression that spreads through human kind—not original sin by one man as the Bible clearly teaches (Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:21–22)

Now watch how he describes salvation.

Reverend Vander Zee seems to be saying that salvation means that we evolve into some glorified state. Here are his words in print:

"I want you to notice something important here that often gets lost in telling the Christian story. Salvation is not about leaving behind our broken humanity or the spoiled created order. Salvation is about becoming human, and as restored human beings in the image of God, bringing the created order to its full glory. Here is how Paul puts it in Romans 8, “The whole creation stands on tiptoe, waiting for the revealing of the children of God . . . in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay into the freedom and glory of the children of God” (Rom. 8:18–20, paraphrase). Jesus Christ is the true and human image of the invisible God. By faith in Christ, through his shed blood and victorious resurrection, we are being restored by the Spirit to our true human identity as image-bearers of God. As Paul puts it, “We . . . are being transformed into his image with ever increasing glory” (2 Corinthians 3:18)."

What could this possibly mean? He says, “Salvation is not about leaving behind our broken humanity” (a statement consistent with theistic evolutionists’ denial of Adam and Eve’s literal Fall). Yet we’re “restored” as “human beings in the image of God,” and we’re “restored” as humans “to our true human identity as image-bearers of God.” The definition of restore is “reestablish,” “to bring back to a former, original, or normal condition.”3 Which is it? If humanity wasn’t broken in the beginning, why restore it?

If, instead, Reverend Vander Zee actually meant “to bring back to a former, original, or normal condition” when he used the term “restore,” then what was the original condition? The original state (according to his evolutionary view) was deplorable—an existence filled with death and suffering and disease and every other evolutionary process that gave rise to humans! Since salvation normally denotes our eternal hope, are we as Christians to comfort ourselves in an eternity of death and suffering and disease and every other nasty evolutionary process?

Furthermore, Reverend Vander Zee says, “Salvation is not about leaving behind . . . the spoiled created order.” If so, then perhaps the current world in which we live—the one filled with death, suffering, disease, and bloodshed—will remain eternally. Is this picture any prettier or something to look forward to?

Whichever way you try to understand it, in the context of Reverend Vander Zee’s evolutionary narrative, his statement on salvation is confused and seriously contrary to Scripture.

Theistic evolutionists can’t have it both ways. If you take away from the Christian worldview of the literal Fall and its cosmic effects, what happens to the Bible’s teaching about the new heavens and new earth? Is there any room for heaven in the theistic evolutionary worldview? Once you whittle away the beginning and the end of the story from the Christian gospel, is there much left to gut?

Not surprisingly, the BioLogos organization has a statement of faith that lacks any clear position on the Christian’s future hope. They claim to “believe in the historical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, by which we are saved and reconciled to God,” but with respect to whether Jesus will return bodily, whether hell exists, and whether heaven is a place free of death and suffering, BioLogos has no explicit statement.

Why not? It probably goes back to their first—and even bigger—omission in their statement of faith: “We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God.” Do you see what’s missing? They don’t explicitly endorse the inerrancy of Scripture! So they’re free to distort the beginning and the end of the Christian history of redemption. When BioLogos finishes their campaign, what will be left of Christianity?

Personally, I call it heresy because the definition of heresy is

"opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system."

Reverend Vander Zee’s description of salvation is a logical consequence of the acceptance of man’s fallible atheistic evolutionary beliefs combined with God’s infallible Word. BioLogos wants to call this “evolutionary creation”—but in reality it’s “theistic evolution,” which is only one step away from atheistic evolution. And the one step away is, in reality, one generation away, as we see increasing numbers of the millennial generation walking away from the church and rejecting the clear teachings of God’s Word. Compromised teaching like this from BioLogos is a major cause of this falling away, as revealed in the research we’ve had conducted and detailed in Already Gone and Ready to Return.

The thrust of BioLogos is not in accord with the biblical doctrines of Christianity; thus it is in reality from the spirit of anti-Christ. Church, be warned!

Djhives #conspiracy djhives.blogspot.com

QUESTION:

Will the vaccine be given to the children first or to the adults? I will ask it another way: Who is the intended target of this round of LIFEKILL adults? Or children?

Is it better to keep the children alive and kill off their parents and raise a new generation of government addicet welfare orphans? Is the indocturnation of the new peacfull new world order EASIER to implement in orphaniazed children VS adults?

Or, do the resources children require (ie they need food, shelter, and most of all cannot WORK) translate into an EXTRA BURDEN on the living Earth and its precious resources?

Is it better to save adults? At least they can be made to WORK and require less resources than children do (ie adults can survive in a crapmed house/hive unit).

So who is the TRUE intended target here and why? And please explain your logic behind your conclusions....

hives

Old Man Montgomery #fundie oldmanmontgomery.wordpress.com

[=Authors Note: For the sake of trimming, some of the Bible verses in the original page have been removed=]

From the website of ‘johnshore.com’

These were published and dated December 16, 2010. I have only recently become aware of this ‘movement’ via Facebook. (One never knows what one will find there.) These are referred to as the “Sixteen Tenets of ‘unfundamentalist Christians’ , known also or previously known as ‘ThruWay Christians’. Being the old-fashioned, hard-nosed Bible thumper that I am, I disagree with some facets of this and the conclusions of the entirety.

Of course I have reasons and those reasons are published below. Just for convenience, I numbered the statements, replacing what appeared in my copy as a paragraph ‘dot’.

Just for the record, as the article was dated December 16, 2010, it is entirely possible Mr. Shore has completely changed his mind and recanted this whole document. On the other hand, I just checked Mr. Shore’s last blog entry and he’s still pitching the “UnFund” theme.

Caution: If the reader is not a Christian believer, much of this discussion will seem pointless. Feel free to read on, but if you’re confused, don’t worry, it happens to lots of folks.

Here beings the tenets:

1. Jesus Christ was God incarnate. He performed miracles; as a means of providing for the irrevocable reconciliation of humankind to God he sacrificed himself on the cross; he rose from the dead; he left behind for the benefit of all people the totality of himself in the form of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

So far, I’m in agreement. Jesus is God incarnate; the ‘Son’ who is God Himself. Jesus was executed and killed (no alternatives) on a Roman cross under Roman law. Jesus’ death was the final sacrifice needed to atone for the sin of all people who appeal to Him for forgiveness. Jesus rose from the dead on the third day showing Himself to be God and giving a promise to all of an Eternal life in Heaven with Him. He sent the Third Person of the Godhead, the ‘Holy Spirit’ to believers after His ascension.

2. Christ and Christianity are meant to be understood, appreciated, and experienced as galvanizing inspirations for living a life of love, compassion, fairness, peace, and humility. Period.

Now we’re disagreeing. The primary purpose and function of Christianity is to repair the breach between God and mankind due to mankind’s rebellion and disobedience. Being forgiven by Jesus and redeemed by His sacrifice, mankind can have a direct and proper relationship with God. The qualities of love, compassion, fairness, peace and humility are by-products of that proper relationship, not the primary aim.

Am I splitting hairs here? Not as much as one might think; the matter becomes clearer as we proceed.

3. The Bible is a collection of a great many separate documents written by different people in different languages over thousands of years. Properly understanding both the letter and spirit of the Bible necessarily entails taking into account the historical and cultural contexts that so greatly inform so much of its text. The size, density, history and complexity of the Bible render unfeasible the idea that not one of its words reflects more man’s will than God’s. The spirit of God is inerrant; people—even those impassioned by the conviction that God is speaking directly to or through them—are not.

The one starts out well and descends into heresy. The Bible was written over a period of approximately 1500 years. The Books of Moses, the Torah – sometimes Pentateuch, was written in the period between the Exodus from Egypt, around 1400 B. C. to the time of the Babylonian Captivity, around 600 to 530 B. C. (give or take a decade or so.) The book of Revelation, written by John the Apostle was written around 90 A. D. The rest was written somewhere in between, with the possible exception of Job. Job was one of the earliest sections written and may predate Moses. The Bible was assuredly written by at least forty different authors. (For instance, the books of Judges, Kings and Chronicles were written over periods of time and one author could not have written them all; they require accounts from events several hundred years apart. The Torah was more than likely written by a number of scribes with Moses or a later, Babylonian scholar as ‘editor’ and having final input. Genesis is obviously based on oral traditions of the Israelite nation.) The books reflect social conventions and cultural coloring of the times involved.

However, it is the message of Almighty God to humanity. No matter how much a human can foul up, the integrity of the message is based on God’s ability to ensure His message is properly passed on. No human can foul up or outright lie good enough to defeat God’s purpose. So as much as mankind wrote the words on paper (papyrus or whatever), the ‘Word’ (Greek ‘logos’, meaning idea, identity or concept) is that of God. As such, it is inerrant in message.

The idea of the Bible being ‘written by man and therefore possibly distorted’ is an old heresy. It was argued about in the earliest councils trying to settle on the ‘Bible’ and is the basis for several cults who claim to be Christian, but rely on teachings of extra Biblical origin. The heresy also finds much favor among those who wish to discredit any one particular facet of Christian doctrine. Under any version, the idea the Bible isn’t correct means either God really doesn’t care about the message or God is incapable of protecting His own plan. Christians cannot in good faith (no pun intended) accept either alternative.

4. Anyone seeking to mix church and state has failed to understand the nature and proper role of either. Belief that all people are created equal and are deserving of equal protection under the law is foundational to all modern democratic nations. To incorporate the inherently exclusionary imperatives of a particular religion into the determinedly inclusive system of democracy would be to undermine the very spirit of democracy by pushing it toward a theocracy.

This is a pretty silly statement and is highly ignorant of history. The ‘foundational’ belief of people being created equal and deserving equal protection under law is uniquely derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is not found in Islam, Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism or any of the other ‘religions’ of the world. It is Christianity that fostered Democracy, not Democracy that fostered Christianity.

Additionally, it was Christian believers and supporters who founded the United States as a nation with no state religion. The United States was not founded as a ‘Christian nation’, but was indeed begun as a ‘nation of Christians’. To pretend otherwise is to ignore history and to invite serious question as to the point of the discussion. One must also note that all movements to ‘remove’ the influence of Christianity from the United States and civil laws result in the promotion of either Secular Humanism or Islam.

There are no moral vacuums.

5. It’s not possible to read Paul’s New Testament writings and remain unmoved by his open heart, intellectual prowess, and staggering bravery. And yet Paul (who, after all, spent years zealously persecuting and having executed untold numbers of Christians) must remain to us a mortal man. More than reasonable, it is incumbent upon those who claim to seek the deepest knowledge of Christ to subject the words of Paul to the same kinds of objective analysis we would the words of any man daring to describe the qualities, purposes, and desires of God.

This is a gentle, lofty and seemingly reasonable attempt to undermine the message presented by God through Paul the Apostle. What this statement does is deny the Divine inspiration and authorship of the Bible as a whole. It returns to the fore in a moment with more of the ‘villify Paul’ agenda.

6. With regards to the written identity of God, the pronoun “he” is a necessity of the English language, not an actual anatomical designation. God is neither male nor female; God contains all of both.

Again, agreement. In Hebrew, just as in English, the male pronoun unless specifically intended refers to both male and female. Jesus says (John 4:23 and 24)“But a time is coming – and now is here – when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers. God is spirit, and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” Also one notes in Genesis (chapter one, verses 26 and 27)
“Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”
God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them.

So, both male and female were (still are, more or less, being distorted from the original model by mankind’s disobedience) created in God’s image; which manifestly means not a physical image, but a mental and spiritual image.

7. The Biblical scholarship supporting the idea that Paul never wrote a word proscribing natural homosexuality is at least as credible and persuasive as the scholarship (if not typical Bible translations) claiming that he did. Any person who uses the words of Paul in the New Testament to “prove” that homosexuality is a sin against God has either never themselves researched the matter, or has simply chosen to believe one set of equal proofs over another. Though laziness is easily enough understood, we remain mystified as to why anyone who purports to follow Jesus would choose to condemn an entire population over choosing to obey Jesus’ self-proclaimed Greatest Commandment to love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself.

Here’s the follow up to point 5. Once Paul is ‘questionable’, the condemnation of homosexuality can be dismissed as a personal quirk, or possibly an outright error on the part of Christianity (on the whole).

Here’s the premise of the tenet: Paul either really didn’t mean what he wrote about the practice of homosexuality despite what is clearly written in the original Greek manuscripts and all subsequent translations of the Bible, or Paul was mistaken and therefore not inspired by God. What an amazing statement.

Either God inspired and authored the Bible or not. If one chooses to deny God’s inspiration in part, then the whole becomes suspect. If God was lax in allowing Paul to write and publish errors, then what of the rest of the Bible is trustworthy? Conversely, if God did in fact inspire and author the Bible, then Paul’s writing is equally trustworthy.

Leviticus 18
This entire section (several chapters) deals with sexual sins and prohibitions. In part (I have inserted whole paragraphs to present an in context view):
19 You must not approach a woman in her menstrual impurity to have sexual intercourse with her. 20 You must not have sexual intercourse with the wife of your fellow citizen to become unclean with her. 21 You must not give any of your children as an offering to Molech, so that you do not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord! 22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act. 23 You must not have sexual intercourse with any animal to become defiled with it, and a woman must not stand before an animal to have sexual intercourse with it; it is a perversion.
Leviticus 20
9 “‘If anyone curses his father and mother he must be put to death. He has cursed his
father and mother; his blood guilt is on himself. 10 If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. 11 If a man has sexual intercourse with his father’s wife, he has exposed his father’s nakedness. Both of them must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 12 If a man has sexual intercourse with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. They have committed perversion; their blood guilt is on themselves. 13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 14 If a man has sexual intercourse with both a woman and her mother, it is lewdness. Both he and they must be burned to death, so there is no lewdness in your midst. 15 If a man has sexual intercourse with any animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal to have sexual intercourse with it, you must kill the woman, and the animal must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.

These two passages are from the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament. One can argue these are part of the Jewish or Mosaic Law and are therefore obsolete; in that case, general adultery, incest and bestiality are also permitted along with homosexual conduct. Or is that the point?

First Timothy 1 (written by that suspect Paul fellow)

8 But we know that the law is good if someone uses it legitimately, 9 realizing that law is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers – in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching. 11 This accords with the glorious gospel of the blessed God that was entrusted to me.

There is a note on the phrase ‘practicing homosexuals’ in verse 10 from the NET Bible: “…this term… ??se?????t?? states, “a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9…of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. µa?a???…1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27.” L&N 88.280 states, “a male partner in homosexual intercourse – ‘homosexual.’…It is possible that ??se?????t?? in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with µa?a???, the passive male partner” (cf. 1 Cor 6:9). Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification “practicing” was supplied in the translation…”

First Corinthians 6 (also written by that questionable Paul)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

This last passage strikes me an illuminating. Homosexuals are included in a list of sin categories which include heterosexual sexual sinners, idolaters, adulterers (distinct from ‘sexually immoral heterosexuals), thieves, greedy, drunkards, verbally abusive and swindlers. The phrase ‘verbally abusive’ is rather interesting. The NIV translates it as ‘slanderers’; I think ‘gossips’ might easily fit into the meaning. At any rate, people who say nasty things about others are lumped in with murderers, thieves and the sexually immoral (of any type).

The last verse in the paragraph implies a change of life in those reading the letter. “Some of you … lived… But you were washed… sanctified… justified…” So they were not just forgiven and allowed to continue; they changed their values and life-styles. The same implication applies to the sexually impure; they don’t do that sort of thing anymore; they avoid that sort of thing; they are ashamed of and denounce their own past behavior.

Therefore, the Old Testament writings prohibited homosexual conduct as does the writings of Paul, therefore the New Testament. The words used really do mean homosexual conduct and not just the generic ‘sexual misconduct’.

I’m really curious about the ‘equal scholarship’ which demonstrates what the Bible says isn’t what it means. I’d like to examine the line of thought and arguments.

The statement “…Jesus’ self-proclaimed Greatest Commandment to love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself” is incorrect and sloppy scholarship.

Matthew 22:
35 And one of them, an expert in religious law, asked him a question to test him: 36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 Jesus 44 said to him, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.

This tenet goes past ‘unfundamentalism’ and is squarely non-Christian.

8. It is much more reasonable—and certainly more compassionate—to hold that throughout history God chose to introduce himself in different ways into different cultural streams than it is to believe that there is only one correct way to understand and worship God, and that the punishment for anyone who chooses any but that way is to spend all of eternity having the living flesh seared off of his or her bones.

More reasonable? By who’s standard? As a Christian, the only viewpoint that counts is God’s viewpoint. That ‘viewpoint’ is expressed in the Bible, which is – as noted prior – God’s message to humanity.

More compassionate? To whom? Not to mention under what definition of ‘compassion’? I find no compassion in patting someone in error on the head and say comforting words while allowing them to remain in error at the risk of Eternal Death.

So let’s go along with the idea of God introducing Himself into different cultural streams in different ways. Why would introduce Himself in a totally different manner if He’s the same, Eternal God? For instance, in the sub-continent which is now India, why would God decide not to be the Eternal God of Creation of the Jewish people, but instead be represented by a pantheon of conflicting gods which change over time? Why would Almighty God manifest Himself as the volcano god, demanding virgin sacrifices? Would God happily change Himself into the Great Green Arkleseizure of Viltvodle VI?

Is He still God? Is He bored and just experimenting? Can He not remember who He is, from epoch to epoch?

The idea appeals to the ‘open-minded’ who have no ideas about who God is, or what He should be or do. The concept flies in the face of the ultimate creator of the Universe and all things that exist, who is Eternal and changeless, who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. In other words, God.

Again, not just ‘unfundamentalist’, but not very good thinking and doctrinally non Christian.

9. “No one comes to the Father except through me” does not mean that in the afterlife only Christians can get into heaven. It means that Jesus/God decides who does and doesn’t make it in.

From this one is forced to believe Jesus will not judge between those who accept Him and those who don’t, but instead will judge by ad hoc rules of ‘good behavior’. I say ‘ad hoc’ because no such rules are outlined in the Bible.

All that stuff about believing in the Son and relying on Him in tenet 1 are out the window, then? It is good deeds that really make the difference?

This heresy is remarkably old as well. It predates Christianity, in fact.

Jesus mentioned this concept in Matthew Seven, starting with verse 15:
15 “Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruit. Grapes are not gathered from thorns or figs from thistles, are they? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will recognize them by their fruit.
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven – only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!’
24 “Everyone who hears these words of mine and does them is like a wise man who built his house on rock. 25 The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, but it did not collapse because it had been founded on rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, and it collapsed; it was utterly destroyed!”
So then, what about “… the one who does the will of my Father in heaven…”? John 15, starting with verse nine makes it clear:
9 “Just as the Father has loved me, I have also loved you; remain in my love. 10 If you obey my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commandments and remain in his love. 11 I have told you these things so that my joy may be in you, and your joy may be complete.”

Nowhere in the Bible, nowhere in the quotations of Jesus, nowhere in the letters of the various apostles and elders in Jerusalem is any such doctrine mentioned or taught. In one setting (John 10:14-18), Jesus says,
14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me – 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father – and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me – because I lay down my life, so that I may take it back again. 18 No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”

Verse 16 is often used to ‘prove’ the heresy of various versions of God and or Jesus running about in human history, showing up in various forms and guises. One fellow seriously suggested it could indicate the existence of extra-terrestrial life. Actually, the statement simply indicates non-Jewish people were included. That’s all.

I personally don’t have any problem with extra-terrestrial life, or any of them being in Heaven. But it will be on the basis of an individual relationship with Jesus Christ.

I am also firmly convinced all the inhabitants of planet Earth will have adequate notice of the person and Deity of Jesus Christ. God is not the sort of being who looks for tiny excuses and ‘foot-faults’ to disqualify anyone from Heaven.

10. The question of whether or not hell is real is properly subsumed by the truth that a moment spent worrying if you’ll be with God in the afterlife is an opportunity missed to be with God in this life.

I agree. There is no point of wondering, let alone worrying, if Hell is real. Jesus talks about it too much to be in doubt. It isn’t pleasant, but it’s there. One is obliged to take note and do something to avoid residence.

11. God’s will and intention is to forgive and teach us, not to judge and punish us.

That is true, but only to a qualified extent. Jesus came to Earth as a mortal man to tell us what to do to avoid Eternal punishment and die in our place to pay the price for our sin. Obviously, God the Father was in on this plan as was the Holy Spirit.

God really does not want anyone to spend Eternity in Hell. However, since all mankind is in the default position of being in rebellion against God, mankind is by default condemned to Eternal Hell.

The words of Jesus in John, chapter three:
16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. 18 The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. 19 Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed. 21 But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done in God.
God is loving and concerned. God is simultaneously honest and just. God is God and that means – in a long list of other things – He will always conduct Himself as God and be true to His own nature.

There are also a number of references warning that when Jesus returns – ‘The Second Coming’ – He will in fact judge all people according to their alliances.

12. The only person who should be actively endeavoring to convert non-Christians into Christians is God. Jesus does not need our help drawing people towards him. He does need, or could certainly use, our help in making sure that people know that they are, just as they are, loved.

This statement directly contradicts the command of Jesus.

Matthew 28:16-20
16 So the eleven disciples went to Galilee to the mountain Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age

Acts 1
6 So when they had gathered together, they began to ask him, “Lord, is this the time when you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He told them, “You are not permitted to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth.” 9 After he had said this, while they were watching, he was lifted up and a cloud hid him from their sight.

First Peter 3
15 But set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts and always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess. (“Hope” here meaning the expectation of Eternal life with God.)

So in this statement again, the concept is not ‘un-fundamentalist’ but ‘un-Christian’.

13. Getting a divorce is painful, and if at all possible should certainly be avoided. But ultimately the act in and of itself is not immoral.

This statement flatly contradicts Jesus’ teaching on the subject.

Matthew 5
31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a legal document.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19
3 Then some Pharisees came to him in order to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8 Jesus said to them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hard hearts, but from the beginning it was not this way. 9 Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.” 10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the case of a husband with a wife, it is better not to marry!”11 He said to them, “Not everyone can accept this statement, except those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some eunuchs who were that way from birth, and some who were made eunuchs by others, and some who became eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this should accept it.”

So yes, Jesus said divorce is an immoral act, save for the cause of adultery. Even then, the divorced man or woman is limited in options.

14. God does not want any woman “submitting” to anyone.

Another direct contradiction of Biblical teaching.

Ephesians 5
22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, 23 because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church – he himself being the savior of the body. 24 But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her 26 to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, 27 so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

Colossians 3
18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.

Oh, wait! That’s that questionable Paul again! Since Paul is so very questionable, we can ignore much of his writings – especially the parts about moral conduct, sexual misconduct and general carryings-on.

First Peter 3
1 In the same way, wives, be subject to your own husbands. Then, even if some are disobedient to the word, they will be won over without a word by the way you live, 2 when they see your pure and reverent conduct… like Sarah who obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. You become her children when you do what is good and have no fear in doing so. 7 Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as the weaker partners and show them honor as fellow heirs of the grace of life. In this way nothing will hinder your prayers.

That’s the summation of Peter the Apostle. He agrees with Paul the suspect.

15. There were no dinosaurs on Noah’s ark; Jesus didn’t have a pet stegosaurus. An all-powerful God and the theory of evolution are not incompatible.

Whooop! Whooop! Whooop! Strawman Alert!
So, just where do we find claims of dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark? Which gospel contains the story of Jesus and His pet stegosaurus? What kind of hairball ploy is this?

Okay, “An all-powerful God and the theory of evolution are not incompatible.” That part is reasonable enough. However, this isn’t a matter of doctrinal distinction; it’s a matter of textual examination.

Dinosaurs on the Ark? Sheesh.

16. The single most telling indicator of a person’s moral character has nothing to do with how they define or worship God, and everything to do with how they treat others.

So, a relationship with God isn’t important; what is important is ‘good deeds’.

Actually, this is a deceptive argument; somewhat strawman in nature. I’ll agree one’s ‘moral character’ is not always dependent on how one defines or worships God. However, one’s moral character has nothing to do with one’s Eternal estate, being in a proper relationship with God and spending Eternity with God in Heaven.

One can be a rotten skunk and be bound for Heaven, or a very decent, clean, honest and honorable person going to Hell.

I know for a fact that my moral character was – for that matter ‘is’ – not always as good and shining as it ought to be. After becoming a Christian, I have sinned grievously, often and cheerfully. But my eternal destination is already secure and in Jesus’ care. As far as God is concerned in Judgment, I am as pure as Jesus.

Which is not to say I’m content in my life that way, or at peace with God. I found I was a jittery, angry, depressed, unsettled maniac; at least some combination of two or three of those. I can hide it well, but it’s there and I am very aware of it.

What happens is this: God works on me to make me into who – the type of person – He wants me to be, fit for Heaven in Eternity.

To conclude:

“Un-fundamentalists” accept the Deity, Sacrifice, Resurrection and Redemptive nature and power of Jesus Christ. However, they also believe God has appeared in other forms and guises, seemingly revealing other versions of Himself. So Jesus really isn’t uniquely God at all.

“Un-fundamentalists” deny the Divinely Inspired nature of the Bible, strip Paul’s writing of authority and accept homosexual misconduct – and by inference, heterosexual misconduct – as both normal and moral.

“Un-fundamentalists” claim the goal of Christianity is to live a good life; ‘good’ being defined by not offending anyone, getting along with all and ignoring Biblical principles if adherence would cause a row.

“Un-fundamentalists” believe Christians should not vote in accordance with Biblical principles. Nor should laws follow the long held traditions of either Judaism or Christianity.

“Un-fundamentalists” do not assume responsibility for evangelism; in fact, evangelism is discouraged.

“Un-fundamentalists” believe God never criticizes or judges human conduct. They believe there is no Hell. After all, God isn’t going to punish anyone for anything anyway.

All things considered, “Un-fundamentalist Christian” is not a properly descriptive phrase. Citing the serious theological and doctrinal differences between this cult and mainstream Christianity, I would suggest perhaps “Nearly Christian” would be a better description. Since the first tenet does recognize Jesus as God, perhaps “Barely Christian” would do.

Now, I know some bright soul is going to jump on me with the Biblical injunction of “Judge not, lest ye be judged”. The statement comes in Matthew 7, starting with the beginning of the chapter. The whole paragraph reads as follows:

1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive. 3 Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? 5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. 6 Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces.

This whole speech is addressed at being judgmental of other people in regard to their fitness or standing before God. I am not ‘judging’ any person, but a set of beliefs and how they measure up to Christianity, I am not violating any injunction. Indeed, I am following a warning given by John the Revelator in First John 4:

1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now is already in the world.

So I am testing this ‘spirit’, this claim of revelation of God. I find interesting that tenet 1 claims to recognize Jesus as the Son of God in the Flesh, and then denies Jesus’ Deity in most of the subsequent tenets.

David Klinghoffer #fundie redstate.com

The serious problem of bullying in junior high and high school has received some overdue attention lately. Lee Hirsch’s documentary Bully is in theaters and highly recommended.

But don’t think that bullying in academic settings is exclusively a phenomenon of adolescence. Adults also bully adults. That’s what is happening now at Emory University in Atlanta.

You can be a brilliant, innovative pediatric neurosurgeon at a sky-scraping top medical school, in addition to being a generous philanthropist with an inspirational up-from-dire-poverty personal story, plus a Presidential Medal of Freedom winner, and a best-selling writer whose memoir was turned into a TV movie starring Cuba Gooding Jr.

But in the hands of academic bullies, if you once shared your critical thoughts on evolutionary science and its moral implications — well, everything else about you suddenly dwindles to very little.

Dr. Ben Carson of Johns Hopkins University is today’s target[...]

Dr. Carson’s unwelcoming welcome sends a message to less renowned and therefore less bullet-proof scholars. If they open their mouth to question Darwin, fellow academics will not only disagree but will hurt them by misrepresenting their opinions.

Imagine the results if he were someone else: a young scientist seeking a strong start to his career, a not so young but still untenured scientist with his livelihood to protect, even a tenured academic worried about his reputation and the future careers of his own grad students.

This is how Darwinists maintain the fiction that the scientific community has reached a freely determined “consensus” in favor of Darwinian evolution and against intelligent design. The consensus is maintained by intimidation, by bullying.

It’s a farce, but for vulnerable people in academic life, a scary farce.

Prime Minister Najib Razak, Parti Islam-se Malaysia, Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man and Malaysian demonstrators #fundie reuters.com

Tens of thousands of Malaysians rallied in the capital on Saturday to support the adoption of a strict Islamic penal code, a proposal religious minorities fear could infringe their rights.

Prime Minister Najib Razak has thrown his weight behind the contentious bill, which seeks to incorporate parts of the Islamic penal code, or "hudud", into Malaysia's existing Islamic legal system.

Najib, who is currently embroiled in a corruption scandal, is hoping to burnish his Islamic credentials in order to boost his chances in national elections that must be held by August 2018.

Critics of the bill warn that it could pave the way for full implementation of hudud, which prescribes punishments such as amputations and stoning, and disrupt the fabric of Malaysia's multi-cultural and multi-religious society.

"The so-called 'empowerment' of the Shariah Court will only exacerbate the unequal treatment of Muslims and non-Muslims before the law," said Bebas, an NGO that organized a smaller counter-rally.

No official figures were available on how many people attended Saturday's peaceful support rally in Kuala Lumpur, but estimates were in the tens of thousands.

Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man, deputy president of the hardline Islamist opposition Parti Islam-se Malaysia (PAS), one of its organizers, said 100,000 people were expected to attend.

The PAS presented the bill in parliament last year but later withdrew it in order to fine tune the legislation. It is now expected to be reintroduced in the next parliamentary session, in March.

Najib, who has resisted calls to resign over a scandal at state fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), where he was an adviser, backed the bill despite the anger of members of his own United Malay National Organisation (UMNO) ruling coalition.

Lawsuits filed by the U.S. Justice Department in July last year said nearly $700 million of the misappropriated funds from 1MDB flowed into the accounts of "Malaysian Official 1", who U.S. and Malaysian officials have identified as Najib.

Casimir #fundie oxfordstudent.com

All sexualities deserve compassion and a proper hearing in the press, but a paederast is an adult male who loves an adolescent boy, whereas a paedophile is attracted to prepubescent children.

Paederasty is the dominant historical form acquired by male love, a mutually felt yet partially separate equality of need between an adult male and an adolescent boy. If in turn enthused by his beauty and daring excitement upon the cusp of sexual, emotional and intellectual ripeness, the elder provides for formative ground under the feet of his beloved as he conducts himself toward adulthood.

It is inseparable from the greatest flourishing of Western culture, by which I mean especially Classical Athens and the Italian Renaissance.
Don’t be taken in by the propaganda: the vast majority of cases of ‘child abuse’ are beneficial to both participants, but ‘victims’ are forced to testify or else have their minds warped, and most historical accusations are just made up for money. Yes, in such relationships the boy is the centre, often amounting to really a kind of worship, and no boylover, by definition, could possibly harm a boy. They just love them too much!

Luckily, there is a book called “Alexander’s Choice”, reviewed positively by the Daily Mail and the London Review of Books. Set at Eton, it goes into some detail, clearly well-researched, concerning, in the author’s words, “the inner dynamics” of such relationships.

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?

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.

optimal prime #conspiracy forum.prisonplanet.com

Hollywood pedo culture normalized.

From James gunn we now have Dan harmon with baby rape and people are trying to defend ,this sick bullshit that has been on twitter forever. but they are going after conservatives voices on twitter and not this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To-Moxlql1k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDTq69rFRY8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0S3MFusaw

Rick and Morty? Creator Dan Harmon Deletes Twitter Account After Fake Baby Rape Video Goes Viral
6321
Writer/ actor Dan Harmon attends the Seeso original screening of 'HarmonQuest' at The Virgil on July 12, 2016 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Emma McIntyre/Getty Images for Seeso)Emma McIntyre/Getty Images for Seeso
23 Jul 20186,594
Rick and Morty creator Dan Harmon deleted his Twitter account this weekend after a fake baby rape video featuring him resurfaced and went viral on social media.
In the five-minute video, Harmon plays a child molester named Daryl who climbs through a window, pulls down his underwear, and rubs his genitals on a plastic baby doll lying on a couch.

?Hi, I?m Dan Harmon. You?re about to watch my controversial new pilot Daryl,? Harmon says in the video, which was presumably intended to be a joke and parody of Showtime?s hit series Dexter.
Dan Harmon also makes remarks such as, ?I rape babies,? on camera.



After the video surfaced online, the creator of NBC?s Community deleted his official Twitter account. Harmon is the latest major Hollywood figure to garner attention for having produced online content making light of pedophilia and child rape.

Last week, Disney severed ties with Guardians of the Galaxy director James Gunn after several posts joking about child rape resurfaced.

In one blog post, which Gunn published in 2010, the director claimed to have orgasmed over a video featuring ?pubescent? children, which he says was sent to him by a friend named Huston Huddleston. The video, some defenders have suggested, is a girls? choir singing the Divinyls pop hit ?I Touch Myself.?

It appears that the Huddleston whom Gunn says sent him the video is registered sex offender Huston Huddleston, who pleaded guilty earlier this year to one count of possessing child pornography.

Last week, old posts on Twitter by actor-comedian Michael Ian Black about child molestation also went viral after resurfacing on social media.

?Black?s controversial tweets are filled with sexual innuendos about children, including so-called jokes about having sleepovers with young girls and having ?quick? intercourse with a baby,? reported Breitbart News? Joshua Caplan.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/07/23/r-kelly-releases-19-minute-song-addressing-assault-sex-slave-allegations/

https://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/07/23/marvel-star-dave-bautista-disney-gave-in-to-cyber-nazis-with-james-gunn-firing/

drmichaeleschmidt@yahoo.com #fundie groups.google.com

Folks, here you see an example of how the pro abort - pro homo crowd
attacks a minister because of his biblical stance. The pro homosexual
agenda has put the AMERICAN COWBOY under attack. Remember how pro
homosexual Hollywood recently produced a gay cowboy movie. Because the
American Cowboy is a symbol of masculinity and heterosexuality , the
homosexual crowd has done there best to try and make the American
Cowboy gay. Because I look like an American Cowboy, the pro homosexual
crowd is trying to make me out to look gay, which I do not. I am proud
of my image, and as a heterosexual minister I am proud of the fact
that my image consultant Steven Houser has given he the look of the
American Cowboy. I am proud to look like Gene Autry or John Wayne:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Autry

Rev. Dr. Michael Schmidt

www.trumpetofthelord.com

holocaust21 #fundie holocaust21.wordpress.com

9 Reasons Why Child Porn Laws Are Evil

When I started writing this article I couldn’t believe how many reasons I could come up with as to why child pornography laws are totally wrong. So without further ado, it’s time to abolish this offence from our legal statutes; and here’s no less than 9 reasons why:-

1. Child abuse images are completely legal, while child porn images are not

Imagine, hypothetically, you came across a video on the internet that featured a seedy man in a dark room with a big, sharp hammer. The man had a look of pure evil in his eyes and in a corner of the room hudled a young girl. The man slowly took a step towards her, ‘I’m going to hit you’ he said softly. The girl had a look of terror on her face. He shook his hammer in the air and she reflexively put her hands around her head. ‘I’m going to kill you’ he said louder taking another step. He lifted his hammer high up in the air. Suddenly the child made a desperate bid to run away but he grabbed her and struck a blow to her skull. Her skull could be seen to be smashed and blood poured out. The camera showed him hitting her again and again and again until there was nothing left other than a lifeless decapitated mess on the floor. Then the video ended.

Would you have not thought that such a horrific video would be illegal and probably classed as level 5 child porn (the most severe)?

Think again.

In reality extreme child abuse images like those depicted above are completely legal. Why? Because it is not sexual. It is horrific violence. In our society violence and abuse are celebrated while sex, love and affection are criminalised.

A man possessing bath photos of 5 year old girls would receive years, even decades, in prison. A man possessing the hypothetical video above would not receive even a single day behind bars.

And this is the legal situation that our hateful and vindictive politicians support.

As Orwell might have said: Our politicians have redefined Child Abuse to be Child Love and Child Love to be Child Abuse.

2. Child porn is not child abuse

Not only are the most horrific child abuse images completely legal and not considered to be child porn, but most of what counts as child pornography does not even depict child abuse.

Let us examine the definitions of child pornography under the COPINE scale (or SAP scale as it is more accurately referred to), this is the scale typically used by the police when measuring the ‘severity’ of a child porn image. It goes from level 1 (least severe) to level 5 (most severe).

By examining the definitions of child porn on the COPINE scale we find that child pornography images levels 1 – 4 are categorically NOT abuse images. This is because level 1 covers bath photos and levels 2 – 4 cover sexual activity only, no mention of violence is made. As we know from the RIND meta study, which analysed some 59 other studies it found that sexual activity with children does not usually cause harm, contrary to contemporary feminist dogma.

Any image in which pain is implied is automatically elevated to level 5 on the COPINE scale. This does not, however, imply that level 5 images always involve pain. This is because any image with an animal involved in any way at all would also count as level 5. Nor does it imply that any image involving pain is level 5 – as discussed above an image of a child being brutally murdered would not be considered child pornography at all despite that being the most horrific thing that can happen to a person.

3. Child porn is a thought crime

Child porn is a thought crime. It involves no actions. Merely being a curious individual and seeking possession of a single image can result in decades behind bars. This is the same way that possession of a blank book would have resulted in 20 years behind bars in the novel 1984. The creation of thought crime legislation is the primary indicator of a full blown totalitarian state.

No harm is ever committed in having thoughts, even bad or dangerous ones. If people cannot express and discuss their thoughts then they will in many cases suffer in silence and in other cases explode in outbursts of extreme violence such as, for example, virgin killers like Elliot Rodger.

4. Criminalising any image is an affront to democracy

Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are essential components of a democracy.

Child pornography laws undermine freedom of expression. Possessing and distributing child porn is free expression.

The consequences of undermining freedom of expression cannot be understated. A country without freedom of expression cannot be a democracy. Without an informed and educated electorate the voters are merely sheep voting based only on what they are allowed to know. However, if they were provided with the full facts then they would have come to wildly different voting decisions.

In essence the society we live in today is a pseudo-democracy. A society where an uninformed and ignorant electorate vote. This leads to tyranny. Already we can see this with the massive escalation of child porn and child sex sentences worldwide and its associated age of consent dogma. The belief that sexual activity with anyone below the age of consent is always horrific abuse is caused in part by the criminalisation of child pornography i.e. the removal of evidence that breaking age of consent laws does not cause harm in and of itself.

It is modern day book burning.

As older folk who lived in more tolerant times die out the society becomes increasingly ignorant to the point that reality becomes entirely warped, as is happening with the Savile affair in Britain, including absurd claims that he engaged in necrophilia.

The road to tyranny is then well and truly laid.

5. Banning one thing leads to the ‘slippery slope’ effect of banning everything

As soon as one thing is banned it then becomes acceptable to start banning more things until even you are classed as a serious organised criminal, sex offender or terrorist (if you aren’t already).

This is already happening with the expanding definition of child pornography. For example, in the UK it was initially limited to children under 16. Then it got expanded to ‘children’ under 18, despite the age of consent still being 16. Laws were then introduced to criminalise not only ‘real’ images but also cartoon drawings. So-called ‘extreme pornography’ which included adults engaging in bestiality or BDSM also became criminalised. And now, images of women pretending to be raped is in the process of being criminalised.

This of course ignores the onslaught of anti-terrorist legislation, which makes glorifying terrorism illegal and has some extreme double standards. The terrorist murder of Osama Bin Laden for instance, glorified by the mainstream media, was not seen as criminal whilst calling for genocidal politicians from the American or British regimes to be hung, drawn and quartered would be. And let us not even get into the minefield of ‘hate speech’ legislation – such as ‘anti-racist’ speech…

The bottom line is that banning has become endemic to our political class. They will only ever be satisfied once everything is criminalised and the entire population live in cages.

6. Child porn laws undermine the rule of law

The rule of law is essential to a peaceful society where random violence is minimised. The state must not be able to arbitrarily arrest people just because they can. There must be the appropriate checks and balances.

Child pornography laws allow the arbitrary arrest of just about anyone. Anyone who has ever used the internet can easily be raided by the police on suspicion of possessing or distributing child pornography. All that is needed for a conviction is for the police to find one single thumbnail image. Such an image can often be placed in a defendant’s possession without their knowledge as a consequence of computer viruses, accidental website hits as well as vengeful colleagues, friends and wives who deliberately frame an individual. Even if the defendent accidentally came across the image and deleted it immediately the police can still find it, charge and convict the man for a thought crime offence.

This process can also lead to ‘selective enforcement’ in other words those who stand up against the prevailing ideology or police state would be automatically raided by the police and likely found to be in possession of child porn. On the otherhand, high ranking paedofinder general politicians would never be raided even though they probably possess more child porn than anyone else (they need to behave like paedofinder generals to reduce their risk of arrest, afterall).

7. Child porn laws are so excessively broad that they effectively rape children of their childhood

Child pornography laws are now so broad that even non-nude images can count as child porn. The paedohysterical atmosphere has resulted in a climate so extreme that schools frequently ban parents from photographing their own children. This means that youth growing up today will not have any photos of their childhood. Their childhood is essentially stolen from them by the police state. And worst of all, children are prevented from learning about life (like playing on the streets, as kids used to do) and from forming normal relationships with adults (especially men).

In essence, child pornography laws and our paedohysterical atmosphere effectively rape children of their childhood by stealing from them what past generations took for granted.

8. Banning child porn allows child rapists and child abusers to walk free

It is a well known fact that police officers are lazy. They like to go for the easiest to lynch people. There is no one easier to lynch than sexting teenagers. Often unaware that what they are doing is even illegal they become an easy catch for the paedophile unit. The propagation of child pornography and age of consent laws means that making arrests is like shooting fish in a barrel. And amongst the fish, big bad fish can hide and not be shot because they are not the targets.

Criminalising low-level, harmless consensual sexual behaviour results in kind and harmless individuals being piled up in prison whilst real violent thugs and rapists are free to abuse and rape again.

9. Those who seek to ban child pornography are all paedophiles themselves anyway

Much like many in the Nazi party were homosexuals many of our legislators, especially anti child pornography legislators, are infact paedophiles themselves. Take the arrest of Cameron’s close aide Patrick Rock on suspected child pornography charges as an example of this.

One arrest you say? Just a bad apple? How about the revelations that some senior cabinet ministers in Tony Blair’s former government were believed to be fapping off to child porn? Not only that, but the government issued D-Notices to the mainstream media to stop them reporting on the story. And they all obeyed.

What does this, in essence, mean? It means that what is commonly called ‘paedophilia’ is really normal male sexuality. It means that our politicians are all a bunch of hypocrites who criminalise normal male sexuality in order to endlessly increase their power. And then they break their own laws. They are opportunistic bastards.

Already more and more people are starting to talk about ‘paedophiles in high places’. I can only but guess that some of this is because the population are getting sick of paedophile hysteria yet they are too scared or too stupid to point out that the laws themselves are the problem.

Dr. Peter Jones #homophobia #conspiracy #fundie truthxchange.com

Androgyny: The Pagan Sexual Ideal

Introduction
Like the ancient pagan Sodomites pounding on the door of Lot’s house millennia ago, the modern gay movement is gathering at the doors of our churches, our academies and our once traditionally “Christian” culture, demanding entrance and full recognition. Notable scholar, David A. J. Clines, professor of Old Testament at Sheffield University, for one, appears ready to lay down the welcome mat. He wrote in 1998:

…[though] queer theory has yet to show its face at the SBL [Society of Biblical Literature], gayness is challenging…all that we hold dear. When we begin to redraw the alterity map, the boundaries between same and different…we find ourselves having to think through everything, and not just sexuality, from scratch.

Clines, who not long ago was known for his conservative theological position, illustrates how far acceptance of the gay movement has come in recent years, even among those from strongly biblical backgrounds.

This movement has come a long way fast. It will not go away soon, I believe, because it is so intimately tied to deep changes in modern society, in particular, those associated with philosophical Postmodernism. Because in the Postmodern hermeneutic all meaning is socially generated, queer commentary has little methodological difficulty finding a place in the contemporary religious and theological debate. In cooperation with feminist biblical interpretation, which has “destabilized normative heterosexuality” by alleging “sexist” bias, queer readings merely seek to take one more step in the hermeneutics of suspicion and expose the “heterosexist bias” of the Bible and Bible interpreters. Identifying exegesis as an exercise in social power, queer theorists reject the oppressive narrowness of the Bible’s male/female binary vision, and boldly generate textual meaning on the basis of the “inner erotic power” of the gay interpreter. What could be more Postmodern? Employing such a widely accepted methodology, and with “straight” Bible scholars now ready “to redraw the alterity map,” gay theology appears to have a bright future everywhere.
[...]
The thesis of this paper is that to understand the contemporary sexual revolution, we need to see the “new sexuality,” [particularly in this paper in its homosexual expression], as an integral expression of age-old religious paganism. In our response, we cannot follow Lot, who would have sacrificed his daughters to placate the aggressors. Nor can we claim personal moral superiority. We must always hear, in the clamor for acceptance and recognition, the cry of divine image-bearers, however marred and broken. However, we must not shrink back from seeking to do justice to the whole Christian, biblical dimension of the problem. In a time of moral confusion and politically correct intimidating “tolerance,” we owe such clarity to our culture, to our sons and daughters, and to God, Creator and Redeemer, for whom all things exist.

gothicmuffin #fundie booktalk.org

I feel very differently then the rest of you. At first I was taken back by Lolita's situtation. I felt very bad for her. But I started thinking, she is a 12 year old, having sex with a middle aged man. But What if she was having sex with a 15 year old, or 14 year old. She had willingly had sex before. Even though she will see this as a mistake when she is older, it is still hers to make, and is that mistake any different then if a 15 year old has sex with an 18 year old or an 18 year old with any older person? Every person matures at a different pace, no means no, but Lolita didnt say no. There is no doubt it was a mistake for her to have sex with this man, I dont believe it was real love, but the trama done could be just as damaging if she was older. I view Lolita as a beautiful story, at first, I did feel bad. But now I dont, it changed my views. I use to believe an 18 year old and 15 year old was disgusting, but this book opened my mind to the possibility that just because our culture says its wrong, doesnt mean it is.

Perhaps I am letting myself fall victim to his convincing ways. Or maybe what I see now is my actual opinion on the matter, there is no doubt in my mind that HH wasnt a man I wanted my young daughter around, but to me making it illegal for a person to choose who they have sex with is wrong as long as it consentual.

I guess I dont see why Its okay for a adolescent to have sex with another adolescent but not an adult. I dont think it would hurt less either way when they realize it was a mistake


I mean, maybe12-13 is a little young but when I was that age I knew girls who were having sex with men around 17, and thats almost an adult. Maturity is a odd thing, some 30 year olds seem to be less mature then some 17 year olds. And some 12 year olds seem to be more mature then some 17 year olds. Everyone is different. Like I said before No means no. But its hard to me to decide where the age limit is for a child to consent to sex. technically they can at any age as long as its with someone around the same age. My mother was 14 when she got pregnate with me and my dad was 19. technically thats illegal, but they grew up and got married. And as far as I know she doesnt feel like he used her.

Sheikh Hasina #fundie bbc.com

A university professor has been hacked to death in Bangladesh, in an attack police say is similar to killings of secular bloggers and atheists by suspected Islamist extremists.

AFM Rezaul Karim Siddique, 58, was a professor of English at Rajshahi University in the country's north-west.

[...]

Siddique is the fourth professor at the university to be have been killed in the past 12 years. It is not clear why they have been targeted and no culprits have been punished.

Earlier this month, a Bangladeshi law student who had expressed secular views online died when he was hacked with machetes and then shot in Dhaka.

The four bloggers killed last year had all appeared on a list of 84 "atheist bloggers" drawn up by Islamic groups in 2013 and widely circulated.

There have also been attacks on members of religious minorities including Shia, Sufi and Ahmadi Muslims, Christians and Hindus.

Several men are under arrest for last year's killings, including some attached to a hardline group called the Ansarullah Bangla Team.

Muslim-majority Bangladesh is officially secular but critics say the government has failed to properly address the attacks.

Last week, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina issued a stern warning to anyone who criticised religion: "I don't consider such writings as freethinking but filthy words. Why would anyone write such words? It's not at all acceptable if anyone writes against our prophet or other religions."

The citizens of Malawi #fundie theatlantic.com

Confronting a Sexual Rite of Passage in Malawi

The world has many coming-of-age traditions: sweet sixteens, bar mitzvahs, quinceañeras. But in one African country, 'initiation' is endangering the health of girls and boys.


 Grace Mwase, 14, may look like a child, but her community sees her as an adult because of a sexual initiation she attended at age 10. (Beenish Ahmed)

CHIRADZULU, Malawi — A slight frame gives her the appearance of a child, but the hardened look Grace Mwase wears makes her seem older than her 14 years. In many villages across Malawi, a largely agrarian sliver of a country in southern Africa, custom dictates that both boys and girls as young as eight attend a rite of passage known as “initiation,” after which they are no longer seen as children. The practice is most entrenched in the country's south, where Mwase's Golden Village is located.

Mwase was just 10 when she was led, along with about a dozen other girls, to remote huts outside her village during winter vacation from school in August. The girls were accompanied by older women from their village in Chiradzulu district, near the border with Mozambique. The women, known asanamkungwi, or “key leaders,” told them that when they returned to their villages they should cook and clean—and have sex. According to Mwase, most of the two weeks she spent at the initiation camp were dedicated to learning how to engage in sexual acts. She had been excited for this time with friends away from home, but that feeling quickly gave way to dread as she learned the true purpose of initiation.

“They taught us only how you can handle a man,” she says, looking down at her hands. “So you should be dancing for the man. The man should be on top of you and you should be dancing for him, making him happy.”

The anamkungwi told the girls to lie on top of one another and get a feel for the various positions described to them. They then encouraged the girls to “practice” what they had learned. In fact, girls in Malawi are often told that if they don’t have sex upon concluding initiation, their skin will become dry and brittle. This will mark them for life, and they will be ostracized if they don't complete the custom as their mothers and grandmothers did before them. These guardians often force their daughters to go through with the ritual for fear of breaking with tradition.

“There’s nothing like adolescence. You are either a child or an adult.”

Initiation is a centuries-old practice in the region, according to Harriet Chanza of the World Health Organization. In many agrarian communities, she notes, “There’s nothing like adolescence. You are either a child or an adult.” Initiation is meant to establish the gender norms that boys and girls are expected to follow as men and women. The emphasis on having sex may also have a darker purpose in a country where nearly three-fourths of the population lives below the poverty line. Chanza, who is based in Malawi, says that some parents may actually want their daughters to get pregnant at a young age. A girl is often married soon after she is found to be pregnant, deferring the cost of caring for her and her baby from her parents to her husband.

Mwase was told, "'You are a woman enough'" by an anamkungwi in her village, and informed, "'If you come out [of the initiation camp], you should sleep with a man to cleanse you of your childhood thing.'" Worse, Mwase says though a translator, "They said you should do your sexual cleansing but not use a condom. You should do it plain."

Mwase sits in an uneven plastic lawn chair in an empty hall used for community gatherings as she recounts her experiences. She had walked to our meeting point in Chiradzulu district from her village to speak with foreign journalists, and agreed to discuss a topic that few women are willing to broach because we didn’t share ties to her community or culture. “You’re like a visitor so you don’t know anything,” she says. Conversing with us, in other words, isn't as difficult as telling women in her village how she feels about a custom they might support.

Her small, sharp eyes aglow in the dimly lit room, a grain mill whirring in the background, Mwase says the anamkungwi who oversaw her initiation told her to find an older man to have sex with after she left the camp. In defiance of tradition, however, Mwase refused to do so, fearing the costs to her health from unprotected sex. Like many first-born daughters in Malawi, Mwase was raised by her grandmother. She says her grandmother, who had sent her to the camp, didn't force her to have sex—likely because Mwase never told her about her decision not to do so. If her grandmother had learned the truth, she might have paid a man to take Mwase’s virginity. In some villages, young men hired for this task are called “hyenas,” and they occasionally have sex with many girls in a single village who have gone through initiation together.

Thera Rasing, an anthropologist who has studied girls’ initiations in Zambia,writes that the secrecy surrounding these rituals increased during the colonial era and has remained in place to keep missionaries and churches from “trying to control and christianize these rites.” Still, as abominable as such customs might seem, Rasing adds that initiations are associated with honor for many women: “A woman’s capacity to elicit change, to be powerful and empowered arises from her relative success in being a proper woman. Through this she acquires the respect of her spouse and of the neighbourhood as a moral community. This is what a girl learns during her initiation into womanhood, and that she is told during her wedding ceremony.”

Despite the social role of initiations, there are numerous public health concerns surrounding the custom in Malawi. Young girls largely unaware of the risks are being told to have unprotected sex in a country where a tenth of the population is HIV-positive. (While this figure is on par with other countries in the region, it is far higher than rates elsewhere in the world; 70 percent of AIDS-related deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa.) And teenage pregnancies also abound in Malawi, where one in four teen girls under 18 is a mother (in sub-Saharan Africa as a whole, more than 50 percent of births take place during adolescence). The young age at which girls become pregnant complicates their deliveries and puts them at greater risk for losing their babies, losing their lives, or developing an obstetric fistula—a condition where a rupture in the birth canal leaves women suffering from incontinence and ostracized from their communities.

Girls are taught a dance known as chisamba “as a way of preparing them for their role of satisfying their husbands in bed.”

Female genital mutilation, which often entails the complete or partial removal of the clitoris, is not common in Malawi, though it can take place during similar rites of passage in other parts of Africa. But initiation can leave lasting trauma even without physical injury. The Malawi Human Rights Commission, a government agency, has reported that initiations impinge on girls’ rights to education, health, liberty, and dignity. The Commission further elaborates on some of these rituals, stating that girls are taught a dance known as chisamba“as a way of preparing them for their role of satisfying their husbands in bed,” and that they are made to perform this dance at the end of their initiation “bare-breasted in a very explicit manner as they are being presented to the whole community.” The study also notes, however, that initiation rites vary widely, and that in some communities girls attending initiation are advised not to have premarital sex.

For boys in Malawi, and in several other African countries, initiation sometimes involves circumcision. According to the Malawi Human Rights Commission, Malawian boys live in camps on the outskirts of villages and are occasionally forced to consume foods prepared with urine and “medicine” made with their severed foreskins. The report notes, “Once the boys undergo circumcision they are considered mature and are actually advised to have sexual intercourse with any girl as soon as they go back home.”

Initiations for boys can easily go awry, since the circumcisions are often performed by people without medical training wielding ritual knifes. Last year in South Africa, an estimated 60 young men died after their initiation ceremonies as a result of botched circumcisions and dehydration due to “survival tests.” Local government officials were hesitant to intervene because of “cultural sensitivities.”

“The difficulty with culture is you deal with the [village] chief and he says, ‘I have changed. I have put [in] bylaws [to prohibit initiations]. [Then] you come [back] and [initiations] are quietly being done,” says Jean Mwandira, a specialist in reproductive and adolescent health with the United Nations Population Fund in Malawi.

We speak over dinner beside the glittering but parasite-ridden Lake Malawi. Here in southern Malawi, where initiations are most widespread, girls are often married off as soon as they reach puberty and literacy rates are among the lowest in the country. In the district of Mangochi, which borders the lake,48 percent of teenagers have begun bearing children—the highest incidence in Malawi. Mwandira says it is hard to persuade local leaders here and elsewhere in the country to stop a custom that has such a long history, especially since annual initiations for boys and girls have become a kind of industry.

"Those people who perform such tasks are paid, either in cash or kind, so it's difficult for the whole thing to die [out]," she explains. Even "the chief gets something for allowing that initiation ceremony to take place."

In the face of public scrutiny, those who have a vested interest in keeping the custom alive try to do so covertly. Initiation camps are held outside villages in temporary shelters built just for this purpose and then burnt to the ground once children are sent home, Mwandira says. Adults who aren’t involved in managing the camps are not permitted near them. What’s more, the girls who take part in initiations are loath to talk about them.

I spent a day in Mangochi, asking every young woman I could whether she had been initiated. Each time I got a shy smile and swift ‘no’ in response. This despite what Mwandira told me: “It’s not possible to live in Mangochi and not be initiated.”

In Chiradzulu, a few hours south by car, Grace Mwase was the rare exception willing to speak about her experiences with initiation. When I asked if she wanted her testimony about this deeply private matter to be kept anonymous, she said, “No, use my name.” Her lack of shame may well stem from her involvement in the Girls Empowerment Network, a locally run coalition of young women.

The group is led by a woman named Joyce Mkandawire. She says that when she first arrived in Chiradzulu, where Mwase lives, she was struck by the lack of freedom afforded to girls. “A girl leaves a school [because she is] pregnant, nobody cared. A girl gets married today, nobody cared,” she recalls. Mkandawire is now advocating for new bylaws in local villages to bar teenage girls from getting married. She has also reached out to local headmasters, who notify her when a girl has dropped out of school so that she and the Girls Empowerment Network can try to convince her to return—and to focus on education rather than marriage.

Joyce Mkandawire poses with young mothers from the Girls Empowerment Network. (Beenish Ahmed)

In speaking out about these issues, Mkandawire has inspired girls like Mwase to do the same. About her work as a leader in the Network, she says, “I am there just to help the community and to encourage myself. If there is anything [wrong], I go to the elders and speak to them.” Mwase also goes to the initiation camps outside her village every year to speak to the girls there. “I go to tell them after your initiation, if you go out, don’t do the sexual cleansing thing because it’s bad for us,” she explains.

And she’s pleased with the progress she’s made so far. “If I go talk to them, they listen to me,” Mwase says, breaking into a smile.

Prof. Henry Francis B. Espiritu #conspiracy globalresearch.ca

If ISIS is not a Sunni militia, then who are they working for?

Who employed them to wreck havoc in the Middle East?

Why is it that the US government and its NATO allies cannot seriously fight ISIS in Iraq, Syria and the rest of the Levant? ISIS is US-made monster! ISIS Caliphate is never an Islamic Caliphate.

It is a “U.S.-made Caliphate” that does not have any binding authority whatsoever over worldwide Muslims.

It is known truth that CIA constantly backs-up and supports all known so-called jihadist groups from the Taliban of Afghanistan and Pakistan, to even Jemaa Islamiyya and Al-Qaeda in the Middle East, and the Boko Haram of Nigeria.

That is why US will never seriously fight these monsters it created.

US is the invisible director of all international terrorism groups so that these monsters can commit crimes mercilessly and with impunity against humanity. These monsters are made alive and sustained by American dollars and ably, yet subtly directed by the master of the puppetry: US invisible hegemonic hand!

NATO is in unholy partnership with the CIA operators who are currently training, arming, funding and equipping thousands of ISIS combatants from Europe to overthrow secular and socialist Syria as part of the CIA ploy called “Arab Spring”—which is nothing but a covert ideological operation to to conquer the Middle East and Central Asia, its oil reserves, its pipeline corridors as part of an imperial agenda. (On The Trans-Afghan pipeline see Michel Chossudovsky, “America’s War on Terrorism”, chapter 5, pp. 65-91).

Therefore, who is supporting this ISIS militia, who is equipping them, who is funding them so heftily?

For what purpose are they doing these despicable acts? If they are truly Islamic fighters bent on fighting for the rights of Islam and the Muslims, then why do they bomb Sunni Muslim mosques, Sufi Muslim shrines and Shi’ite Muslim prayer halls of their co-religionists?

Is this about establishing a war scenario in the Middle East so that the global weaponry business of the US military industrial complex is at its best and profitable business as usual?

These are relevant questions for our sober reflection.

Pastor QT #fundie ministeringdeliverance.com

Once you make up your mind to go to Jesus for your freedom the ever scheming enemy makes frantic last ditch efforts in a diabolic attempt to discourage you. Here are the top five things you should expect: 

#1: Expect your condition to get worse. By making your condition to deteriorate or seem to be taking a downward spiral the enemy is trying to force you to walk by sight not by faith. Once that happens you throw your hands up in the air in exasperation and say, “It’s no use, I am done!” 

#2: Expect to be laughed at. It’s the nature of the enemy to laugh to scorn. Sanballat and Tobiah laughed off Nehemiah’s valiant building efforts. On the cross our Lord was also scolded by people. Close friends, family, workmates or even church mates (how tragic!) will make you the target of their jokes just because you think the root of your problem is demonic and you want to seek help. 

#3: Expect the meeting or minister to be attacked. You may hear that the venue has been changed suddenly or that the meeting has been postponed or has been cancelled all together. You might hear funny stories or allegations about the deliverance minister in question. The minister may be struck down by a mysterious ailment and thus fail to make it for the meeting. 

#4: Expect to be attacked yourself. A freak accident may happen to you or someone close to you so that you are grounded and fail to go for that decisive deliverance meeting. Your finances may suddenly dry up forcing you to cancel that long awaited trip that should deliver your freedom.

#5: Expect a big deliverance scandal to break out. A negative deliverance story may be all over the media thrusting into your heart like a sharp dagger. A person who was allegedly abused during ministry may go public or a minister who makes people pay big bucks for ministry may be exposed. A video capturing a brutal deliverance may be released on the internet. 

Don’t fall for any of these desperate efforts by the enemy to distract you from your goal of freedom. See through all the lies and press in for your miracle. 

TheOracle'sCookie #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

The "Blue Bell Ice Cream Trucks" are Re-painted Functioning Emergency Ambulances?

Blue Bell trucks in a military convoy

There are all kinds of threads on the J.H. Exercises.
But this new little "tidbit" about Blue Bell Ice Cream
Trucks being seen in military convoys has received
some "buzz" on the internet. Not sure if anyone has
come up with this theory or not...but it is worth a
shot!

My first thought is that the whole "Jade Helm Exercise"
is a cover-story by the military to avoid public panic.
...SOMETHING really bad is coming and they KNOW IT!

IMO there is some kind of a natural or un-natural 'event'
about to take place which they have a "heads-up" about.
They know that this is to be a very major "event" with
damage and many casualties (victims.)....THIS is an
effort to position emergency troops, equipment and
ICE CREAM TRUCKS where they can be easily available.

ICE CREAM TRUCKS? wtf?

Look at the SHAPE of the "ice cream trucks." If you just
change the paint job...you would have the EXACT SAME
SHAPE AS AN AMBULANCE.

image
American Ambulance
image
Screen-shot of Blue Bell Ice Cream
Truck

It would be much easier to just RE-PAINT an already
functioning ambulance (with some "friendly image" like
ice cream to AVOID the public panic of seeing a dozen
RED AMBULANCES in the same convoy as military vehicles)
...than to take out all the medical equipment OUT of
an ambulance which you would need and put it
in another military vehicle. So...that's my "take!"

The "Blue Bell" ice cream trucks are fully equipped
and functioning ambulances, ready to be used during
a horrific emergency. Also...the "ice cream trucks"
that ARE REAL ICE CREAM TRUCKS are refrigerated units
capable to transporting victims who have "passed away"
out of an area where they don't want anyone seeing
victims (for whatever reason THAT would be...who knows?)

Personalityinkwell #sexist #dunning-kruger incels.co

[Serious] Question for Inceltears: Why are so many men involuntarily celibate if they aren't blackpilled?

"IncelTears is a part-mocking, part-watchdog subreddit for posting screenshots of hateful, misogynist, racist, violent, and often bizarre content created by "hateful incels" (hateful involuntary celibates). We do not condone blanket hatred of virgins or the romantically unsuccessful. Some "Blackpilled" Incels blame women, their genes, attractive men, and society at large for their inability to get dates or sex. Occasional meta/discussion are also welcome. "

According to that description by IT, they don't hate all incels, they only hate "blackpilled" incels. So my question for them is, why are so many men out there who are not romantically successful? Obviously they are not all blackpilled so can you really blame them for their "toxic beliefs and attitude"? Many have followed blue pilled advice and been "confident", lifted some weights, taken a shower, but still failed, so why are they still failing to mate?

Grim T #conspiracy liveleak.com

Another Libtard False Flag - Libtard MP Jo Cox
Who's responsible for the killing of Libtard MP Jo Cox? Libtard media said it's the patriotic Britain First movement. Complete bullshit!
It's clear and easy case. It's typical Libtard inside job. Those bastards routinely kill their own in order to blame their political rivals.
It's time to start training for the inevitable conflict and even a possible war with the hordes of Islamic and African invaders and their domestic Libtard patrons who want to make a Europe to be a new Caliphate.
In the same period when the members Libtard mafia organized another false flag operation intended to blame it on their political opponents, activists of the patriotic Britain First movement held the very first “Activist Training Camp” in the mountains of Snowdonia.
We all need to learn the words of heroic Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban who stand up vs Libtards and their brainwashing media:
1. We need to be ready to fight!
2. We need to protect our borders!
3. We have to send Islamic and African invaders back, where they came from!

Yair Netanyahu #conspiracy haaretz.com

Yair Netanyahu, the son of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, posted an image on his Facebook page Saturday that seems to suggest a conspiracy is behind his family’s growing legal problems. The meme is laden with anti-Semitic imagery.

The meme, captioned "the food chain," features a photo of George Soros dangling the world in front of a reptilian creature, who dangles an alchemy symbol in front of a caricature of a figure reminiscent of the anti-Semitic “happy merchant” image.

image

The other figures in the chain are former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, anti-Netanyahu protest leader Eldad Yaniv and Meni Naftali, a former chief caretaker at the Netanyahus’ official residence who implicated Sara Netanyahu in the case she is being indicted in.

Eternal Choice #fundie eternalchoice.com

Atheism vs. Christianity

- Atheism does not have missions to feed the hungry.
- Atheism does not have programs to give shelter to the homeless.
- Atheism does not trouble itself to help the poor or give to the needy.
- Atheism does not clothe the naked or visit the imprisoned.
- Atheism does not give hope to the despairing, does not give love to the needy soul, or open arms to the broken-hearted.
- Atheism does not seek to bring healing to any person.
- Atheism does not intend to encourage the down-trodden.
- Atheism seeks to tear down Love and stop its flow into the hearts of the un-loved.
- During the 20th century, atheists (mostly communists, such as those who followed Stalin) slaughtered untold millions of Christians, Jews, and people of many other religions for the sake of their faith. This still goes on today in places like China.
- Atheism seeks to destroy the hope of Jesus Christ and take love away from a world of people in need of care. In the name of science they proclaim, "there is no God", "we evolved from slime", "the cosmos is an accident". Declaring as gods the foundations and fate of the universe, they ignore the needs of the hearts of men to know that there is a Divine Creator who loves them.
- Because an atheist got God banned from public schools, our children must pass through metal detectors on their way into school where they score worse and worse on educational tests and morals are at an all-time low. They must remember each day the school massacres of the past few years and wonder... if... when... where... who... Does anyone stop to think that this downward trend started the year God was banned from schools?

- Churches have missions to feed the hungry.
- Christians help the poor and clothe the naked.
- Bible-carrying evangelists visit the sick and imprisoned to bring redemption to those that are forgotten and thrown away.
- Preachers minister the healing power of God to those who dare to have faith and forget that miracles are impossible.
- The children of God travel the globe to give light to those in the dark, to show the love of Jesus living through themselves to the ones that He died for 2,000 years ago.
- Jesus gives the world His hope of eternal salvation, His gospel of love, His healing for body and mind and heart.
- It is the Christians, believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, who care for the world enough to take a chance on alienating themselves by sharing the hope of salvation with others.

Patrick Scrivener #conspiracy reformation.org

British Secret Service agent Nguy?n Sinh Cung arrived in London in 1911

By 1911, British plans were well underway for the Prussian invasion of France led by "Kaiser Bill." That "Dead Head" was Queen Victoria's grandson and he expected to enter Paris by early September 1914.

At the same time, the British were very busy in Vietnam recruiting bright young Vietnamese to take the place of the defunct French Vietnamese colony.

In 1911, Cung and a group of very bright young Vietnamese arrived in London to study English.

It is possible that Winston Churchill had him in the same classroom as Adolf Hitler.

As soon as France was defeated by Queen Victoria's other grandson, the French colony in Vietnam would be supplanted by the British Empire.

A plaque in central London commemorates the place where Nguy?n Sinh Cung worked as a “pastry chef.” Cung was no "pastry chef," he was learning English in order to replace the French as a British colonial administrator. He also used at least 2 different names during his long diabolical spying career.

In the most unkindest cut of all, Cung arrived on a French ship which docked at Marseilles, and from there his group of spies disembarked and sailed for Britain:

After stops in Singapore, Colombo and Port Said, the Amiral Latouche-Tréville docked in Marseilles harbor on July 6, 1911. Here Thanh received his wages—about ten francs, a sum barely adequate to feed and house him in a cheap hotel for a few days—and disembarked with a friend to get his first glimpse of France. (Duiker, Ho Chi Minh, p. 47).

Poor "pastry chef" was just his spying cover as he aroused no suspicion from the French as he sailed for England.

After the Fall of France, the British Empire planned on seizing the French Vietnam colony!!

In 1914, "Dead Head" Kaiser Wilhelm II expected a lightning victory over France comparable to the Prussian victory in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. With his fellow "dead head" Jesuits occupying Paris, he expected to turn his massive armies east and conquer Orthodox Russia in the same lightning manner.

[...]

In 1953, Prime Minister Churchill ordered Ho Chi Minh to eject the French from Vietnam!!

Supposedly, the British and French were allies against Hitler during WWII. That was all camouflage or window dressing on the part of Churchill. Even though his other pupil Hitler lost the war, he was still determined to supplant the French Empire in Vietnam.

Prime Minister Churchill was terribly disappointed that he had failed a second time to conquer France.

In 1953, Prime Minister Churchill ordered his pupil Ho Chi Minh to eject the French from Vietnam.

Evil twin Lilibet was on the throne and she gave him every encouragement.

Winston sent him a detailed "order of battle" plan and assured him that fellow agent Mao Zedong would supply him with unlimited manpower.

In November 1953, Ho Chi Minh and his generals had received detailed plans for ejecting the French from Vietnam. Churchill promised Minh that his Chinese "Communists" would give him all the manpower he requested.

[...]

LBJ planned the assassination of JFK . . . so he had to go to Vietnam . . . or to PRISON!!

Most of the top politicos in Washington City knew that Lyndon Johnson was behind the assassination of President Kennedy. He was the one man who had the most to gain by the death of the President. The coup d'etat that Johnson carried out failed in the end because he did not become dictator of Texas for life.

A terribly disappointed Lyndon Johnson arrived back in the still-standing Washington City.

He was supposed to land in Austin, Texas.

From that time onward the escalation of U.S. military involvement in Vietnam began in earnest.

It was no coincidence that the Vietnam War escalated after the assassination of President Kennedy. Lyndon Johnson was the ideal blackmail candidate. The blind who deny that there was a conspiracy to kill the President cannot explain that fact of history.

The Vietnam War was the first war to be televised. Every night images of the war were shown on U.S. TV screens.

2 of the most iconic photos were the execution of a Viet Cong soldier on a Saigon street and "Napalm Girl."

The war was indeed suicidal but Lyndon Johnson knew he had to escalate . . . or go to jail.

President Nixon inherited the war from Lyndon Johnson and he had only 2 options: escalate further or disgrace his country by an ignominious withdrawal.

If Richard Nixon was President in 1961 there would have been no Kennedy nightmare and no Vietnam War.

The President inherited the war from Lyndon Johnson and there was no light at the end of the tunnel.

The war forced him to resign—the only President in history to do so.

"Spelly's War" as it was called, finally ended in disaster for the United States. In April 1975, as the Viet Cong closed in on Saigon, thousands of Vietnamese who had helped the U.S. were abandoned to certain death.

The Fall of Saigon happened on April 30, 1975.

It was a most disgraceful abandonment of a long time faithful ally.

It was revenge for the British retreat from Suez in 1956.

The last pitiful scenes occurred at the U.S. Embassy when helicopters landed on the roof and rescued Embassy personnel.

The last pitiful scenes occurred at the U.S. Embassy when helicopters landed on the roof and rescued embassy personnel. The Vietnam War was a helicopter war and helicopters were used to rescue the last embassy personnel.

There was great rejoicing at the British Embassy in Saigon . . . and in Whitehall, London!!

The name of the British ambassador to South Vietnam was John Bushhell. Nothing much is known about that shadowy figure. Probably a MI6 Million agent like most ambassadors.

The British Embassy was protected by a small contingent of Gurkhas.

Congratulatory messages were sent to Hanoi as the Viet Cong closed in.

Amazingly, in London, Ronald Reagan was meeting with the British Cleopatra and planning a U.S.-British alliance against the Soviet Union.

Thankfully, Ho Chi Minh was dead by that time so he was not a candidate for knighthood by the queens. Such cunning and beastly duplicity could only originate in the infernal regions

Steve Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

The Sufficiency of Scripture for Helping People in Need

Author Steve Ham explores the consistency between the positions of biblical creation and biblical counseling concerning the authority of God’s Word and its sufficiency in the lives of all believers.

Recently I had the opportunity to read and review the book Counseling the Hard Cases.1 This book places the biblical counseling movement on display as it reports the process and outcomes of real-life counseling cases. As a biblical creationist, I was continually encouraged to find the counselors’ dedication to the sufficiency of Scripture for helping real people with real problems. While preparing a review of this book as a graduate student at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, I became even more aware of the consistency between the positions of biblical creation and biblical counseling concerning the authority of God’s Word and its sufficiency in the lives of all believers.

Biblical Authority and Medical Science

I noticed the strong correlations between biblical creationists and biblical counselors in the first chapter of Counseling the Hard Cases. Both positions face accusations revolving around the nature of authority and science. For example, many “Christian counselors” are convinced that the use of such treatments as hypnosis or psychotropic drugs are based on strong scientific research and analysis.2 Persuaded that this research comes from an authoritative source, they then integrate it into their counseling methodology.

Like most “Christian counselors,” trained biblical counselors typically take great care to refer counselees to doctors for necessary medical diagnosis and treatment of their physical ailments. However, for spiritual issues the biblical counselor seeks to ensure that Scripture is seen as the supreme authority and sufficient to help all believers deal with trials (suffering) or sin in their lives. Biblical counselors also should acquaint themselves with the research related to such things as medication, noting which recommendations are based upon repeatable, testable observations and which are based on assumptions influenced by a secular worldview. This is also why biblical counselors prefer to work in partnership with physicians who are Bible-believing Christians. In recognition of secular worldview influences in the medical community, many biblical counselors have armed counselees with questions to ask their practitioners who prescribe medications such as anti-depressants. Especially if a diagnosis is as broad as the term “chemical imbalance,” biblical counselors will encourage questions such as the following:

• What tests were performed to prove that the problem exists?
• What proof do you have that the problem you discovered is not merely a symptom of a deeper problem?
• What proof do you have that the medication you are prescribing truly corrects the problem?

Properly Diagnosing the Problem and Its Remedy

In today’s world it seems nearly every social or relational problem known to man is categorized by a descriptively named disorder and often treated by some psychotropic drug. In many cases, counselors and others re-label sinful responses to situations in a way that removes personal responsibility. For example, lashing out at your children in anger is now known as Intermittent Explosive Disorder, and “it’s not your fault” that you act the way you do. If your son consistently disobeys your authority as his parent, he will likely be diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder. These disorders are often depicted as villains maliciously attacking their victims as if they were a force unto themselves. When seen in this light, these problems become the cause of debilitation for many people who find themselves lost in a hopeless dependence on secular psychological techniques and prescription medication.

This wrong perception of relational problems that are ultimately rooted in sinful thoughts and behaviors has sadly become commonplace even in the church. Many counseling practitioners have attempted to make a compatible partnership between Christian doctrine and worldly philosophies in the diagnosis and treatment of the human soul.[

Scripture Is Sufficient to Help with the Problems of Life

To address this issue, Counseling the Hard Cases reports on real-life case studies from eleven experienced biblical counselors. Compiled by editors Stuart Scott and Heath Lambert, the introduction clearly sets forth the theme for this collection of biblical counseling case studies.4 In the development of the modern biblical counseling movement over the last fifty years, persuasive evidence shows that “Scripture is comprehensively sufficient to do ministry with people experiencing profound difficulties in their lives” (p. 23).

While the sufficiency of Scripture in counseling is the basic thesis of the book, in each of the hard cases the editors have been careful to display this concept practically in the lives of real people. Even for those who are not skeptical about biblical counseling, the results of these hard cases were amazing and gave great cause for rejoicing in the redeeming grace found in the Cross of Christ.

The biblical counseling movement has been criticized by those who are skeptical of the sufficiency of Scripture for counseling. Secular psychology understandably views the Bible as irrelevant, but many “Christian counselors” acknowledge the Bible’s relevance yet deny its sufficiency in the way that they practically advise their counselees. We expect people with a purely naturalistic view of the human condition to dismiss biblical wisdom in counseling, and therefore this book primarily answers the criticisms of “Christian counseling.”

One of the primary criticisms of biblical counselors is that they use the Bible to somehow replace science and therefore ignore the consensus of secular research for dealing with psychological problems. But the proof of scriptural sufficiency for biblical counseling is convincingly “in the pudding.”5 This book helps put to rest the misconception that biblical counselors ignore science as the reader observes them partnering with trained physicians to treat real and identifiable physical problems. It is in the power of the Holy Spirit and the gospel of Christ, through the voice of the counselor, that the application of biblical truth guides a responsive counselee to healing and sanctification.

When discussing counseling methods, a key question to ask is this: does the authority to diagnose the many human dysfunctional behaviors come from man’s word or God’s Word? Heath Lambert is quick to point out that the counseling debate is profoundly centered in presuppositions. He refers to Jay Adams, who stated that his presupposition in counseling methodology is “the inerrant Bible as the standard of all faith and practice” (p. 8). It is clear that each of the contributing authors commences his or her counseling approach with the same presupposition as Adams. To some, this presupposition may seem like an intellectual debate about methodologies. But the ten extraordinary cases presented in the book consistently confirm the truth of this idea in real-life situations as the hope of Christ transforms lives and frees people from bondage to sinful thoughts and behaviors. So, a presuppositional approach to Scripture is not simply a debate about truth; it is also entirely practical.

Can the Bible Help with the Hard Cases?

Like biblical creationists, biblical counselors have never claimed that the Bible is a science textbook.

Other accusations against the biblical counseling movement have come from a misinterpretation of the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. Critics claim that the Bible is not a science textbook, and therefore it is ill-equipped to help with so-called psychological disorders. The answers to such claims are well stated in this book.

First, secular psychology fails to prove that many of the human problems “classified as mental illnesses” are related to any real “disease or illness at all” (p. 8). This ultimately means that the “science” of secular psychology has its own problems with regard to the definition of observational (i.e., testable, repeatable) science, by which a hypothesis is repeatedly tested and either proven or denied. As a prime example, no one really knows how certain neurotransmitters relate to conditions like depression and anxiety. Yet various medications are prescribed to correct imbalances that have not been accurately defined.

Second, critics from the Christian counseling movement suggest that biblical counselors are using the Bible in place of “science” or as a “science” textbook. But, like biblical creationists, biblical counselors have never claimed that the Bible is a science textbook. Within all the different genres that Scripture takes, the biblical counselor starts with a commitment to the authority of God’s Word. So, instead of viewing human problems in the light of a secular label such as a phobia or disorder, biblical counselors present human problems as Scripture does—in terms of the problem of human sin and suffering and the answer in the gospel.

Real Help and Change in Transformed Living

Reading through each of the hard cases, one soon comes to the realization that these scriptural truths are not just words on a page. Instead, the case studies show there truly is transformational power in the living Word of God (Hebrews 4:12). The same God who saves us from everlasting destruction also brings us into a life that exemplifies His grace. Even more enlightening is the fact that many of the people whose stories are told in this book found genuine healing after having first been disillusioned by the debilitating effects of anti-depressives, hypnosis, attempts to relive a better childhood, and various other secular treatments.

The list of documented cases contains “disorders” that many pastors have dispatched in the “too-hard” basket. They include an extreme example of sexual abuse, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, and more. A purely theoretical book cannot touch the impact of this book in retelling what these real-life experiences reveal about the sufficiency of Scripture in the counseling process.

One final thing that should be mentioned in respect to these cases is the book’s consistent theme highlighting the believer’s satisfaction in Christ, confidence in the gospel, the power of the Holy Spirit, a commitment for prayerful reading and application of Scripture, and the supportive care of the local church community. The counseling process is shown to engage not only one counselor but God working through His Word and the community of believers in the heart and mind of the counselee.

The Powerful Word of God

I heartily recommend this book to pastors and any believer needing to witness the powerful nature of the Word of God to gain confidence and steadfastness in the faith—and anyone with a desire to help others:

I myself am satisfied about you my brothers that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another. (Romans 15:14, ESV)

Footnotes

1. Stuart W. Scott and Heath Lambert, eds. Counseling the Hard Cases. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2012.
2. “Christian counseling” is a term most often associated with counselors who are prepared to integrate secular psychology’s methodologies and treatments into their counseling.
3. Answers in Genesis has produced an excellent video on this very topic called Counterfeit Counseling by Pastor Brad Bigney.
4. Dr. Stuart Scott, one of the editors of Counseling the Hard Cases, spoke at the Answers for Pastors conference in October 2013 on the sufficiency of Scripture in biblical counseling.
5. This is not to say that every biblical counseling case ends successfully. God’s Word—our fully reliable and sufficient source of truth—requires the believer to submit and obey in humility, but sadly, some people do not submit to the authority of Scripture.

Patrick Scrivener #conspiracy reformation.org

In 1960, Richard Nixon was supposed to be elected the 35th President of the United States. Nixon was Vice President under President Eisenhower for 8 years and served his long apprenticeship very, very well. The country prospered greatly during the Eisenhower Administration and Nixon would have continued the peaceful policies of his predecessor. Nixon was not an ambitious or power hungry man as he did not try to replace his boss at any time during his Presidency.

The 2 Republican candidates on the same ticket were Richard Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. The 2 Democrats were John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. It was definitely not one man one vote, even though the U.S. Constitution calls for separate votes for President and Vice President:

The PERSON having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President. The PERSON having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President. (Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution).

The Amendment calling for separate votes for President and Vice President in the Electoral College was ratified on September 25, 1804. To get around the provisions of that Amendment, political parties were born, and the President and Vice President were placed on the same ballot. Under that system, there was no way of knowing which candidate received the most popular votes.

2 men of such dissimilar backgrounds as Johnson and Kennedy could not have been found in any country.

Kennedy was the playboy son of a multimillionaire from Massachusetts and Johnson was a Confederate from Texas.

Johnson's exemplars were Juan Perón of Argentina, Fidel Castro of Cuba, and François "Papa Doc" Duvalier—military dictator and President for Life of the "Republic" of Haiti.

If Kennedy and Johnson were on separate tickets, only Texans would vote for Johnson, so how could he become Vice President of the entire country? The position of Vice President is just a doorway for an "ambitious man" to replace the President without an election. Nelson Rockefeller used that position to almost steal the Presidency in 1974.

Women voted for Kennedy because he looked better than Nixon on TV!!

The famous Nixon-Kennedy debates on TV were the first of a kind in a Presidential race. As far as looks were concerned, Nixon could not compete with Kennedy As far as brains and diplomatic experience was concerned, it was no contest.

The Nixon-Kennedy debates took place in October 1960.

Vice President Nixon was just recovering from a very serious "accident" and looked disheveled on TV.

On the other hand, Kennedy was telegenic, and looked much more relaxed and confident.

Altogether, there were 4 debates watched by over 70 million people. Little did the women voters realize that Kennedy in the White House almost meant the last time they would ever vote in a Presidential election.

In another bizarre turn of events, Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested for driving without a license and given 4 months hard labor prison time. Martin Luther King Jr., was named after Saint Martin Luther. Can you imagine a Jesuit priest helping Saint Martin Luther to get out of prison?

On Oct. 25, Martin Luther King Jr. was sentenced to 4 months hard labor in prison for driving without a license!!

A phone called from Senator Kennedy secured his release just 2 days later.

Before that time, most blacks were going to vote for Republican Richard Nixon. After that "incident," they switched to Kennedy!!

King returned home in triumph after his release from prison. Here is a quote from a biography of King:

The motorcade started up again and bore King to Ebenezer Church, where eight hundred people greeted him with songs and prayers. " I am deeply indebted to Senator Kennedy, who served as a great force in making my release possible," King had told reporters. "It took a lot of courage for Senator Kennedy to do this, especially in Georgia. For him to be that courageous shows that he is really acting upon principle and not upon expediency." He informed his people that "I never intend to reject a man running for President of the United States just because he is a Catholic—a reference to his father, who opposed Kennedy strictly on religious grounds. (Oates, Let the Trumpet Sound, p. 165).

The Republican Party was the party of President Lincoln. The Democrats were pro-slavery during the Civil War. Most blacks were definitely pro-Nixon before the providential arrest of Martin Luther King Jr.

Little did the people realize that King was a dyed-in-the-wool Jesuit, and the whole arrest and release was just contrived to help Kennedy reach the White House. The election of 1960 was one of the most corrupt to ever take place in the United States. To this day, nobody really knows who really won the most critical election in the country's history.

President Kennedy made a lightning visit to ex-boss Macmillan in June 1963!!

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, British prime minister Harold Macmillan played the music, while Kennedy turned the sheets. The Crisis almost led to the extinction of the entire human race from radiation poisoning. President Kennedy was very, very upset with Macmillan over the Penkovsky affair, and that big betrayal definitely ended their "special relationship."

President Kennedy began to see that the Russians were more to the trusted than "Uncle Harold," so he proposed a treaty banning nuclear testing in the atmosphere, outer space, and under water. That treaty, called the Partial Test Ban Treaty, formally went into effect in October 1963. Hiring Robert McNamara as defense secretary, and the ban on nuclear testing, were the only 2 good ideas to come out of the entire Kennedy Administration.

In June 1963, President Kennedy made his last trip to Europe. He visited Berlin and then Ireland. After a lightning visit to Macmillan's country estate, he left for Italy and then returned home. Jackie was not with him on that tour and that is why he returned alive!!

On June 29, 1963, President Kennedy made a lightning visit to Birch Grove, the country mansion of Harold Macmillan.

He arrived via helicopter on Saturday evening and was gone by Sunday afternoon.

Kennedy was definitely disgusted with his ex-boss and it showed by the brevity of his visit.

That very brief visit was the last time that Macmillan and Kennedy met. What Kennedy never knew was that the prime minister was still a very dangerous man because he had a secret agent in the very White House.

Prime Minister Macmillan suddenly became sick just before Kennedy's assassination!!

Just before the Kennedy assassination, a lot of things were happening in the life of Prime Minister Macmillan. His doctor suddenly diagnosed him with "prostate cancer" and advised him to enter the hospital for an operation. The prime minister gladly complied with his doctor's advice.

On October 10, 1963, "Supermac" suddenly entered King Edward VII Hospital for a "prostate" operation.

Lilibet visited him in the hospital, and Macmillan told the queen that he wanted his close friend and fellow conspirator, Sir Alex Douglas-Home, to succeed him.

Douglas-Home was given the unpleasant task of attending the President's funeral in Washington City.

Amazingly, Harold recuperated from his "illness" very well, and "Supermac" was never sick again until he went to meet his Maker in 1986. Before the Lincoln assassination, the British ambassador to Washington City suddenly became ill and had to return home.

The Warren Commission said that 3 shots were fired at the President!!

The Warren Commission got it right when it said that 3 shots were fired at the President . . . but they didn't come from "Lee Harvey Oswald."

As the limousine entered Dealey Plaza, Secret Service driver William Greer slowed down almost to a crawl.

Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman turned around and shot the President in the throat.

That shot literally severed his spinal cord and he slumped over to the left. Then Jackie shot him behind his left ear.

After the 2 shots were fired, Jackie leaped on to the back of the limousine, and that was the signal for Clint Hill to join her in the back seat.

Thanks to her panther eyes, the "Pink Panther's" peripheral vision was extraordinary!!

After the pistol shot to her husband's head, she leaped out of her seat on to the back of the limousine.

That was the signal for SS agent Clint Hill to join her in the back.

The 3rd shot, or shots, came from Clint Hill's .38 revolver in the tunnel.

The plot required the President to be dead instantly. With one or 2 shots from Clint Hill's .38 caliber revolver, President Kennedy was definitely dead when he arrived at Parkland Hospital. The trauma doctors did go through the motions of trying to revive him . . . but it was hopeless....Unlike President Lincoln, he did not survive another 9 hours.

Human-Stupidity #fundie human-stupidity.com

Britain has been in the grips of pedophile hysteria for 30 years. The Satanic Abuse panic caused many innocent victims until it was proven a hoax by Elisabeth Loftus’ research. Interestingly, instead of giving up, pedohysterics went on digging. Operation Yewtree failed to convict most of the alleged perpetrators, but finally snagged a few octogenarians who will die in prison for groping adolescents, with scantly any proof that would pass due process rules.

Recent obsession about alleged ass groping by famous TV stars in the 1970’ies caused police to divert their attention away from real recent child abuses to investigating 40 year old allegations.

Tenniel #racist stormfront.org

Being a corrections officer is a dangerous job for a White man especially.

I don't see much point in teaching negroes in prison anything -- especially anything that has equipment that can be used as weapons. Nor do I see any useful point in letting negroes in prison access weight-lifting equipment.

They should be locked in their cell. Period. They can maybe watch tv. If they can read, they can read a book.

Nearly all of imprisoned negroes are primitive apes with IQ's below 80, and a large percentage with IQ's below 70. They simply don't have the intelligence to perform any job in an advanced White civilization -- not even collect trash.

They should be deported -- somewhere nonwhite.

Isaac Morehouse #fundie libertarianchristians.com

You do not owe anyone anything. No one owes you anything. Christians have a lot to gain from these powerful Randian insights.

Genuine acts of kindness are not motivated by guilt, fear, or shame. Yet modern religion is saturated with guilty consciences. Fear of sinning, guilt over your station in life, shame about your dreams and desires are commonplace in churches. These feelings are played like instruments by power-seeking ministers, activists, and politicians. The Kingdom of God brings freedom from this condemnation. Anytime you hear a pundit trying to motivate religious people by making them feel guilty, remember that you cannot truly give if you do not freely give. You do not owe anyone anything, but you are free to give everything.

Of course those who decry Randian ideas and favor bigger government are free to give away all they have too. They rarely do. More often they serve the poor by putting on fancy suits and going to fancy restaurants to lobby politicians to spend more of other people’s money. Then they call those other people selfish when they complain. Don’t buy it. Help those in need out of love, not guilt.

On the flipside, no one owes you anything. Nearly all political activism starts from the idea that someone owes you something. A job, a house, medical services, an aesthetically pleasing landscape, a low-fat diet, and on and on ad nauseam. The Christian idea of grace is the antithesis of this sentiment. You don’t deserve it.

The goal of material equality, or the idea that those with more owe those with less, is naked envy. Most people confuse the issue by believing the state, not another person, owes them something. The state has nothing to give but that which is first takes, and it takes from citizens. Your fellow citizens do not owe you anything. You are free to ask and you are free to receive, but you are not owed. What’s amazing is just how generous people can be in an environment of freedom.

Be Free

If you are a Christian who likes Rand you can ignore the cries of “hypocrite” from those with a political agenda. You needn’t defend or support every tenet of Objectivism to appreciate its political philosophy. There’s no contradiction between Christianity and Rand’s main thrust that individuals should be free.

Take to heart the Randian idea that you are not owed nor do you owe. There is a tremendous freedom in this that makes way for genuine giving and receiving, done with joy and motivated by love.

Ken Ham & Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

If Humans Are Just Animals Then . . .

Well, it’s important to first note the inconsistency of most animal rights groups. These groups claim to be against animal abuse, but are these same people against the abuse of millions of children who are brutally murdered in their mother’s wombs through abortion?

It’s rather ironic that in PETA’s evolutionary worldview humans are just animals, yet PETA does not petition against the “animal cruelty” of killing unborn children. And what about a Save the Tapeworms Society or People for the Preservation of Fruit Flies?

If all life evolved, shouldn’t these groups be against killing these creatures too? Yet most animal rights groups are not trying to preserve pests like these. This highlights their inconsistency. And if they are evolutionists, then all life, animals and plants, are related in the one big supposed evolutionary tree of life. So what about rights for plants too?

Now some animal rights people claim they are Christians. If so, then they need to understand that God gave man dominion over creation (Genesis 1:26), including over the animals. This dominion does not mean we can deliberately abuse, neglect, or harm creation, but rather, we’re to use what God has made for our good and His glory. In Genesis 1:29 and 30, God told man to eat plants/fruits. But in Genesis 9:3 after the Flood, God said we could eat all things (plants and animals).

Animal rights groups really want animals to have dominion over man. Yet, ironically, most would claim that man is just an animal. So if they want equal rights for animals, what rights should humans have if they believe man is just an evolved animal?

For example if animals kill other animals, do animal rights groups think humans (if we’re just animals) should have equal rights to kill too? Why should we be held to some higher standard or different moral code from other animals?

If animals steal from other animals, do animal rights groups think humans (if we’re just evolved animals) should have equal rights to steal? What about incest, cannibalism, or infant abandonment? Why are these things wrong for humans but not wrong for “other” animals? If animal rights activists were consistent, they should argue that it is okay to steal from animals, kill them, and eat them—since this is what we regularly observe in sin-cursed animals anyway.

Where Do Rights Come From?

In an evolutionary worldview, what makes animal rights activists think that rights exist in the first place? Rights are an abstract concept that comes from a biblical worldview, which is denied by the evolutionary position. The evolutionary position, which comes out of naturalism and materialism, cannot account for the concept of rights, because they are not material. In other words, the evolutionary materialist must borrow the concept of rights from Christians to argue against the Christian position of man being superior and in dominion over animals.

If animals are no different from humans, then why aren’t ringworms making the argument for animal rights, instead of people? We don’t observe the organization of ringworms called the Ringworms for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or RETA. In the animal rights activists’ heart of hearts, they know man is above animals. What they don’t know is why. It is because man is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27).

Evolutionary Morality—Hopelessly Inconsistent

Those who start with an evolutionary view of mankind have no absolute basis for morality. Because they have no foundation, they are forced to construct a moral code that is “right in their own eyes” (Judges 21:25). This leads to all kinds of inconsistencies.

Evolutionists arbitrarily create or hold to a moral code for humans—which, in their view, includes not using anything that comes from or was even tested on animals—yet they believe we are just animals. So why should we be held to this arbitrary standard that no “other” animal is held to?

(...)

"Let Them Have Dominion”

Most animal rights groups start with an evolutionary view of mankind. They view us as the last to evolve (so far), as a blight on the earth, and the destroyers of pristine nature. Nature, they believe, is much better off without us, and we have no right to interfere with it. This is nature worship, which is a further fulfillment of the prophecy in Romans 1 in which the hearts of sinful man have traded worship of God for the worship of God’s creation.

But as people have noted for years, nature is “red in tooth and claw.”4 Nature is not some kind of perfect, pristine place. And why is this? Because mankind chose to sin against a holy God. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command, they brought death, suffering, and the Curse into creation (Genesis 2:17, 3:17).

Now all of creation groans, waiting for the coming day when Jesus will liberate it from the Curse (Romans 8:20–22; Revelation 22:3). Creation was never designed to live in disharmony. We, and the animals, were originally created to be vegetarian (Genesis 1:29–30) and to live forever without any suffering or disease. But because sin changed all of that, we battle its effects every day.

But this doesn’t mean that humans are a blight or disease. Despite our sin, we are the only ones created in the very image of God, utterly unique from the rest of creation. We were granted dominion over the earth and it’s inhabitants (Genesis 1:26). This was part of our “very good” (Genesis 1:31), pre-Fall purpose and mission, and it stems out of our position as image bearers of the Creator.

R.G. Thatcher #racist #conspiracy #wingnut web.archive.org

THATCHER THUNDERS!

A Prophecy of Israel’s
20th Century Braveheart

ADOLF HITLER, the enigma of the age! A man shrouded in mystery! Who and what was he? Was he really a raging demonized maniac as portrayed below who destroyed whatever was good and right, or a conquering hero who helped his people stand up on their own two feet and destroy their oppressors?
Were the German people really blind to follow him? These are the questions this article WILL answer! The presentation of facts and analysis of those facts that follow WILL alter the political direction of Western Civilization! They will be profound and TRUE! They will establish Hitler as a Saint of God who was PROPHESIED to come in the Holy Bible. They will point a finger, not at Hitler, but at the Jews and their Communism and call them Satanic! This is heady powerful stuff. Can you handle it? Be strong and rejoice in this new Biblical view that is so needed at this desperate hour in Western civilization as many Gentile nations rage and build up their armies to destroy us. All ministers, preachers, and teachers who claim to acknowledge God’s Word, the Bible, WILL be held accountable for what they do with this priceless insight. Too many people in high positions have been guilty of calling good evil and evil good, some unwittingly due to mis-education and others knowingly because they ARE mis-educators and disinformation agents of the Communists and Jews (Edomites). But whether you are a Christian, agnostic, an atheist, or even a Jew, of the right or left politically, will you be able to accept the answer given? It will all depend on whether or not you are a person of TRUTH. Regretfully, too many people embrace whatever ideology or values which appear to be acceptable to their own peer group, not bothering to substantiate anything or even knowing how to. Your ability to come to grips with TRUTH will have to be your problem.

Although this article may very well be read by people of different races and creeds around the world, its primary audience will be found in Europe and the Western hemisphere, therefore they will be nominally Christian in that they supposedly take their beliefs from that book referred to as the Holy Bible. But only the TRUE Christian who TRULY seeks to upgrade his understanding of TRUTH as the Holy Bible professes to proclaim will be profoundly affected by the new insight presented here. Of course, there will be some of you nominal Christians who may actually, for the first time, sit down and READ the Holy Bible with more than just casual interest. And then perhaps in the not too distant future, our pacified inept nominally Christian society will be able to stand up and FIGHT the Beast and its allies that so much want to engulf us. THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS TIMELY AND REVEALING EXPOSE, FOR THE HOUR HAS COME!

Is there a third alternative to Communism or Capitalism? The Communists and Liberals will emphatically scream “NO!” And as proof they will point a finger at Hitler, 6,000,000 dead Jews (Edomites) and the destruction wreaked by World War II. The answer posed to the West by Hitler keeps resurrecting itself, but the Communists and Jews are constantly trying to keep entombed their ideological enemy. They want us to focus on just one concept – “BETTER RED THAN DEAD!” – and nothing else. We are constantly reminded by the Communists (but not the Russian Communists who are playing dead) that we of the West, as decadent Capitalists, have as a choice only Communism to rising Fascism as the lesser of two evils. They will also be quick to point out that any form of rising nationalism, of putting one’s country first, is merely fascism or neo-Nazism. The very thought of being tainted as a neo-Nazi usually triggers a conditioned response – you would probably quickly recoil in horror even as the fictional vampire recoils at the sight of the cross (i.e., the Swastika). We have been conditioned even as dogs were trained and conditioned in the famous Pavlovian experiments! The “Christian West” has been lowered before the specter of atheistic Communism.

Cannot the world remember that Hitler and the National Socialist movement were the archenemies of the Communists? We have been taught that Hitler’s “real” problem was “ANTI-SEMITISM” with which he infected his movement. And “ANTI-SEMITISM” the West equates repugnantly with the dreaded contagious AIDS through mind conditioning from “our” Jewish controlled communications media. We just cannot seem to remember that it was the Jews who started Communism in the first place – that most of the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks of the Communist revolution in Russia were Jewish. No, we cannot remember that because we WERE NEVER TAUGHT THAT! But what we ARE TAUGHT is that Hitler had a fixation disorder with regards to the Jews and used them as scapegoats to explain why Germany was having so many problems.

When are Christians going to read the Bible? If we are going to condemn Hitler for waging war against his enemies, we are going to have to condemn a lot of God’s servants who lead ancient Israel. (Read about God’s instructions to King Saul in 1 Samuel 15:2 & 3.) Should a soldier be condemned for doing his consecrated duty. Of course NOT! Only a criminal should be condemned to jail or death. As you will be shown “[Hitler] executed the justice of the Lord, and his judgments with Israel.” Can we as Christians not righteously judge this day between good and evil? Who is good and who is evil? The executioner and our soldiers who defend us OR the criminal and the enemy troops? CHOOSE!

Another word we have also been conditioned to use and respond to is the word “PREJUDICE”, and oh, how prejudiced we are against our OWN BLOOD RELATIONS – the German people – a CHRISTIAN folk, and how readily we defend NON-Christian aliens, the Jews! Truly we are a confused people who have drifted from our anchor, the HOLY BIBLE. And if I were your typical biased “Christian” who thinks all Jews are God’s Chosen, that Jesus Christ was one of the Jews as we know them today, and that Hitler was evil, I would NEVER have been able to figure out the references to Hitler in the Bible. What I came to understand through my own in-depth studies was that Adolf Hitler, contrary to political deception of the masses, was not the evil person he has been portrayed as. However, I did not study Hitler first. I studied the Jews and found out about their garbage books, the Talmud. And then I became, I figured, as incensed as Hitler became against the Jews. I, as a Christian, learned that the Talmud was not their name for the Old Testament of the Bible, but really the repulsive idiotic ramblings of various ancient Rabbis that makes null and void the Holy Bible. What I received from my studies was a definite case of RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION against these people who call themselves Jews. If you do not know what I am talking about, that is what a lot of deceived “Christians” come down with when they are confronted with a Nazi! You know, that exasperated angry feeling. But now my indignation was rightly directed against the Talmudic Jews (Edomites) who have developed Communism as their tool to gain control and enslave the world. Communism is but a by-product of Talmudic thought. It is the system that they, as the elite, will use to rule the masses (GOYIM). I WAS ALARMED!

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

The reason why many people and families stop coming to church is because they feel unwanted. I attended a local Baptist church one time on Guam, back in 2009. My life was in shambles, devastated after a divorce I didn't want in 2006. My life is still in shambles, and I am often lonely. I am looking for a wife, and praying, and in the Lord's time I hope to remarry. I remember sitting in back of the church and often crying during the congregational singing and special music, with a broken heart. I have always been a quiet person, keeping to myself, which is my personality (which is why it is hard for me to find a wife). No one reached out to me. The church uses the modern Bibles. They have since officially removed the name “Baptist” from their church. But when I was visiting faithfully for two months in 2009, no one befriended me. I remember the senior pastor saying one day from the pulpit, “Some of you are like big teenagers, you expect us to come up to you and befriend you, but you need to open up and talk to us.” I couldn't believe that he said that. It was a short time afterwards that I left and never went back, not because I was disgruntled, but because I simply didn't feel like anyone cared, that no one loved me there, and I felt like a misfit. I was hurting and at the bottom of life.

You know, that senior pastor is a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary. He also has a degree in psychology, go figure. And yet he, and I say this kindly, was so shallow that he couldn't even reach out to someone with a broken heart who was a loner. I am indeed like a big teenager, and I admit it, and there's nothing wrong with that. That's why I often wear my cap backwards (or maybe my head is on backwards...lol). I still feel like I'm 15 years old in my heart, and I like that. Brother Hyles teaches in his books that we ought to be a child, adolescent, adult.

Dustin Ranem #fundie reconstructionistradio.com

As a Theonomist that is also a Christian Reconstructionist, I often see that Christian Reconstructionism is also misrepresented, as if we want to impose tyrannical rule over the nations devoid of the gospel. A reason for this is that often in these discussions an important part of the equation is left out: our eschatological views. I hold that consistent Postmillennialism leads to Christian Reconstruction, and vice versa, because God’s law-word is the only holy, righteous, and just standard by which God has instructed His image bearers to live. This is always instituted through the gospel. Our weapons are not carnal. This is why most of us theonomists are postmil, because we believe that through the power of the Holy Spirit more and more men and women will be regenerated as time goes on. It could happen in 100 years or 10,000 years. It doesn’t matter because we have been commissioned by our King who reigns now and is putting all of His enemies under His feet until the last enemy is defeated. All this because of the numerous promises in Scripture that He shall have Dominion. It is our job to be ambassadors, light and salt to the world, teaching the nations to obey all that He has commanded, which one of those commands is to repent and believe the gospel.

A Few Things to Consider
- If a man can be regenerated and in turn families restored and churches revived through the Word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit, why
can’t the state and every area of life be transformed?
- Are not the state and all areas of life made up of men and women?
- The gospel changes the hearts and minds of men and women and they in turn are called to be light and salt.
- When light enters darkness it swallows up the darkness. Only when light is covered or hidden does darkness prevail.

Let your light shine to the glory of God!

Rosaria Butterfield #fundie cnsnews.com

A self-described former lesbian and feminist said on Wednesday that the Supreme Court’s decision in theObergefell v. Hodges case declaring states’ ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, created the “nation’s reigning idol.”

“When five unelected Supreme Court judges appended sexual orientation to the 14th Amendment in the 2015 Obergefell decision declaring state bans on gay marriage unconstitutional, sexual orientation metastasized from a description of perceived sexual desires to our nation’s reigning idol,” Rosaria Butterfield said in a lecture at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.

“Idols seduce,” Butterfield said. “Idols demand allegiance.

“Idols steal worship from God, and idols destroy faith in God,” Butterfield said.

Butterfield, a former tenured professor at Syracuse University, converted to Christianity in 1999 and has written several books, including “The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert” and “Openness Unhindered, Further Thoughts of an Unlikely Covert on Sexual Identity and Union with Christ.”

“The Obergefell decision established into law the idea that our sexuality is inseparable from our spirit; that it captures the truth about who we really are and that to deny its expression violates the core of our identity,” Butterfield said.

Butterfield said she now believes God created male and female as “image bearers” and homosexual desires are outcroppings of original sin and all of its manifestations of sin suffered by all mankind.

She also said she regrets the role she played in advancing the homosexual agenda.

“Who am I, and how dare I say these things?” Butterfield said. “You see, this is not an easy conversation for me.

“You see, we live in the world now that I helped create,” Butterfield said. “The blood is on these hands.

“I spent 10 years of my life – between the ages of 26 and 36 – in serial monogamous lesbian relationships and working to advance LGBT rights,” Butterfield said.

Butterfield now lives in North Carolina with her husband and their four adopted children. She describes herself today as a “full-time mother and pastor’s wife, part-time author and occasional speaker.”

Rosaria Butterfield and Russel Moore #fundie thegospelcoalition.org

Introduction by Rosaria Butterfield:

[...]

Liberals think I’m just another social justice advocate, adopting children to show my support of the welfare state. Quiver-fulls sometimes pity me because I couldn’t be a “real” mother to a child I carried in my womb. Darwinian evolutionists think working with all the bureaucracies to adopt children renders me nothing more than a glorified nanny to a group of kids doomed by biology and uncorrectable by environment. And at least one advocate of the Christian homeschool movement cautioned us against adopting older teens by declaring: “If you can’t spank them and can’t homeschool them, you can’t lead them to Jesus!”

[...]

It is a pastoral clarion call for what every fiber in my soul knows: adoption is neither social justice nor Christian charity. Adoption is Christian calling that puts spiritual warfare in full throttle.

Theologically, adoption is a non-negotiable gospel principle, for no one comes to the Father as a natural-born child. Practically, adoption is the most despised gospel principle, because in our prideful self-agggrandizement we feel entitled to gospel grace. Somewhere in the crossfire of this are orphans, image bearers of a holy God, waiting for the people of God to show up.

Summary of Russel Moore's book:
In the “Adoption and Spiritual Warfare” section, Moore makes clear there is—and has always been—a war against children, and Satan is leading the brigade and enlisting unwitting Christians to do his bidding. He writes, “There seems to be an orphan-making urge among us, whether we see it in the slave culture of centuries past or the divorce culture of today” (15). Moore goes on to demonstrate that Satan’s war against babies and children is consistent throughout biblical and world history. Citing both Herod’s and Pharaoh’s calls for genocide to protect their respective empires, Moore shows the ominous roots of Planned Parenthood and other leaders of the contemporary pragmatic movement who render children as mere inconveniences.

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Re: question for flat earthers - what is on the other side?

Actually, we have no idea of what's inside the ball earth model either.

All theories of "molten cores" and such are just that...theories. No proof.

The deepest they've been able to dig has been 5-8 miles. By the time they reach that depth, all drilling equipment fails due to high heat.

Mack Major #fundie facebook.com

Some of you ladies have been infected with "loser" energy. You picked it up from one of those guys you slept with not that long ago.

Now you have low energy. Your mind is constantly busy. You can barely sleep at night. You suffer from severe migraines and headaches. You don't accomplish much of anything anymore and you're not advancing in your life or in your field of work.

Your life seems to be at a virtual standstill.

Because you didn't know that whoever you allow inside of the sacred space of your vagina leaves a part of himself behind that ultimately becomes permanently attached to you. Didn't you know that a woman is a reflection of the type of man she sleeps with? You've become what sexually turned you on! And now you're stuck with the results.

Sex isn't merely physical: it's spiritual. What people mistakenly refer to as 'sexual energy' is really best described as the sharing of spiritual power between two individuals.

Just look at the design of your body to determine who does more of the receiving during this exchange. His body comes with an appendage that dispenses what's inside of him into your body. Your body comes equipped with a receptacle to receive whatever he's dispensing.

As a woman you end up becoming the sum total of every guy you've ever allowed within your sacred space.

And the more guys you've bedded in the past, the more mixed up and mingled that energy becomes inside of you. Kinda explains a lot of those weird thoughts, cravings and moods swings, doesn't it? You've taken on so much excess spiritual baggage that you're not even yourself anymore!

Now the question becomes: what do you do since you've allowed so many different guys (or maybe only one - I'm not judging) to leave a deposit of themselves inside of you?

How do you rid yourself of this spiritual baggage and get back to being your own self once again?

There is indeed a remedy! It's a powerfully effective one too. But if you want to know what it is you'll have to download the updated and revised edition of my ebook "Saved Sexy And Still Single: Why Christian Women Can't Get Married Even Though They Love God."

Hate to leave you hanging, but it's way too much information to leave on a social media post. Plus, I don't want folks stealing the info and misusing it! This is serious info for those who are truly ready to dump the junk in their lives and get right with God so they can live at their fullest potential.

I've revised this ebook with updated and new information. It'll be available July 1st for your reading pleasure: but you can pre-order it now and pay only half of its price tag (twenty dollars) when it officially drops.

Just ten bucks can change your life forever! But you have to get it now so you don't miss out.

And while you're waiting for this ebook to be released, start prepping your mind and body for the transformation you're about to undertake. Be mindful of what you eat and drink. Watch a little less TV. Take care of your vessel. Honor God and yourself by honoring your body temple. And be sure to reserve your copy of my new ebook tonight at: edendecoded.com/books/4s

God bless.

Berit Kjos #fundie crossroad.to

2. Fantasy and imagination can transform beliefs and values more quickly than reality. Many of our readers defend their love for occult entertainment with this standard justification: "I know the difference between reality and fantasy." But it doesn't matter! Know it or not, persuasive fiction and virtual experience can change minds and plant lasting memories more effectively than actual experience!

Popular fantasies, with their boundless thrills and unforgettable images, bypass logical thinking. Their subtle suggestions face little conscious resistance. Designed to stir feelings and produce strong emotional responses, they create new realities in today's "open" minds! As Harvard Professor Chris Dede, a global leader in the development of education technology programs, wrote, "Sensory immersion helps learners grasp reality through illusion."[4]

But what kind of "reality" will "learners" find through illusion? And how do those illusions shape their lives? These Scriptures give us a clue:

"For as he thinks in his heart, so is he." Proverbs 23:6

"...they obeyed not, nor inclined their ear, but walked every one in the imagination of their evil heart..." Jeremiah 11:8
"Jesus said, 'You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Matthew 5:27-28

"Do not be deceived. ...he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life." Galatians 6:7-8

Maverick Dean Bryan #fundie rawstory.com

Maverick Dean Bryan, 55, has been out on bond since March 28, and faces seven counts of mailing threatening communications to mayors in seven different Arkansas cities.

According to court documents, Bryan threatened to hang the mayors of Ashdown, Hope, De Queen, Lewisville, Nashville, Prescott and Murfreesboro from the “mighty oaks” on their courthouse lawns if they didn’t force local schools to replace the Common Core curriculum with the Bible.

Saying Bryan, “has repeatedly demonstrated his unwillingness to abide by the laws concerning the possession of firearms by a convicted felon,” U.S. District Judge Susan Hickey sent him back to jail on the recommendation of federals prosecutors.

“Defendant has an extensive criminal history involving the possession of firearms. In addition to his three previous convictions involving firearms, Defendant has admitted that he was impermissibly in possession of a firearm on the day of his arrest,” the order stated.

During depositions, Bryan admitted to placing ads in a local paper seeking $23 million to raise a Christian army to overthrow the U.S. government.

Prosecutors stated that Bryan’s letter also demanded that the mayors no longer honor votes cast by anyone who is homosexual, Muslim, socialist, communist, atheist, or anyone who worships a God other than Jesus Christ.

He also demanded those people be required to “exit.”

Ehud Would #racist #wingnut #fundie faithandheritage.com

Jeff Durbin opens his comedy show by saying, “As Christians, we condemn, completely, racism. Racism is essentially hatred. It’s hatred for another person, another image-bearer of God, because of the color of their skin.”

I have never met any White who fits that criteria. I mean, as someone who has been called racist a lot, I can tell you, I have no hatred for any particular color. But I do hate evil, and the large majority of Blacks are monstrously evil. Not least of which for their insistence that my people have no right to live — a position nigh universal to them. No, to the extent that Blacks are hated, it is in MLK’s historic words, “not on account of their color, but the content of their character.”

And though motives vary, the Right are not motivated by hatred of anyone so much as a sense of priority for their own children and culture, and a sense of responsibility to ancestors, posterity, and God.

Most funny, though, is that Durbin’s definition of ‘racism’ is all but unanimously condemned by Blacks as ‘blatant White Supremacy.’ So, yeah, he only provokes the very people he means to appease. For all his virtue signalling, the Antifa folk to whom he’s catering regard Durbin indistinguishable from the ‘Nazis.’ He may deceive himself into believing he is on the side of the downtrodden minorities, but as an anti-abortion cis White Christian, Durbin is to them only a target, and the only people who might defend him are the mean ol’ ‘racists’ he condemns.

Lady Checkmate #fundie disqus.com

Lady Checkmate’s headline: “Abhor "that" which is evil..."that", not "who"”

Those with skewed world views often accuse Bible-Believing Christians of hating them...which is a bald-faced lie. We love them, but we abhor sin and evil behavior ("that which is evil") as God's word instructs us to. I repeat, we abhor evil sinful behavior...behavior like pedophilia, we abhor...behavior like adultery (and all sexual immorality), we abhor...unrighteous violence (stalking, death threats, rape fantasies, creating kill lists, etc.,), we abhor. It is not the "who" or the individual that we abhor...it is the behavior "that" we abhor.

We share the gospel with the world, even as they threaten to kill us for it. We spend time in prayer, interceding and crying out to God for them, even as they create kill lists with our names on it-because we love them as God has instructed us to and we truly desire God's will for their life. My prayer is that even though they hate us for sharing Life and Truth with them. Even though they wish death on us for praying for them. Even though they despise us, stalk us, harass us and threaten our lives, we will continue to pray for them. God is not mocked. We will continue to seek God. We will continue to love them because it pleases God and we are submitted to Him and His will. The world's hate will not stop God's Love.

Romans 12: 4-10 (KJV)
4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;
8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.
9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.
10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;

Brethren, we will be starting a separate community for us so that we may continue to fellowship, continue to encourage one another, and continue to share Truth with those who are truly seeking Truth. I will tag each of you to our new community when it is established. These are the end times, and we are here for a purpose...may God's will be done...forever.

Royce E. Van Blaricome #fundie disqus.com

Jenny Ondioline:
Your problem Royce is that you want the decisions about who gets to form romantic relationships to be determined not by the governments who can determine if someone or something is being taken advantage of or abused, but by yourself based on nothing more than what your holy book tells you.

An incestuous relationship is vile to me because it blurs the areas between romantic love and nurturing love. If both parties are of consenting age there's nothing I or anyone else can do about it taking place. It doesn't mean I like it. And you could take a page from this - you can disapprove but still recognize that it's none of your business. I'm not overly concerned with this one because people aren't lining up to marry their mothers.

Who am I to say the children are being abused and are not consenting? Nobody, but I don't have to be. I point to the law that says a child can't consent until a legal age. At what point does a child stop being a child? Where the law says so. The line needs to be clearly drawn. What evidence is it you're looking for here? It's the law. Children need to be protected from predators just as animals do.

Different nations have different ages defining age of consent - some are lower than others and I might not like that but the law is the law. If enough people can make a case, in some of those countries the law gets changed. That's the best we can do.

See, Royce? No contradiction. Just thought out, reasoned words. Now how about you tell ME why two adult people of the same sex shouldn't legally enter into a romantic relationship. Please tell me who they are hurting. Please tell me where the abuse lies. Please tell me why you should be the one we all listen to to get it stopped.


Royce E. Van Blaricome:
LOL. There's that faux omniscience again! Or are you just practicing psychology without a license? Tell ya what, need time I wanna know what my problem is, just rest easy and know I'll rely on God who can actually tell me what it is because He knows!

Of course it's easier for you to divert from answering the questions by focusing on me being the problem instead of yourself. No surprise there. But you are spot on right when you say I let God's Holy inerrant, infallible, and timeless Word of God make my decisions for me.

Who are YOU to say an incestuous relationship blurs the areas between romantic love and nurturing love? Who appointed you God of the Universe and Omniscient to say that?

"If both parties are of consenting age there's nothing I or anyone else can do about it taking place. It doesn't mean I like it."

Now you know why I thanked you for showing that the Mother & Son should be allowed to marry. And that you lied when you said, "I don't support a mother and son incestuous relationship". Doing nothing to stop and prevent the incestuous relationship IS supporting it. Any good soldier knows that when you do nothing to prevent the advancing of the enemy you ARE aiding and abetting the enemy. So, once again, thanks for publicly showing that you do support incestuous relationships. And I imagine the other things I listed that were deleted as well.

"And you could take a page from this - you can disapprove but still recognize that it's none of your business."

What a hateful and totally unloving thing to say!! But hey, again, thanks for showing everyone just how hateful and unloving you are. That you would standby and do nothing while holding to an empty claim that it's none of your business. How pathetic.

"I'm not overly concerned with this one because people aren't lining up to marry their mothers."

Wrong! I just gave you the names of one who is and of a father/son marriage too. But, again, I thank you for putting your total selfishness on such a display.

"I point to the law that says a child can't consent until a legal age. At what point does a child stop being a child? Where the law says so."

Thank you for publicly displaying your acceptance and support for the two teachers who preyed on 13yo boys because it was LEGAL to do so. Thank you for publicly showing that if the age is changed to 10 or 9 or 8 or done away with, you're gonna be just fine with that because it's the LAW.

And, most of all, thank you for showing that your morality is contingent upon the will of the majority and whatever laws can be passed. What a grand witness and testimony for a superb reason to die to self and surrender to Christ and place your trust in Almighty God!!!

"Children need to be protected from predators just as animals do."

Thank you for equating children to animals. That explains a lot. I'd love to hear how you're gonna protect the bunnies from the coyotes, deer from the cougars, elk from the wolves, impalas from the lions, seals from the polar bears, and all animals from humans. That oughtta be a grand plan! LOL

"Different nations have different ages defining age of consent - some are lower than others and I might not like that but the law is the law."

There ya go again. What an utterly bankrupt morality.

"If enough people can make a case, in some of those countries the law gets changed. That's the best we can do."

Wait a minute, it's the Law! You said it's ok if it's the Law! Why bother trying to change it? In fact, why not just go back to the days when you weren't allowed to vote or hold certain public offices? After all, it was the LAW!! Why not follow the Law when Blacks weren't considered fully human or interracial marriage wasn't allowed? Do you support the Law or not?? Do you follow the Law or not? Ya need to make up your mind.

And I don't know who the "we" is that you refer to but it certainly does NOT include me or any other Christians. There is FAR MORE we can do!

"See, Royce? No contradiction. Just thought out, reasoned words."

Oh yeah, you've made that abundantly clear! LOL NOT!! Your "thought out, reasoned" words are insanity. LOL

"Now how about you tell ME why two adult people of the same sex shouldn't legally enter into a romantic relationship."

Ok. GOD.

"Please tell me who they are hurting."

Ok. Themselves and every single person who accepts, approves, and supports them.

"Please tell me where the abuse lies."

Ok. SIN.

"Please tell me why you should be the one we all listen to to get it stopped."

Ok. Because God says so. I am an Ambassador of the Lord Jesus Christ. An image bearer. A light in the Darkness. One who brings the Truth. Commissioned by Christ to do so.

Now, I've answered your questions. Try answering mine. And answer this one too, just exactly why are you here? Exactly what are you trying to accomplish?

Shawn Bolz #fundie wesleygospel.com

“Revelation from the Library Room of Heaven”
by Shawn Bolz
Jan 28, 2004

In This Library Room Was Charles Finney!

After looking at many books, the spiritual being that was with me motioned me toward the center of the room again. He led me to stand next to some men who were already in eternity. One of the men was talking to two other men. I heard the Holy Spirit say, “That is Charles Finney,” and I grew excited inside! I haven’t read much about Charles Finney, but there was the glory of our abiding God pulsating from him. His eyes were filled with the revelation of Jesus and the plans of God!

He was talking about revival and telling the two other men, “What God did in my day was awesome, and many of us were privileged to experience great outpourings that are now looked upon as revival. But there is a release of glory from Heaven coming that will bring such a complete revival to America, that it will far exceed any revival ever known in any country.”

America is Close to Revival

“The church in America is full of doomsday prophets proclaiming an end to America, but they don’t understand that the country is only a few hundred years old and still in its infancy. It has many destinies to play out, and God is going to reactivate the covenants of the forefathers in the land, and America will start to grow and mature. God has both hidden and obvious purposes for America that will unfold over a long period of time and this coming revival is going to activate the plans of the Creator that were promises at the forefront of the nation’s history.” He spoke of a coming year and said: “This is a gateway year that will help build the gate from Heaven to Earth. The Holy Spirit will whisper strategic things into the land through churches, music, media, events, and then soon these things will be shouted from roof tops!”

At this point I saw a calendar that had various years on it. There were 8 future years (not in succession) circled and names of cities next to different years. The first year only had a few major cities, but each year that was circled had more and more cities until there were too many to list. I could see a cloud off in the distance of this vast library, and I realized that it was a cloud of angels with glory swirling around it. It was the angelic host that would release these things on Earth. There was constant movement in the cloud. The scene was truly beyond description.

Charles’ Message to Me

Then Charles Finney turned to me, (I didn’t even know he knew I was listening), and he shouted at me face to face: “One Nation Under God!” “One Nation Under God!” “ONE NATION UNDER GOD!” He said this ten times. Some kind of deep impartation came with his words and rested in the bowels of my spirit. I had a knowing that Jesus has an incredible plan to build the church in America and bring revival to the lost. He is going to bring a picture of His body all over the world through America! I knew that intercession was going to go forth on the Earth with new strategies for America.

I Saw a Vision of Holiness Hitting the Air Waves

I then saw the Spirit of Holiness released from Isaiah 11. I saw it touching media and broadcasting services. I saw God-ordained messages broadcast through the media waves into the Earth. God is about to claim His ownership in radio stations, TV, and movie theaters. I saw that He wants a satellite that man has made by His inspiration. I saw a special anointing come on these tools to bring the message of holiness and the cross unto salvation.

After–I saw the Holy Spirit change the atmosphere of the air waves with waves of His anointing hitting the media. I saw it cause power bursts that would literally destroy in the natural some of the secular equipment used by organizations of the world. There will be some days of disturbance that will hit multiple media centers and these will be signs that the Forerunner Spirit is going to come upon these very industries.

Commissioned Back to Earth

At the end of this vision I was looking at the Book of Life again. The spiritual being that had been with me in the Library Section of the Future came over to me once more. He had books in his hands and he started to push them towards me. I thought he was handing them to me so I stuck out my hands–instead he pushed them into me. As I took them in, I was sent back to Earth.

I was sitting in my chair and God spoke to my spirit, saying, “I am releasing books from every section to expand people! The Library Room of Heaven will be known on Earth! It will bring a manifestation of My government being established. Many leaders will be visited and the difference in what comes forth in their communications will be evident.”

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

Kindly, the apostate Harvest Baptist Church (HBC) on Guam, in Micronesia, openly promotes false prophet Dr. John MacArthur. When I attended the church for a year—before they forced me out in 2014 because I kindly and faithfully stood for THE TRUTH of the Word of God, exposing the corrupt Alexandrian versions—the church distributed John MacArthur study materials to the congregation. The pastor praised Mr. MacArthur from the pulpit. The pastor literally taught the error that Mr. MacArthur teaches, that admitting you're a sinner is not enough to be saved, but also, [he says] “you must turn away from a lifestyle of sin.” I heard him say that with my own two ears! HERESY!!! That is Calvinism, not the Gospel!!! I still love the folks at Harvest, more than they want to admit, but they are pathetically lukewarm, having left their first love, and they are serving mammon (money) instead of God. According to the Holy Bible in Revelation 3:15-16, God is disgusted with churches like Harvest Baptist Church (HBC) on Guam, wanting to vomit!!! Barf! Barf!

Many Churches Today Have Been Deceived By the Devil

That is why Harvest Baptist Church on Guam invited and honored the wicked false prophet, Ravi Zacharias, in June of 2017. What a sad day at Harvest when they bid Godspeed to an ecumenical kingpin, devil-preacher!!! They should rename their “Family Living Center” at HBC to the “Family Dying Center”! Ravi Zacharias is a religious bastard in the pulpit! I say that kindly, and respectfully toward anyone who may be offended, but it is 100% true!!! Ravi Zacharias stands for NOT STANDING!!! What a sad joke for a minister! I am not saying that Ravi is a bad man. I am not saying that he is not sincere. I am not saying that he is a dishonest man. I am saying that he is a big time FALSE PROPHET!!! You can always tell a false prophet by WHAT HE DOESN'T SAY!!!

Harvest Baptist Church on Guam has sinfully shunned me away since 2014 for merely telling THE TRUTH, despising me, literally banning me in writing from returning to even attend weekly church services; but yet they sinfully invite, love and honor a bastard like Ravi Zacharias instead. God will judge between me and Harvest Baptist Church in eternity at the Judgment Seat of Christ, if they are even there (i.e., if they are really born-again). People don't want to hear THE TRUTH nowadays. I'm talking about the snobby, yuppie, arrogant, ungrateful, spoiled, deceived, Bob Jones University crowd! They love and promote John MacArthur, a devil-preacher, who used to attend BJU. John MacArthur is a reprobate concerning the faith!

And to make matters worse, Harvest Baptist Church loves and promotes Calvinist kingpin, devil-preacher, John MacArthur; who, respectfully, is of the Devil. Mr. MacArthur teaches that God predestinates who will or won't be saved, which is a lie of the Devil. Mr. MacArthur is a heretic, a 5-point Calvinist! Also, John MacArthur teaches the lie that Jesus' precious blood is not sprinkled on the heavenly Mercy Seat. Mr. MacArthur's plan of salvation is so complicated and difficult, that he says, “There is no such thing as a childhood conversion.” Dr. John MacArthur is a natural leader, suave and he makes some great theological insights, which is why so many pastors are being deceived. But my friend, I have learned some great truths from Jehovah's Witnesses too! Satan fully knows that the most effect LIE is the half-truth, because in part it can be defended with incontestable logic!

Harvest Baptist Church on Guam also uses the Easy-To-Read Version (the ERV, a satanic Alexandrian PERversion)!!! Despite being warned repeatedly, the pastors, staff and members of Harvest Baptist Church love heresy. This is nothing new! Look what the Word of God says about idolatrous Old Testament Israel in Jeremiah 5:31, “The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?” Woe unto any so-called “church” that disregards THE TRUTH!!! I am going to expose false prophets, false churches, false Bibles, false Christs, and every falsehood! Psalms 119:104, “Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.” No minister truly walks with God who bids Godspeed to devil-preachers (Calvinists), embraces satanic corrupt Bible versions (e.g., the ERV, NIV, NKJV and ESV), makes light of the verbal inspiration of the King James Bible (as do BJU and their alumni), and honor wolves in sheep's clothing like Dr. Ravi Zacharias. This is Harvest Baptist Church (HBC) on Guam!!! And anybody who bids HBC Godspeed is as bad as they are, not right with God!

Bill P #sexist unz.com

[Quote across two comments]

A college degree is the new dowry. I work with a lot of high-income blue collar guys (Todd Palin types), and the gender pay gap in this social class is enormous. While the men, given enough seniority and the willingness to put in the hours, can easily make six figures a year, the women don’t even come close unless they run successful businesses (some do but it’s rare). You’d think that might induce women to stick around, but due to family law it has the opposite effect.

Say you’re a 27-year-old woman who doesn’t have a college degree and your likewise non-degreed husband is a firefighter. Or he could be a railroader, a mariner, heavy equipment operator, cop, etc. The husband is raking in the dough by the time he’s in his thirties, and you’ve got a couple kids with him. You could get a job in an office making $12/hr, but why bother? Your husband is making significantly more than most guys with 4-year degrees, so there’s no point.

This builds up an enormous inequality in income vs. assets due to “community property” laws. What this does is incentivize the seizure of these assets on the part of the partner with less income. Without working a day, you can get a house, half of retirement savings, and enough monthly maintenance and child support to avoid working for years. It’s a very attractive prospect for a lot of young women, who resent being tied down to one man. It’s really like winning the lottery, as the overall payout frequently runs into the mid six figures.

For the degreed woman, on the other hand, there’s the expectation that she’ll be working too, especially because she has good income potential. Therefore there’s far less incentive to make a break for it, because the assets and debts/mortgages – and even child custody – will be split more or less equally because she has a job and an income. In other words, she doesn’t “win” anything. Her victory is as likely as not to be pyrrhic.

This is the true value of a college education for girls in the upper middle class. It essentially makes them marriageable (i.e safe bets) to men who have good income and employment potential. It provides some insurance that she will not fly the coop while the man is still rising in his career, because she knows she stands little to gain from doing so.

It’s all about incentives.

...

The salient aspect of divorce law is that it is empirically overwhelmingly true that divorced women are much, much more likely to see their economic well being fall than men until they remarry, because divorce moves the spouses closer to not equally sharing resources, because women on average earn less than men, and because two households are more expensive than one.

But, on the other hand, the best predictor of divorce is that the wife earns more than the husband and is not financially dependent upon him. From a modeling perspective, the closest match to reality is to view divorce as a decision made almost entirely by wives.

So this suggests that women act against their own and their children’s interests at alarmingly high rates when empowered to do so. Who would have thought?

Charles #fundie christiannews.net

Here's some actual truth as opposed to your propaganda.

The Numbers

New HIV Infectionsb

• In 2010, gay and bisexual men accounted for 63% of estimated new HIV infections in the United States and 78% of infections among all newly infected men. From 2008 to 2010, new HIV infections increased 22% among young (aged 13-24) gay and bisexual men and 12% among gay and bisexual men overall.

• Among all gay and bisexual men, white gay and bisexual men accounted for 11,200 (38%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among white gay and bisexual men (3,300; 29%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34.

• Among all gay and bisexual men, black/African American gay and bisexual men accounted for 10,600 (36%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among black/African American gay and bisexual men (4,800; 45%) occurred in those aged 13 to 24. From 2008 to 2010 new infections increased 20% among young black/African American gay and bisexual men aged 13 to 24.

• Among all gay and bisexual men, Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men accounted for 6,700 (22%) estimated new HIV infections in 2010. The largest number of new infections among Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men (3,300; 39%) occurred in those aged 25 to 34.

HIV and AIDS Diagnosesc

• In 2013, in the United States, gay and bisexual men accounted for 81% (30,689) of the 37,887 estimated HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 years and older and 65% of the 47,352 estimated diagnoses among all persons receiving an HIV diagnosis that year.

• In 2013, gay and bisexual men accounted for 55% of the estimated number of persons diagnosed with AIDS among all adults and adolescents in the United States. Of the estimated 14,611 gay and bisexual men diagnosed with AIDS, 40% were blacks/African Americans; 32% were whites; and 23% were Hispanics/Latinos.

• By the end of 2011, an estimated 311,087 gay and bisexual men with AIDS had died in the United States since the beginning of the epidemic, representing 47% of all deaths of persons with AIDS.

• In 2011, CDC data showed that 80.6% of MSM with diagnosed HIV infection were linked to care, 57.5% were retained in care, 52.9% were prescribed antiretroviral therapy (ART), and 44.6% had achieved viral suppression.

Sounds much more like a Homosexual issue than a Heterosexual one.. Remember the Homosexual population isn't more than 2 percent.

wvpioneer49 #fundie spot.im

[A baby was born with a partially developed twin inside her. The twin has been surgically removed due to its nonviable state.]

gsaobg: Doctors fixed God's mistake.

wvpioneer49: Wrong. God is perfect in every way and does not have the ability to make mistakes. Look up why does God allow birth defects. God gave the Doctors the ability to help this baby. Most of us do not have what it takes to be Doctors

gsaobg: God created birth defects so that doctors get opportunities to fix those?

wvpioneer49: God did not create birth defects sin did. All started with Adam and Eve when they sinned.When they sinned they brought death, disease and ect in to the world. Do a little research you will understand

gsaobg: Adam and Eve story has been debunked.....no one is born with s!n.....the original s!n story is circulated to convert you into Christianity under threat....

wvpioneer49: Proof and source

gsaobg: biology and genetic studies have proved that there was never a first human man and woman....humans evolved as a group....

wvpioneer49: Sounds like you do not believe in God or believe what you want. Here is you evolution and your big band. I replied this to someone awhile back: "The evolutionist say that all life started from a single cell. If this was the case there would be just one species on earth. But there isn't there are multiple species on earth. So every species has to be created separately which is creation. If you want more info on creation read at least Genesis chapter 1 and 2"

gsaobg: species change with time through evolution......it has nothing to do whether there is God or not ....Bible genesis story has been debunked....

wvpioneer49: If you do not believe in Genesis you do not believe in God and you do not believe what the bible says.

Goddoesnotexist God created sin .

ahr2736: Deuteronomy 23:1 says, “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.”

wvpioneer49: That is Old Testament. We are under the New Testament. Another words we are not under the old law.

gsaobg: so no more 10 commandments?

wvpioneer49: Jesus gave two new commandments
Matthew 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

gsaobg: that's fine....but what about the OT ten commandments? are they still valid?

wvpioneer49: If we follow the two commandments we follow all ten. Think about it like this If we love others we will not steal, lie, murder and ect. If we love God. We will not worship other gods and ect.

gsaobg: so OT 10 commandments are still valid....then why not Deuteronomy 23:1? do we now have to pick and choose OT laws?

wvpioneer49: Jesus made it easier. Jesus came to fulfill the old law. If we are still under the old law we would still be sacrificing animals for our sins. Jesus fulfilled the old covenant and the beginning of the new. That is why Jesus came and died so we would not have to sacrifice. Jesus died for our sins. that is why we follow Jesus We must accept Him as our Lord and Savior to get to heaven.

gsaobg: if we are not under the old law anymore, then no more 10 commandments.....from what you said so far it seems that you are uncomfortable with some of the OT laws and want to pick and choose to keep the good ones and reject the bad ones.......

Frederica Mathewes-Green #fundie frederica.com

Let's Have More Teen Pregnancy

True Love Waits. Wait Training. Worth Waiting For. The slogans of teen abstinence programs reveal a basic fact of human nature: teens, sex, and waiting aren’t a natural combination.

Over the last fifty years the wait has gotten longer. In 1950, the average first-time bride was just over 20; in 1998 she was five years older, and her husband was pushing 27. If that June groom had launched into puberty at 12, he’d been waiting more than half his life.

If he had been waiting, that is. Sex is the sugar coating on the drive to reproduce, and that drive is nearly overwhelming. It’s supposed to be; it’s the survival engine of the human race. Fighting it means fighting a basic bodily instinct, akin to fighting thirst.

Yet despite the conflict between liberals and conservatives on nearly every topic available, this is one point on which they firmly agree: young people absolutely must not have children. Though they disagree on means—conservatives advocate abstinence, liberals favor contraception—they shake hands on that common goal. The younger generation must not produce a younger generation.

But teen pregnancy, in itself, is not such a bad thing. By the age of 18, a young woman’s body is well prepared for childbearing. Young men are equally qualified to do their part. Both may have better success at the enterprise than they would in later years, as some health risks—Cesarean section and Down syndrome, for example— increase with passing years. (The dangers we associate with teen pregnancy, on the other hand, are behavioral, not biological: drug use, STD’s, prior abortion, extreme youth, and lack of prenatal care.) A woman’s fertility has already begun to decline at 25—one reason the population-control crowd promotes delayed childbearing. Early childbearing also rewards a woman’s health with added protection against breast cancer.

Younger moms and dads are likely be more nimble at child-rearing as well, less apt to be exhausted by toddlers’ perpetual motion, less creaky-in-the-joints when it’s time to swing from the monkey bars. I suspect that younger parents will also be more patient with boys-will-be-boys rambunction, and less likely than weary 40-somethings to beg pediatricians for drugs to control supposed pathology. Humans are designed to reproduce in their teens, and they’re potentially very good at it. That’s why they want to so much.

Teen pregnancy is not the problem Unwed teen pregnancy is the problem. It’s childbearing outside marriage that causes all the trouble. Restore an environment that supports younger marriage, and you won’t have to fight biology for a decade or more.

Most of us blanch at the thought of our children marrying under the age of 25, much less under 20. The immediate reaction is: “They’re too immature.” We expect teenagers to be self-centered and impulsive, incapable of shouldering the responsibilities of adulthood.

But it wasn’t always that way; through much of history, teen marriage and childbearing was the norm. Most of us would find our family trees dotted with many teen marriages.

Of course, those were the days when grown teens were presumed to be truly “young adults.” It’s hard for us to imagine such a thing today. It’s not that young people are inherently incapable of responsibility-history disproves that-but that we no longer expect it. Only a few decades ago a high school diploma was taken as proof of adulthood, or at least as a promise that the skinny kid holding it was ready to start acting like one. Many a boy went from graduation to a world of daily labor that he would not leave until he was gray; many a girl began turning a corner of a small apartment into a nursery. Expectations may have been humble, but they were achievable, and many good families were formed this way.

Hidden in that scenario is an unstated presumption, that a young adult can earn enough to support a family. Over the course of history, the age of marriage has generally been bounded by puberty on the one hand, and the ability to support a family on the other. In good times, folks marry young; when prospects are poor, couples struggle and save toward their wedding day. A culture where men don’t marry until 27 would normally feature elements like repeated crop failures or economic depression.

That’s not the case in America today. Instead we have an artificial situation which causes marriage to be delayed. The age that a man, or woman, can earn a reasonable income has been steadily increasing as education has been dumbed down. The condition of basic employability that used to be demonstrated by a high school diploma now requires a Bachelor’s degree, and professional careers that used to be accessible with a Bachelor’s now require a Master’s degree or more. Years keep passing while kids keep trying to attain the credentials that adult earning requires.

Financial ability isn’t our only concern, however; we’re convinced that young people are simply incapable of adult responsibility. We expect that they will have poor control of their impulses, be self-centered and emotional, and be incapable of visualizing consequences. (It’s odd that kids thought to be too irresponsible for marriage are expected instead to practice heroic abstinence or diligent contraception.) The assumption of teen irresponsibility has broader roots that just our estimation of the nature of adolescence; it involves our very idea of the purpose of childhood.

Until a century or so ago, it was presumed that children were in training to be adults. From early years children helped keep the house or tend the family business or farm, assuming more responsibility each day. By their latter teens, children were ready to graduate to full adulthood, a status they received as an honor. How early this transition might begin is indicated by the number of traditional religious and social coming-of-age ceremonies that are administered at ages as young as 12 or 13.

But we no longer think of children as adults-in-progress. Childhood is no longer a training ground but a playground, and because we love our children and feel nostalgia for our own childhoods, we want them to be able to linger there as long as possible. We cultivate the idea of idyllic, carefree childhood, and as the years for education have stretched so have the bounds of that playground, so that we expect even “kids” in their mid-to-late twenties to avoid settling down. Again, it’s not that people that age couldn’t be responsible; their ancestors were. It’s that anyone, offered a chance to kick back and play, will generally seize the opportunity. If our culture assumed that 50-year-olds would take a year-long break from responsibility, have all their expenses paid by someone else, spend their time having fun and making forgivable mistakes, our malls would be overrun by middle-aged delinquents.

But don’t young marriages tend to end in divorce? If we communicate to young people that we think they’re inherently incompetent that will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it was not always the case. In fact, in the days when people married younger, divorce was much rarer. During the last half of the 20th century, as brides’ age rose from 20 to 25, the divorce rate doubled. The trend toward older, and presumptively more mature, couples didn’t result in stronger marriages. Marital durability has more to do with the expectations and support of surrounding society than with the partners’ age.

A pattern of late marriage may actually increase the rate of divorce. During that initial decade of physical adulthood, young people may not be getting married, but they’re still falling in love. They fall in love, and break up, and undergo terrible pain, but find that with time they get over it. They may do this many times. Gradually, they get used to it; they learn that they can give their hearts away, and take them back again; they learn to shield their hearts from access in the first place. They learn to approach a relationship with the goal of getting what they want, and keep their bags packed by the door. By the time they marry they may have had many opportunities to learn how to walk away from a promise. They’ve been training for divorce.

As we know too well, a social pattern of delayed marriage doesn’t mean delayed sex. In 1950, there were 14 births per thousand unmarried women; in 1998, the rate had leapt to 44. Even that astounding increase doesn’t tell the whole story. In 1950 the numbers of births generally corresponded to the numbers of pregnancies, but by 1998 we must add in many more unwed pregnancies that didn’t come to birth, but ended in abortion, as roughly one in four pregnancies do. My home city of Baltimore wins the blue ribbon for out-of-wedlock childbearing: in 2001, 77% of all births were to unwed mothers.

There are a number of interlocking reasons for this rise in unwed childbearing, but one factor must surely be that when the requirements presumed necessary for marriage rise too high, some people simply parachute out. It’s one thing to ask fidgety kids to abstain until they finish high school at 18. When the expectation instead is to wait until 25 or 27, many will decline to wait at all. We’re saddened, but no longer surprised, at girls having babies at the age of 12 or 13. Between 1940 and 1998, the rate at which girls 10-14 had their first babies almost doubled. These young moms’ sexual experiences are usually classified as “non-voluntary” or “not wanted.” Asking boys to wait until marriage is one way a healthy culture protects young girls.

The idea of returning to an era of young marriage still seems daunting, for good reason. It is not just a matter of tying the knot between dreamy-eyed 18-year-olds and tossing them out into world. Our ancestors were able to marry young because they were surrounded by a network of support enabling that step. Young people are not intrinsically incompetent, but they do still have lots of learning to do, just like newly-weds of any age. In generations past a young couple would be surrounded by family and friends who could guide and support them, not just in navigating the shoals of new marriage, but also in the practical skills of making a family work, keeping a budget, repairing a leaky roof, changing a leaky diaper.

It is not good for man to be alone; it’s not good for a young couple to be isolated, either. In this era of extended education, couples who marry young will likely do so before finishing college, and that will require some sacrifices. They can’t expect to “have it all.” Of the three factors—living on their own, having babies, and both partners going to school full-time—something is going to have to give. But young marriage can succeed, as it always has, with the support of family and friends.

I got married a week after college graduation, and both my husband and I immediately went to graduate school. We made ends meet by working as janitors in the evenings, mopping floors and cleaning toilets. We were far from home, but our church was our home, and through the kindness of more-experienced families we had many kinds of support—in fact, all that we needed. When our first child was born we were so flooded with diapers, clothes, and gifts that our only expense was the hospital bill.

Our daughter and older son also married and started families young. Things don’t come easy for those who buck the norm, but with the help of family, church, and creative college-to-work programs, both young families are making their way. Early marriage can’t happen in a vacuum; it requires support from many directions, and it would be foolish to pretend the costs aren’t high.

The rewards are high as well. It is wonderful to see our son and daughter blooming in strong, joyful marriages, and an unexpected joy to count a new daughter and son in our family circle. Our cup overflows with grandchildren as well: as of July we have four grandbabies, though the oldest is barely two. I’m 49.

It’s interesting to think about the future. What if the oldest grandbaby also marries young, and has his first child at the age of 20? I would hold my great-grandchild at 67. There could even follow a great-great-grand at 87. I will go into old age far from lonely. My children and their children would be grown up then too, and available to surround the younger generations with many resourceful minds and loving hearts. Even more outrageous things are possible: I come from a long-lived family, some of whom went on past the age of 100. How large a family might I live to see?

Such speculation becomes dizzying—yet these daydreams are not impossible, and surely not unprecedented. Closely-looped, mutually supporting generations must have been a common sight, in older days when young marriage was affirmed, and young people were allowed to do what comes naturally.

David Lane #fundie www1.cbn.com

Secularism has imposed its godlessness on America’s youth for the last three-quarters century, devastating public education and higher learning. American education has collapsed under the weight of Secularism. Moral and academic anarchy now reign. Something curious has happened to those who define themselves as anti-fascist, who in reality are the fascists.

Edita #fundie patheos.com

So you like being overburdened by your womanly duties such as having kids, cleaning house and cooking all the while getting harassed at work by your boss? You like slavery? Why wouldn't you want an easy life where the only thing you care about is loving your husband? I don't understand your slave mind. Think woman, eventually you will get older you will begin to lack the energy to do it all. And your marriage will end in divorce.

I for one refuse such slavery. You are just as bad as Christian fundamentalist, homophobic pro-lifers to be honest. No longer will the TWRA's allow for women such as you to enslave us into doing male duties.

Feminists managed to ‘liberate’ women by making it easier for women to become sluts (premarital sex). Thus, reducing the importance of chaste and pure women as a result, men have no inventive to marry and women are used as nothing more but mere sexual commodities. When women finally tire of the promiscuous lifestyle, they find that no man wants to marry them. Men who do not shun marriage tend to marry virgins so the feminist promiscuous sluts are left to age by themselves. Or they settle for less well to do men and are subsequently are exploited by these men for monetary purposes. This is because the career of the promiscuous woman finally begins to take off exponentially after the investment she put forth in her 20’s and 30’s.

In the end, she misses out on marriageable men and wastes it on a useless career that essentially fails to fulfill her. Not only is the woman used for monetary and sexual purposes by her less successful (Mangina) husband who refuses to support her. He also exploits her when it comes to housework and child rearing. As again, the woman is made to do it all while the husband comfortably relaxes on a coach after a days work. Nevertheless, a working woman’s day never ends she not only is forced to have a job outside of the home she must do everything inside of the home. This includes everything from childcare, housework chores and servicing her husband sexually; indeed what a great day for the liberationist elite. To see women toil and suffer in the hands of an egalitarian society and at the hands of an emasculated husband who seeks to use and abuse the woman for all that she is worth. Feminism has made women lower the standards for men greatly. It has told women that they can be successful by themselves, however feminists failed to take into account the unfair distribution of labor in the household. In addition, the woman begins to resent her husband for making her work outside of the home and do everything inside of the home. This leads to fights and divorce, and thus after a divorce a woman seeks to gain the best financial advantage from the husband. Through alimony, some lucky gals manage to take revenge on Mangina husbands that way. However, most women are left destitute. As shown by the increasing poverty rates of single mothers.

This is the great liberation that feminism gave women. It has made women into thrash. It has made men disrespect women it has led to a nation of emasculated men who further thrive on the oppression of the feminine women. These men fear feminine women who seek protection and objectification of their men. They are scared to take responsibility, be the leaders in their families, and lead their wives. These men thus cause resentment in women. Then women act out in desperation. The modern woman is forced to be the “Escrava Isaura” of our time. She is shunned, thrashed and spit on; she becomes a sexual commodity to be used by many men. Additionally, she continues to be exploited after marriage by a husband who refuses to undertake the breadwinner role and makes her work outside of the home. Feminism has created a nation of deluded Isaura’s who insist on the doctrine of feminism, yet knowing that something is not right. Deep down she knows she is being exploited by the system she knows that it is unfair. Yet without a voice for women, she remains gullible and easily swayed toward the belief that egalitarianism is good.

V the K #fundie moonbattery.com

The alternative to believing in God is believing that the universe spontaneously popped into existence 16 billion years ago, out of nothing, for no reason, and is held together by a magical substance called 'dark matter,' whose existence has never been proven, but which scientists insist must exist because their models of the universe don't work without it.

And, by the way, human life exists only because of a random series of accidents whose probability is approximately equal to the odds of hitting the Powerball every week for a thousand years.

The same scientists who recently had to revise their count of dinosaur species because they had counted juvenile, adolescent, and adult fossils from the same species as three distinct species. (Oopsie)

But remember, science is infallible. Religion is just kooky. (Love thy neighbor, what a load!)

The thing about Christianity is that done properly it requires discipline, self-control, generosity, and constant study. Obviously, it's easier to stand outside and throw stones at Christians than it is to actually gain an understanding of it.

Conflagration #racist stormfront.org

You're a race traitor if you don't lift weights

This is my opinion of white men who don't lift weights. I'll give you a pass if you have a job where you do HEAVY labor like construction or roofing, but otherwise you're just presenting yourself as a cuck to society at large. There's no excuse anymore to not be a muscle beast. Weight lifting equipment is plentiful and can be had for next to nothing on Craigslist. If you have a computer and an internet connection you have a personal trainer in the form of a million youtube videos devoted to strength training. If someone had to give a physical description of you and they left out the words "muscular" or "athletic" then you're basically a poser. If you want to be part of the master race then start looking the part.

Grunt #fundie moonbattery.com

[A picture of a topless Ukrainian FEMEN activist sowing down a cross memorial for the victims of the soviet dictatorship in protest of the Pussy Riot conviction in Russia is shown]

Well, Judith M….they are feminists.
Operating dangerous equipment while Topless.
Showing off their bodies like meat on display is a sure fire way to get a man to respect your mind.

Don’cha know.
Makes about as much sense as lesbians supporting abortion.
Because nothing shows how “strong” you are like murdering the defenseless.

Theodore Gumbril #fundie returnofkings.com

[An ultra-orthodox Jewish community in London banned women from driving]

The first reaction of rank feminist disapproval came within the fortress. Dina Brawer, the UK ambassador of the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance, said: “What this is really about is the curtailing of women’s freedom of movement rendering them dependent on men. It’s an issue of power and control not one of religious sensibility.

Or, translated from sociology-speak:

Muh patriarchy

Another Jewish critic, Ella Marks of the “League of Jewish Women” said “I can see no question of it being immodest and I would not want a repeat of the situation in Saudi Arabia which is certainly a patriarchal society.”

Saudi Arabia. Because the degradation of not being allowed to drive is concomitant with the degradation of having an Sheikh use you as a personal shitter for $10,000 a night.

After this, as if like clockwork, the government piled in. Nicky Morgan, one of David Cameron’s government appointments on the basis that the appointee has a vagina, the cabinet’s Education Secretary, raised her quota-hire head above the parapet to say that such a ban was “unacceptable.”

...

Gloria De Piero MP, perennial bag of useless and Labour Party politician, even wrote to the chief Quango in charge of Human Rights, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, to ask them to investigate the Belzers. A private group arranging their own affairs! Her complaints were based on Labour’s freedom-destroying Equality Act legislation.

The complaint precipitated more pompous letter-writing between the nonentities at the EHRC and the nonentities in the Labour Party, until the following statement was issued by a “spokesperson” at the EHRC:

This sort of discrimination has no place in our society and we will be writing to leaders of Hasidic Belz educational institutions to underline their legal obligations.

“Our society” by which the mean of course the society of humourless, lawbook-waving turds in suits who profess to build the progressive utopia that Lenin and Stalin didn’t quite manage to.

By nannying and mollycoddling everyone from cradle to grave.

For the greater good.

...

Bar the occasional murmurs of concealed paedophilia, the Hasidic Jewish community appear to be a model of morality in the sea of East London’s degeneracy. Just down the road in Hoxton and Shoreditch, every Friday night the town becomes a sea of degeneracy as mandied-up sluts cavort, covered in tattoos and smoking cigarettes and pot, with name-dropping hipster retards from the fashion and entertainment industry and other assorted decadent filth.

Every one of them, to a man, will be readers of the Guardian, and every one will hold the same cookie cutter progressive political positions, and will find themselves disgusted, nay, physically repulsed by the thought that somewhere on their progressive earth, a group of people dares to divide and organise themselves on lines of gender.

Further out into central and north London, we find the leftist intelligentsia who pour their intellectual dross into the vapid empty brains of the hip and fashionable. Sitting in their leafy Islington townhouses, or in their air-conditioned NGOs, these ministers of Secular Good live a life of militant opposition to the very notion of self-determination.

Everybody must subscribe to the same bland, generic list of “human rights.” Deviation is impermissible, even when harmless. Cases like the present, as well as cases like the cake shop which was fined for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, are treated as if they were the most abject transgressions against common morality, akin to murder or torture.

...

A close look at the Hasidim will reveal that, while the community has its own problems, they have been admirably resistant for the modern malaise of change for the sake of change, and have maintained a harmonious division of the community on gender lines, as well as sky-high birthrates.

Their women are, it should be noted, utterly lacking in shit tattoos, Skrillex haircuts, and sociology degrees. Moreover, much like our own community, they have come and continue to come under sustained assault from the degenerate liberal intelligentsia. For that they deserve that they deserve a hat-tip, even from the Jew-baiters.

Top 5s Finest #conspiracy youtube.com

5 Sewer Monsters Caught On Tape & Spotted In Real Life!

Description:

From four teenaged talking turtles, to a malevolent clown with a sinister agenda, sewer systems are something that pop up in movies and television shows from time to time, but something we rarely think about, despite our daily trips to the bathroom. Cities all around the world have underground sewer systems that channel excess water and human waste out to oceans and treatment plants for recycling. These underground infrastructures cover several thousand miles, and typically remain unexplored. Every once in a while, however, a curious adult or adolescent will find themselves poking cameras or even climbing into these underground tunnels, hoping to find something extraordinary. And every once in a while….they do. Here are five sewer monsters that have been caught on camera.

5. The Sewer Blob of North Carolina

On April 27, 2009, a snakecam was used to explore a potential sewage problem in North Carolina. Snakecams are often used to dig deep into small narrow underground tunnels when customers report a clog or drainage issues. Nothing could have prepared this plumber for what he was about to find however. This pulsing, twitching blob seems to be made up of organic tissue and muscle, reminiscent of something one would find featured on an episode of the X Files. What this oddly looking creature really is we may never know, but suffice it to say we feel pretty bad for whoever’s drainage system we are currently looking at!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcKpx...

4. Creature in the Shadows

This video is from the YouTube channel CaughtonTape. The owner of that channel has made a few videos in which he explores sewers near his house, because he’s convinced that something unnatural has been calling it home. In this clip, we see him explore both at night and during the day. Unfortunately, he finds his dead cat shortly into his journey. Seeing his pet’s body in the sewer only further convinces him that something has been living and hunting within the tunnels. Little did the man know that he had already captured a glimpse of the sewer monster the night before. One can only hope that as he continues to explore, he will not become the sewer monster’s next victim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkZBq...
(0:30 you can just barely see it)

3. Shrieks in the Sewer

This next clip is another video filmed by the man behind CaughtonTape. On the evening of July 28, 2011, he began heard noises coming from the sewer near his home, prompting his first investigation into the underground infrastructure. Hoping to make amicable contact, the man grabbed his video camera and headed into the sewer. The sounds the monster makes is truly chilling and would send most people heading for the hills. As the man shines his light all around, a rake-ish looking monster with glowing eyes was found staring right back at him. The man had to flee in order to save his own life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHMym...

2. The Grey Monster

This video was made by a young man maned Thurgood, who inadvertently caught sight of a gray skinned monster hanging out by the entranceway of a sewer. Thurgood was in the process of making a fishing video when he began to hear strange, eerie screams emanating from nearby. As Thurgood looked around, he saw the unidentified creature rush through the foliage and down into an open sanitary sewer. As he finished explaining what happened, the creature returned to visit once more. Thurgood barely caught a glimpse of it, before he hit the off button on the camera in a moment of sheer panic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Aj8n...

1. Running for their Lives

This startling video was recorded by a small group of friends who decided to explore an elaborate tunnel system somewhere overseas. It’s clear by their tense whispers that they are anxious about their journey—and rightfully so. Out of nowhere, a figure appears in the shadows of the tunnel, and begins to charge at the group. All of them scream and immediately turn to escape, including the camera operator. I don’t think any of them will be returning to the tunnel anytime soon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Cve-...

Pat Buchanan #fundie vdare.com

Abe is the most nationalistic leader of postwar Japan. He is rebooting nuclear power, building up Japan’s military, asserting her rights in territorial disputes with China and Korea.

And he is among a host of leaders of large and emerging powers who may fairly be described as the new nationalistic strong men.

Xi Jinping is another. Staking a claim to all the islands in the South and East China seas, moving masses of Han Chinese into Tibet and Uighur lands to swamp native peoples, purging old comrades for corruption, Xi is the strongest leader China has seen in decades.

He sits astride what may now be the world’s largest economy and is asserting his own Monroe Doctrine. Hong Kong’s democracy protests were tolerated until Xi tired of them. Then they were swept off the streets.

Call it Putinism. It appears to be rising, while the New World Order of Bush I, the “global hegemony” of the neocons, and the democracy crusade of Bush II seem to belong to yesterday.

Narendra Modi, leader of the Hindu nationalist party who was denied entry into the United States for a decade for complicity in or toleration of a massacre of Muslims is now Prime Minister of India.

“Members of the rightwing Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh,” the FT reports, “the Organisation of National Volunteers that gave birth to the Bharatiya Janata party headed by Mr. Modi — have been appointed to key posts in the governing party and cultural institutions.

“Nationalists have railed in public against the introduction of ‘western’ practices such as wearing bikinis on the beach, putting candles on birthday cakes and using English in schools — all to the chagrin of fretful liberals.”

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is another such leader.

Once seen as a model of the enlightened ruler who blended his Islamic faith with a secular state, seeking friendship with all of his neighbors, he has declared cold war on Israel, aided the Islamic State in Syria, and seems to be reigniting the war with the Kurds, distancing himself from his NATO allies and the U.S., and embracing Putin’s Russia.

Not since Ataturk has Turkey had so nationalistic a leader.

And as the democracy demonstrators were routed in Hong Kong, so, too, were the Tahrir Square “Arab Spring” demonstrators in Egypt, home country to one in four Arabs.

With the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood came to power in free elections, but was then overthrown by the Egyptian Army. General Abdul Fattah al-Sisi is now president and rules as autocratically as Mubarak, or Nasser before him.

Thousands of the Muslim Brotherhood are in prison, hundreds face the death penalty. Yet, despite the military coup that brought Sisi to power, and the repression, the American aid continues to flow.

What do these leaders have in common?

All are strong men. All are nationalists. Almost all tend to a social conservatism from which Western democracies recoil. Almost none celebrate democracy or democratic values the way we do.

And almost all reject America’s claim to be the “indispensable nation” or “exceptional nation” and superpower leader.

Fareed Zakaria lists as “crucial elements of Putinism … nationalism, religion, social conservatism, state capitalism and government domination of the media. They are all, in some way or another, different from and hostile to, modern Western values of individual rights, tolerance, cosmopolitanism, and internationalism.”

Yet not every American revels in the sewer that is our popular culture. Not every American believes we should impose our democratist ideology on other nations. Nor are Big Media and Hollywood universally respected. Patriotism, religion and social conservatism guide the lives of a majority of Americans today.

As the Associated Press reports this weekend, Putinism finds echoes across Central and Western Europe. Hungary’s Viktor Orban has said he sees in Russia a model for his own “illiberal state.”

The National Front’s Marine Le Pen wants to bring France into a new Gaullist Europe, stretching “from the Atlantic to the Urals,” with France seceding from the EU superstate.

“Of the 24 right-wing populist parties that took about a quarter of the European Parliament seats in May elections, Political Capital lists 15 as ‘committed’ to Russia,” writes the AP.

These rising right-wing parties are “partners” of Russia in that they “share key views — advocacy of traditional family values, belief in authoritarian leadership, a distrust of the U.S., and support for strong law and order measures.”

While the financial collapse caused Orban to turn his back on the West, says Zakaria, to the Hungarian prime minister, liberal values today embody “corruption, sex and violence,” and Western Europe has become a land of “freeloaders on the backs of welfare systems.”

If America is a better country today than she has ever been, why are so many, East and West, recoiling from what we offer now?

Kevin Yue Kevin Yue, studied at Massachusetts Institute of Technology #fundie quora.com

I want to be absolutely clear that I mean no insult to any atheist when I say:

It is impossible for an atheist to argue with me about God

The reason for this is simple, compelling, and inarguable.

They don’t know Him.

I want you to imagine a scenario with me.

Imagine a man who comes to me with an argument. He is eloquent, intelligent, and well-spoken. In fact, he is far more so than I am. He has done his research, read all the relevant literature, and carefully planned his presentation.

He stands confidently, clears his throat and says,

“I am convinced that you do not have a younger brother.”

Then he begins to tell me how he couldn’t find a copy of my brother’s birth certificate, how my family’s stories about my brother sound contradictory, and how Google search didn’t find any pictures of him.

Tell me, do you think I will be swayed by this man’s eloquence or intelligence?

Me and my brother.

This is the problem with Atheists who try to talk about my God.

Their arguments are (when done right), lucid, well-thought, and completely irrelevant.

The intelligence or preparedness of the Atheist is irrelevant when he’s waving the equivalent of a plastic cafeteria knife around in a gunfight.

Abstract arguments NEVER trump personal experiences. NEVER. Conjecture is second to evidence, and should be.

There are many people who are convinced that the moon landing was fake, but I 100% guarantee you Neil Armstrong will never be one of them.

Do you really think there is even a single word that you could say which has anywhere near the weight of 23 years of personal interaction with my little brother?

Do you think any amount of “inconsistencies” are going to suddenly make me say “oh gee, I guess I’ve just been imagining him this whole time?”

So if there’s anything I would like Atheists to know, it’s this. When Christians talk about having a “relationship” with God, we aren’t speaking in code. There are no hidden double-meanings, it isn’t some sort of bizarre speech impediment.

I literally mean that my relationship with God is like my relationship with my brother.

God isn’t someone I read about in a dusty book that fits conveniently into the pew in front of me. He’s someone I talk with, go out to eat with, laugh with and sing with and cry with.

In other words, God is integral to my life. Without him, no part of my world even makes sense anymore. As CS Lewis said:

Atheists know about God.

Christians know God.

There is a difference. You can tell me what God’s reported to have said. I can tell you what His voice sounded like when He said it.

You’ll tell me that you don’t believe I can have that sort of relationship with a nonexistent entity.

I don’t care.

You are arguing in a field where I am the expert and you are the layman. Your evidence is not only insufficient, it’s inadmissible. Every single thing you can say about Him is hearsay!

Even the most fervent Atheist has only the theoretical supposition that his lack of experience with God can be extrapolated to the reality beyond his experience.

Whereas even the youngest and least mature true Christian has the bedrock certainty of “Of course he’s real. I actually know the guy.”

IllimitableMan #sexist reddit.com

Men are superior to women and therefore have more responsibilities than women. Women are superior to children, and therefore have more responsibilities than children. Superiority means "leadership over" due to increased maturity and reason, it does not come with a connotation of hate. Women do not hate children because they're superior to them in the same way that men do not hate women because they're superior to them. Although plenty of men have their hang-ups with women (just as the reverse is true.) Men are more mature than women, who are more mature than children. This is about a hierarchy of maturity, of which men are at the top. The less mature you are, the less reasonable you are. You wouldn't want an immature person in charge of you, and assuming you found someone competent, you wouldn't say you were equal to the person in charge of you.

The problem with people today is women have been told it's bad to let a man be in charge of them, and men have been told to treat women as equal partners rather than subordinate dependants they care for. You are superior, and you have to be in order to be eligible. That's reality. For the sake of ego preservation on her part, she will want to think of herself as your "first mate" or "partner", but you're not the captain, you're the ship. Without you there is nothing, no base nor foundation. She relies on you VASTLY more than you rely on her, and any functional relationship between a man and a woman is always based on this model.

It doesn't mean she's not important, it means you're depended upon more than you depend on her. It means the distribution of burden is disproportionate in order to reflect your difference in maturity, your burden is greater because her need is greater, her need is greater because she is more immature, and by extension of being less mature, less competent. In fact, it's dangerous for you to depend on her emotionally, but the reverse is perfectly acceptable and fine. This is the burden that comes with being at the top of the maturity hierarchy. Emotional loneliness. Accepting you cannot confide all your deepest secrets and fears, not unless you're a schmuck who wants to see your relationship fall to shit. Women are so upset they're not really equals that they're completely ignorant to the fact that not being the final person everybody depends on is a privileged position.

That when push comes to shove, women want someone to lean on and someone to blame, that true equality to men is something they could never handle. Like a child who wants to stay up late and eat unlimited amounts of candy, they only see the privileges of being a man, not the burdens. Notice how women always go on about maturity in a way men don't seem to give a fuck about They're like the damn maturity police. This reminds me of little kids who insist they're grown-ups out of insecurity. "Women are equal to men!" touted by women is the same infantile narcissism as a child claiming "I'm not a little kid anymore!". It stems from the desire to be taken seriously by people you're less mature and capable than. This is all ego, remember you will find the truth in action rather than words, for in words they claim equality to man, but in action they demand superiority from him. In relation to the statement "women are children", this is hyperbole, what /u/redpillschool concretely means is "women are childlike" - if they weren't, you wouldn't want them. Feminine charm comes from a certain present-orientation, feminine beauty comes from a lack of ageing.

Women play up innocence and play down their cunning because this is what makes them attractive to men. Innocence is an inherently childlike quality. Men don't try to seem innocent because it's not masculine, things that are childlike are inherently unmasculine, but they aren't unfeminine. Why? Because women are closer to children than men. Stop thinking this is some way of talking women down or some sad attempt at dehumanisation. It isn't. It's a truism regardless of whether it suits your sensibilities. Shrewd women constantly leverage the appearance of innocence to get people to help them. Women pout, men don't. Women have strops, men don't. Women cry more than men. Women are less rational than men. In summary: women are more mature than children, but less mature than men. You can teach a woman to behave well, but she is still a woman and so requires discipline in the same way a child does. She craves it. She will not "be good" because "she's a good woman" she will only "be good" because you convey authority, and in order to convey authority, you must be superior, superior meaning more mature and more competent. This is the natural order of things. Egalitarianism is an indoctrinated ideal, it is normal to you because you grew up brainwashed by feminist garbage, but it is not normal in nature, and it is not indicative of reality.

Women's childlike qualities are not just physical (smaller, less hair etc), but their neonatality is likewise echoed mentally. The hottest women have greater neonatal traits than uglier ones. She's not your psychological equal. You can love her, care for her, even depend on her for small things, but she's not your equal and never will be. As Schopenhauer said, she is somewhere between a child and an adult, an adolescent perhaps. If you can't accept that, if you need to believe in the feminine ego porn that she's your equal in every which way, fine. But that doesn't mean TRP is wrong, it means you're unable to accept an aspect of reality that discomforts you.

Human-Stupidity.com #fundie emmatheemo.wordpress.com

Sex is not like driving, it is a natural instinct that has been around for millions of years and is necessary for survival of all species.

It is a bad lie to say age of consent means age when adolescents are ready to have sex.

Age of consent means:
Sex under the age of consent is terrible, in each and every case, with no exception, and so much that government MUST interfere with draconian long prison terms.

Age of consent does NOT mean:
it would be wiser if most kids under that age did not have sex. Human-Stupidity’s opinion to abolish age of consent does not mean that everyone should have sex at low age. It means, sex is not very damaging, and it is the business of parents and care takers to lead and supervise their children.

And, strangely, government need not interfere when pregnant alcoholics give birth to permanently damaged babies with fetal alcohol syndrome. Or government does not prevent parents from creating obese diabetic children by instilling wrong eating and exercise habits in them.

Government is not concerned with health of children, government is concerned with repression of sex.

biblicalgenderroles #sexist biblicalgenderroles.com

While most married men view porn you may directly contribute to your husband viewing it more by neglecting your physical appearance. If you gain an excessive amount of weight or fail to properly groom yourself or wear nice clothes your husband may look more to porn than he normally would for the feminine beauty that he is naturally designed to crave.

Even if you take great care about your physical appearance if you are harsh, critical, disrespectful or less than fully receptive to your husband’s sexual advances he may view more porn than he would have otherwise. Most women fail to realize that men do not view porn only because of the bodies of these women or the sex acts themselves. Many men also view porn because of the enthusiasm these women show toward sexually pleasing the man they are with.

Even if you as a Christian wife take great care of your appearance and you willingly and enthusiastically have great sex with your husband he may still look at porn. I refer you back to hard truth number 2 about men and their sexuality – men are designed by God with a capacity for polygyny. So this means even if your husband is thrilled with you in all these areas he will still be drawn to enjoy the view of a variety of women’s bodies.

Even if you deny most or all of the hard truths I have just stated the Bible nowhere gives you the right to deny you husband sex because is he doing something sinful. Remember that the same Bible which you believe says men viewing any kind of porn or thinking sexual thoughts of other women is wrong also says very clearly that a woman may not deny her husband sexually.

Even if you deny most or all of the hard truths I have just stated your husband is NOT accountable to you for his thought life or his actions. Even if you feel he is being disobedient to God in his porn use you are not his spiritual authority and you have no authority to confront him in this spiritual matter.

David J. Stewart #sexist jesusisprecious.org

The Word of God foretells of a future time when SEVEN WOMEN will hold on to ONE MAN, begging him to marry them! Wow! I can't even find one wife. Isaiah 4:1, “And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.” Consider the sharp contrast to America today, where many women are merely looking for a Sugar-Daddy to take care of her and pay all the bills. Granted, it is a man's job to provide for his wife and take care of her, but it is also her job to take care of her husband's needs (intimacy, clean the house, prepare home-cooked meals, wash the clothes, care for the children, et cetera). The biggest problem with women today is their SELFISH attitude! They want this, want that, but don't have a servant's heart. A godly woman wants to wait on a man hand and foot! In today's messed up female world, women are pursuing careers. It seems that most young women are enrolling into Bible colleges these days to become nurses! Really? What about staying home as a homemaker? 1st Timothy 5:14-15 commands women to get married, have babies, and guide the house, not become working nurses who never get married and never have any children. They are turned aside after Satan!

1st Timothy 5:14-15, “I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. For some are already turned aside after Satan.”

Bob Jones University and Crown Bible College (to name but a couple institutions) are helping young women to TURN ASIDE AFTER SATAN, training future nurses, many of whom will never get married or become mothers. How messed up is that? Hey, there's lots of guys out there who want to get married and take care of a wife, like me, but few Christian women want to be cared for. Instead, they want to take care of themselves! Christian women have the WRONG PRIORITIES today! In the old days a century ago, feminine women sought for a husband. It was expected of a female, and they knew their role. Today, increasingly since World War II, women have entered into the workplace—wearing tattoos, driving cars, fighting with machine guns in the military, operating heavy equipment, managing businesses, and are today as manly as ever. SHE-MAN, YOU KNOW THE NAME OF SHE-MAN!!!

Check out Google to see Bob Jones University's shameful female students exposing their thighs and butts in sexy sports outfits! BJU's females are rugged, they're tough, they're fearless, they have THE POWER...SHE-MAN!!!

Today's Bob Jones University Female Graduate (SHE-MAN and the masters of the universe!!)

Alex Jones is right—Women are empowered, angry and rebellious!

Sadly, that includes Christian women as well, who are not very “Christian.” In fact, you cannot tell a Bob Jones University woman apart from the heathen world anymore, and that includes many of their shameful female graduates. GET RIGHT WITH GOD!!!

Stephanie Relfe #conspiracy metatech.org

1066 THE FRENCH INVADED ENGLAND (AND MAYBE MANY CENTURIES MORE RECENTLY THAN THAT)

1066 is the most famous date in British history (along with the date of the signing of the Magna Carta), when the French Norman ‘William the Conqueror’ successfully invaded that country.

Is it possible that this date is so famous because the French now still secretly rule from behind the Wizard’s curtain?

In fact, 1066 may have been only around 400 or 500 years ago. Anatoly Fomenko, a genius Russian mathematician, in his book series History, Fiction or Science, has shown conclusively with statistics and mathematics that the Dark Ages never existed. No document from before around 1600 can be authenticated!

——-

RICHARD THE LIONHEART SPOKE ONLY FRENCH!

In Hollywood Movies, Richard the Lionheart, is depicted as the epitome of English courage and Englishness. In fact, he was a barbaric thug, and he spoke ONLY FRENCH his whole life!

——-

KING HENRY OF ENGLAND & QUEEN ELEANOR & GIVE AWAY THEIR CROWNS

Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine (in France) was the wife of two kings: King Louis VII of France and King Henry II of England. She was also the mother of three kings of England, including Richard I, so-called “Richard the Lionheart”, who spoke no English – only French. Eleanor was one of the wealthiest and most powerful people in Europe.

She did a ceremony with her husband King Henry II of England that is little known, and yet is quite possibly one of the most important events in history. From Eleanor of Aquitaine;

“In 1158 in Worcester Cathedral, the King and Queen took part in a curious ceremony in which they renounced their crowns, taking them off and laying them upon the shrine of St. Wulfstan, solemnly vowing never to wear them again.”

The really, really big question is – who (or what?) did they hand the power of the crown to? The answer is of immense significance both legally and spiritually.

——-

THE TWO MOST INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE IN WORLD HISTORY

Knowing that the Illuminati control the world through media, one begins to get hints of which people helped get the world into the mess it is currently in. Two people were forced upon our minds:

NAPOLEON BONAPARTE

1759 – 1821

The Illuminati seem to have a veritable passion for Bonaparte, which is strange when one considers that he lost the war to England at the Battle of Waterloo.

(Maybe it’s not just a coincidence that this was the very same battle that is rumored to have given the Rothschilds the massive haul that enabled them to be the world’s richest family, by finding out who won the war before anyone else, possibly by carrier pigeon, selling all stock and thus causing a bear run – and then buying up tons of stock at rock bottom prices just before the real news that Wellington actually won).

The Illuminati believe in “survival of the fittest”. There is no room for losers. Even normal people hardly ever remember who came second. Bonaparte lost, but the Illuminati seem to just adore this guy.

For example, they stuck him on the 2015 Magazine Cover for the Economist (his head is just under the word “the”)

With hundreds of famous people in history, why make a big deal about a loser?

Yes, Bonaparte did a lot, and managed to kill a lot of people. But he still ultimately lost and was supposedly locked up as a prisoner by the British. So, since the Illuminati just love this guy, we assume that he really won at something that was really, really important to the Illuminati.

This ‘something” was probably something that was pivotal in their goal (which we, the people of earth, intends will fail) of a suppressive One World Order under their control.

We don’t know exactly what Bonaparte did that was so special, but we can guess. On researching history for clues as to what it might be, this fact fairly jumped at us:

He invaded Egypt with 400 ships and 54,000 men. That wasn’t the important bit. The important bit was that he also sent 150 scientists and archaeologists, to dig up and find whatever they could.

Through them, ancient Egypt was discovered; the temples and tombs of Luxor, Philae, Dendera, and the Valley of the Kings. Each of these sites was measured, mapped, and drawn, recording in meticulous detail a pharaonic Egypt never before glimpsed by the outside world.

We believe that Napoleon discovered hidden occult secrets that are the key to the power of the Illuminati, because real power comes from spiritual power, that is greater than anyone can possibly imagine.

It is this kind of power, for example, that made a statue come to life, in front of an English mansion, during a ritual attended by a group of men in robes who included Steven King.

Another example of how it is hidden occult power that rules earth is the story of a being coming through a life-size mirror, and offering a young man immense wealth and fame if he would “join them”. The being was a solid, 3-dimensional figure, wearing a robe and quaker hat (Read more here).

For more information on how real black magick is, please listen/read Interview with an ex-Vampire; A true Story).

The occult power of the Illuminati and Freemasonry is based on things in Egypt. That’s why they put pyramids on everything, including the US dollar bill and the Louvre, and stick Egyptian obelisks (phallic symbols) near places of power.

The obelisks are to worship the “Holy of Holies” – the penis. This is the same reason why Freemasons wear aprons. This causes increased lust, and is a major cause for pedophilia, because getting life force from children is one of the ‘secrets’ at the top levels, and every man who joins a lodge becomes spiritually tied to the pedophiles at the top levels.

Going back to Bonaparte, he did something to give the oligarchs, the military aristocracy, immense power.

There is no doubt to us that what Napoleon really discovered in Egypt were things of immense occult significance, and maybe even technology from ancient astronauts. Because of this, the power of the Illuminati was greatly strengthened, and that is why they idolize him today.

To free the world, we must understand the source of this power, and dismantle it with prayer, spiritual warfare and our spiritual swords. The power that God gives his people is infinitely greater than Satan’s power.

——-

CARDINAL RICHELIEU

1585-1642

Father of the Secret Service

“Give me six lines written by the most honest man and I will find in them something to hang him.”

The other ultra-significant Frenchman is not nearly as well known as Bonaparte. He is Cardinal Richelieu. As you can see from his quote above, he was supremely evil.

We were first clued in to his importance when we watched in 2015 a DVD one of the original movies of The Four Musketeers, as I had fond memories of that movie as a child. My! What a difference twenty years of conspiracy research does when watching a movie! We saw it with completely different eyes! We were shocked!

The movie was SO much against women and feminine principals of nurturing and family and SO much in favor of men-only, that we realized it was a part of the propaganda to promote homosexuality. Please keep in mind that homosexuality, like many mental aberrations is that – an aberration from nature, and that every time a civilization has given power to the homosexual agenda, that civilization ended soon after.

Major causes of homosexuality have been found to be sexual molestation as children, and also from mercury, which includes vaccines.

Hollywood absolutely adores “The Three / Four Musketeers”. They have made at least 39 versions of this film! You’d think there were no other stories to tell!

We suspect that a reason for this is as a tribute to Cardinal Richelieu, who features prominently in the film.

The other clue that we got that Richelieu was supremely powerful in his day, was that author Georgette Heyer indicated that he was as important as the king, if not more important, in one of her novels (which people call romances, but in fact are closer to historical fiction. She was a master at using accurate historical details in her books).

In addition to being a Catholic Cardinal, Richelieu was also King Louis XIII’s Chief Minister, in 1624.

Because of these things, we suspected that Richelieu was extra important to the Illuminati. We didn’t have to go far to find the reason:

“Richelieu is … notable for the authoritarian measures he employed to maintain power. He censored the press, established a large network of internal spies, forbade the discussion of political matters in public assemblies such as the Parlement de Paris (a court of justice), and had those who dared to conspire against him prosecuted and executed.

The Canadian historian and philosopher John Ralston Saul has referred to Richelieu as the “father of the modern nation-state, modern centralised power [and] the modern secret service.”

A few other things that this supremely evil man did are:

•By restraining the power of the nobility, he transformed France into a strong, centralized state.

•Richelieu sought to suppress the influence of the feudal nobility. In 1626, he abolished the position of Constable of France and ordered all fortified castles razed, excepting only those needed to defend against invaders.[30] Thus, he stripped the princes, dukes, and lesser aristocrats of important defences that could have been used against the King’s armies during rebellions. As a result, Richelieu was hated by most of the nobility.

•Richelieu encouraged Louis XIII to colonize the Americas by the foundation of the Compagnie de la Nouvelle France in imitation of the Dutch West India Company

•Controlled the king partly through providing him with young men to have sex with. (Was this the beginning of the later plan to control political figures through sexual blackmail?). We assume that he was a homosexual, as he was a highranking Catholic, and therefore never married. Satanists who are homosexuals which seek to destroy families run the Catholic Church. God decreed that:

A bishop then must be blameless, husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 1:Timothy 3:2

•Enlisted the Jesuits in colonizing French North America. (Note that the Jesuits gained power over the USA through the Federal Reserve, by sinking the Titanic, with the the main opponents to the Titanic on board). The Federal Reserve is not, as most think, a public institution, but is in fact a private institution.

Monique Desir #fundie crossroad.to

I would like to tell you some things about Sailor Moon. I am ashamed to say that I used to watch it a lot a few years ago before I realized how warped and disgusting it was.

First of all, the Japanese and English versions are kind of different. (WELL THAT MIGHT BE AN UNDERSTATEMENT!) In the Japanese version there is a lot of homosexuality going on as well as bisexuality that parents might not understand.

For example, there is a couple who work for Queen Beryl: Zoycite (an effete/effeminate) and Malachite are both male characters in the original Japanese version, but Zoycite who is more feminine looking than Malachite was dubbed a female in the American version! They are gay! Homosexual! And I wonder if parents here in America knew if they would have been angry or just go with the flow?!

Another homosexual couple, two women called Sailor Neptune and Uranus, have a daughter in the Japanese version. However, one day when I was watching it on the cartoon network, there was an episode with both Sailor Senshi or soldiers/scouts in USA version. Sailor Uranus is the more boyish of the couple with her short, blond hair and taller, slender looks. In this episode she was dressed in a suit like a young man. AT first I thought that it was a BOY and so did the other Sailor scouts who were drooling with hearts and teardrops forming around their heads! If I noticed this blatant, in your face homosexuality -- who else did?

Well, someone must have because I haven't seen the show on television since. Good.

Some have said that Sailor Neptune and Uranus' relationship is a "parody of heterosexual relationships" because Uranus who is more male than all of the Sailor Scouts and Sailor Neptune who is more female are reflecting a warped version of family life, due to the fact that they are both women.

For instance, their daughter calls them "mama" and "papa". The male pair are a couple of the villains in the first season and the latter female pair are the good guys in the later series. There is also a great deal of -- I am not sure if I want to use this word -- pedophilia in the show. Young girls as young as 12 or 13 (8th graders mind you) are falling head over heels in love with older, wicked men. One example is the relationship between Neflite, a soldier for the Negaverse and Molly, an ordinary and virginal human girl. No wonder that girls age 12 are dating men as young as 28!

There is a lot of occult or alchemic talk in the show: quest for crystals, moon prisms, which are worn as brooches for extra power. But where are they drawing this power from? The Negaverse has power like that too. I think that it is like the idea of White and Black Magic: though both won't admit it they are tapping their power from the same source: Satan.

In the Japanese version, Sabrina's name is Usagi or Bunny because of her hairstyle. Tuxedo Mask is really Tuxedo Kamen and his princely name is Mamoru. To me there is a lot of "goddess" worship in the show, like what you would find from the ancient religions of Greece and the Mystery religions of Rome.

A lot of Sailor Moon fans deny the witchcraft element. WELL, how come Luna, the black cat can turn into a human?! It's true!

In the manga (comic) series Luna and her consort, Artemis and Diane (a kitten, their daughter) transform into their human forms in the final battle to help Sailor moon destroy an "evil" foe! In the movie version "Sailor S or Heart of Ice", Luna falls in love with a human. She is transformed into a human by Super Sailor Moon, who uses "the power of the chalice" to grant Luna's wish and to make Kakeru's (her love interest) dreams come true: She takes him on a trip to the Moon in the personage of a Princess he loves named Kaguya! Afterwards, she transforms back into a cat.

The weird thing about it is that the cats are guardians of Sailor Moon, her husband or prince, Prince Darien and their daughter Rini (American version name). Artemis, the white cat who belongs to Sailor Venus, is an exception.

There is also slight nudity during the transformation scenes when the Sailor scouts change their into their hero clothing. Some have said that this is not for sexual stimulation, which is a lie because most Japanese business men would get their "kicks" at these scenes. They also have some disgusting fetish for schoolgirl panties! They buy them from vending machines or from the girls themselves. White ones are preferred and there is a lot of that flashing on the show. I am not lying! I was shocked when I found it on a website about a year ago.

As I grow in the love of Jesus, it appears that my mind is expanding spiritually as well as I read His awesome Word. A lot of shows that I once watched I no longer care for, especially if they are in conflict with the Truth and beliefs. For instance, I no longer enjoy watching Will and Grace because I realize now that it is glorifying homosexuality and the like. A lot of shows in America do that. I no longer care to compromise my faith. And even though I may stumble along the way, I thank God for His Holy Spirit that whispers to me, reminding me what is good and lovely what is righteous and holy and what is not. He has opened my eyes.

Sailor Moon and other anime may seem harmless, but if you are a Christian, you in no way should be promoting or protecting this kind of material by saying, "It teacher adults and adolescence alike virtues" because we know that that is far from the Truth. Nothing should be a substitute for Our Sword and that is the very Word of God.

Douglas H. Plumb #wingnut #fundie #elitist henrymakow.com

The asshole problem can be looked at using Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development.

In stage one, you have the pre-adolescent stage, which is the go-along-to-get-along stage. The child seeks to please himself and those around him.

In stage two there is the recognition for the need for rules for the good of society. This is called the "conventional stage" and is the stage most people reach.

The third stage is the recognition that laws are necessarily universal and that written laws and rules cannot always express it perfectly. This is the regulative nature of Christianity and I suspect Christianity not as popular because it has a low cognitive availability. Both the science of jurisprudence and Christianity can only be truly understood by those who have reached stage three of Kohlberg's stages of moral development.

Private bankers took over Western societies. They retarded us to create a society of assholes, they reduced people to operating at the earliest pre-adolescent stage one. Most of us "go along to get along". Politicians depend on a voting public that operates at stage 3 to maintain a juristic system of laws. Stage 1 politician has the singular responsibility of representing those who brought him to power to get re-elected. The politician is nothing more than an expression of the people and we keep electing assholes because we are assholes.

Evidence of retarded development is

(1) Lack of rational debate. People don't understand that communication stops bullets.

(2) People are rejecting universal law on a mass scale but hold the belief that they are recreating it in a new ethical society.

(3) People believe a Utopia can exist, specifically their Utopia which is incredibly narcissistic and hubristic and therefore completely in opposition to actual wisdom if humility is a necessary part of wisdom.

(4) We keep listening to known assholes. This is evidence of mass hypnosis.

Non-assholes will not be ruled by assholes so a society of assholes needed to be created and the people that have done it are master the bullshitters of Hollywood, Network News, and Public Education.

The retarded development society is a society of assholes, ruled by assholes.

Can we stop being the assholes in time?

195.37.190.67 #sexist rationalwiki.org

On average, when a girl is 13 years old, her IQ on an adult intelligence test will be in the normal range. The age of consent in Germany is 14. The age of consent in Uruguay is 12. The age of consent in Spain has traditionally been 13 and still is although it is in a limbo. The age of consent in Canada was 14 until a few years ago when the USA made them raise it. Phalometric studies, which measure male sexual arousal by penile blood volume, reveal that over 80% of males are just as sexually attracted to pubescent 12 year olds as they are to 18 year olds.

Evolutionary psychology theory strongly supports point 3, as males who reproduced with the full range of fertile females were far more likely to pass their genetics on, and to do so to a greater extent. The age of consent around the world was close to puberty up until the 1880's, when religious feminists groups invented the idea that it should be higher, originally done to lower prostitution rates Full sexual maturity, meaning tanner stage 5, is reached on average at age 14.5 in females, meaning that you cannot differentiate between a 14.5 year old girl and an 18 year old girl, based on sexual development.

About 25% of adult females will never pass tanner stage 4, which is reached on average around 13 years old. Underage teenagers also fall into the normal range of adult height and weight, although more so toward the petite side of normal, Tons of underage teenagers are having sex with each other and with adults and turning out perfectly fine, and your entire argument is based on made up bullshit that you have been brainwashed into believing and which has not a shred of legitimate evidence supporting it.

The brain of a human continues to develop until they are 25 years old, so you cannot use the lack of a mature brain to argue that a 15 year old cannot consent to sex but an 18 or even 24 year old can, and also see point 1 which shows that 13 year old brains support normal adult intelligences. Also, keep in mind that there are a lot of people who are very intent on lying about the facts, distorting reality, and doing whatever they have to do to manipulate your perception of the world.

There is an organized movement to demonize and criminalize empirically demonstrated as normal male sexual behavioral patterns. These people are filthy liars, and they have tried to infiltrate every group of significant power they are capable of infiltrating, in order to further their male hating agenda of bullshit. A prime example of this was their failed coup of the field of Psychology, in which their agents attempted to have sexual attraction to pubescent 12-14 year olds labeled as a mental illness called "hebephilia". Thankfully this attempt was REJECTED, and hebephilia is not a recognized mental disorder in the DSM, and the MAJORITY opinion of mental health professionals is that being sexually attracted to teenagers is NORMAL, and the opinion of the majority of people in dozens of first world countries from Germany to Italy to Uruguay is that it can be acceptable for an adult male to have sex with young teenagers!

Dr. David R. Reagan and Franklin Graham #fundie lamblion.us

Franklin Graham is not calling the pastors and evangelists of this nation to do something he is not willing to do himself. He has, in fact, become the model of a prophetic voice speaking out boldly against the sins of our nation. In the process he has taken the bull by the horns on many occasions. Consider his comments on the following social and moral issues:

Abortion - "There is no place for compromise on straightforward issues such as abortion... God has given us clear biblical direction that we must follow and obey... As a minister of the Lord Jesus Christ, I believe this is a nonnegotiable issue. Abortion is wrong. It is the murder of unborn children, and no law of the land and no party platform can ever legitimize it."

Gun Control - "The gun control proposals now circulating in Washington and in many state capitals don't address a more important issue - the constant strain of violence put forth by the entertainment industry [in movies, music and video games]. But the problem - the real crux of the issue - lies not in the instruments of violence used... The root of violence is in the evil and depraved heart of man."

Islam - "Islam is a religion of hatred. It's a religion of war." "For Muslims, peace comes only through supmission to Islam. When they speak of peace, they mean supmission to their religion... Worldwide, tens of thousands of men, women and children have been slaughtered in the name of Allah, under the bloody flag of Islam."

ISIS - "The evil of ISIS really shouldn't shock us - it is fully in keeping with their ultimate agenda of hastening a final apocalypse... One thing is for sure - one day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Hinduism - "No elephant with 100 arms can do anything for me. None of their 9,000 gods is going to lead me to salvation."

Same-Sex Marriage - "True followers of Jesus Christ... cannot endorse same-sex marriage, regardless of what our President, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the media or the latest Gallup poll says about the matter... This moral issue has been settled by God Himself and is not supject to man-made revisions or modifications. In the end, I would rather be on the wrong side of public opinion than on the wrong side of Almighty God who established the standard of living for the world He created."

Homosexuality - "The church is on dangerous ground when it departs from the teaching of Christ and attempts to redefine His commands and compromise His truth. There are many things in Scripture that Christians disagree on, but the Bible is crystal clear about the sanctity of life and marriage. It is also clear that homosexuality is spelled out as sin — there are not ifs, ands or buts."

Transgender Restrooms - "[The idea] is not only ridiculous, it's unsafe. Common sense tells us that this would open the door, literally, to all sorts of serious concerns, including giving sexual predators access to children. It violates every sense of privacy and decency for people of both sexes, adults and children."

Secularism - "When the Berlin Wall came down, everybody said we had won... [but then] Secularism came. And Secularism and Communism are the same thing. They're godless. They're anti-Christ."

Christian Persecution - "Even in America there has recently grown an ugly, anti-Christian bias and intolerance that is changing our nation from the inside out, opening doors for all kinds of discrimination and loss of religious freedom that we hear about daily in the news."

Government - "We're living now in a time where we see the spirit of Antichrist is at the government level." "I have no confidence that any politician or any party is going to turn this country around. The only hope for this country is for men and women of God to take a stand."

Kalin #racist realjewnews.com

Amen!

Jewmerica has not fought a foreign foe that it did not outright create since 1814.

When a nation reaches a point where its greatest enemy is truth, it’s time to examine itself.

I see where Lars wrote: “it took the Roman General Titus to end their tyranny”.

Actually, it took a much bigger power than Titus. That event was undoubtedly the prophecy in John’s Revelation that “God would put it in their hearts to do his will”. That is, the “ten horns” will “hate the whore” and “burn her with fire,” as was required by the Law in Leviticus 21:9.

It’s no mystery that the “Whore” was indeed Jerusalem and the prophecy long ago fulfilled (Cf. Mat. 23:37, Luke 13:33). They didn’t heed the words of the Master at the end of the last age, as they did at the end of the previous age, in Egypt. They failed to paint the blood of the Lamb on their door-posts in the “great and terrible day of the Lord”.

History is repeating itself. We’re starting to see it develop. I don’t know if this empire will play the part of Rome at the end of this age or whether it will be another, but one thing is for sure - the Whore has risen, again, she rules over the “kings of the earth,” and she will again be destroyed; however, it will take the power of God to do it, just as it did previously.

When Henry Ford wrote in his book, The International Jew - The World’s Foremost Problem: “Judaism is the most closely organised power on earth, even more than the British Empire.”, he didn’t embellish the matter even slightly.

The first century, Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus wrote something similar about the power of the Jews, speaking prior to the destruction of their Temple in 70 A.D: “For the worst rascals among other peoples, renouncing their ancestral religions, always kept sending tribute and contributions to Jerusalem, thereby increasing the wealth of the Jews; ” Histories, Bk. V.

Mrs. Debbie #fundie teens-4-christ.org

["don't believe the church focuses on poverty very much at all"]

First of all, what do you mean by "the church?" Each IFB church is just that - independent. You're making it sound like we are all in some sort of group called "the church" and that we all think the same and do things the same way. We are indeendent because we answer to no one but the Lord and His Word!

As for the poverty issue - our church does not believe in giving hand-outs. The Bible clearly states that if a man is going to eat then he must work. Society has gotten away from that. So many have gotten lazy and would rather accept governmental handouts rather than get off their behinds and work - even a job as "menial" as flipping burgers. There are jobs out there for anyone who has the gumption to work. No where in God's Word does it tell us to support those who refuse to work. I believe it does tell us to care for the fatherless and widows indeed of our churches....

["Churches have done hardly anything to get rid of racial tensions. It would seem that the equality of humans as bearers of the image of God should be something important. Yet Sunday 10 AM continues to be one of the most segregated hours of the week. It was only about 10 years ago that PCC got rid of their ban on inter-racial dating. Yes, abortion is a critical issue, but so is viewing all humans as equal before the throne of God."]

Since when is it a church's responsibility to get rid of racial tension. God did not make it so why should He fix it? Obviously God made different races for a reason so why would He want one race to be the same as another? Yes, Adam was created in the likeness of God....the rest of us are all in the similtude of Adam. He made each race different and in order for that race to remain the way He created it then each race needs to stay within themselves.

I don't know about your church, but our church has all kinds of people - whites, blacks, hispanics.....American, Indian, Romanian, Polish, African, Guyanese, etc, etc...... We all go to the same church. We all sing praises to God together. We all hear preaching together. If THAT is not racial harmony then what is? When it comes to salvation we ARE all equal in the sight of God. ALL are sinners and must come to Him in repentance and faith.

As for the interracial dating - we have covered that somewhere here on the Board before - and it is wrong biblically. Please do a search to find that topic.

["Bad things don't always come from sin."]

All bad things come from sin. When God created the world there was no sin and everything was perfect. It was only AFTER Adam chose to sin that bad things began.

["Bad things don't always come from sin. Instances in the Bible that would support this would be the suffering of Job, the tower of Siloam, and the blind man Jesus healed in John 9"]

Before sin, there was no blindness, no suffering, no sickness, etc. After sin, there was. Rather plain to me that because of sin all of these things have come to be. Was the man blind because of HIS sin? No. But blindness came to this earth as a result of sin..... That is why our bodies decay. That is why we get sick. Not necessarily because of something we personally did but because of Adam choosing to sin in the garden.

In conclusion, the work of a church is to win souls and then train them to do the same. The whole reason the Lord leaves us here on earth after salvation is to go out and spread His Good News. The work of a church is not to be like those churches who have chosen to be the advocates for anti-abortion, etc. Yes, the preachers and pastors need to make known that those things are wrong....but that is not the main goal. The main goal is to win the lost. By winning the lost to Jesus we can stop abortion, poverty, racial discrimination.....why? Because once the person accepts Christ as Saviour, he is a new creature. he has a change of heart...a change of purpose. He is transformed. It is only thru THAT that the world will be changed.

Roosh #fundie rooshv.com

Experience does not affect men and women the same. For one sex, experience is a stimulator of growth, a giver of value, and a path to virtue, while in the other sex, experience corrupts and creates embitterment, sadness, cat-hoarding, and decreased virtue. One sex should embrace experience to gain the strength that makes them a better human being while the other should avoid experience to preserve a more wholesome and innocent nature that makes them a worthy long-term partner capable of bearing children.

Experience to men is like lifting weights. It’s uncomfortable and causes discomfort, but once the lifting is done, the body calls upon its biological resources to heal the muscle to make it even stronger. The more a man lifts the more strength his muscles will contain, and the more able he can encounter difficult situations in the wild. When a man works difficult jobs, faces illness or poverty, struggles with a new language, or faces long bouts of sexual loneliness despite his best efforts, his muscles are being exerted. These situations are not favorable to his mind, but they turn him into steel. He becomes more capable of enduring pain and difficulty. He becomes full of wisdom, stories, and knowledge. He becomes more attractive to the opposite sex, and more knowledgeable about how to give women what they want.

Experience to a woman is like a puppy suffering abuse at the hands of its master. It rewires her brain to become cynical, jaded, distrustful, and sour. The benefits of these experiences fails to penetrate her brain, like a small stone skipping over a creek. All the experience in the world will not make her a more suitable life partner in the eyes of men, simply because her brain is not able to digest and process experiences like men.

Experience destroys a woman’s birth-given maternal and compassionate nature. It masculinizes her, morphing her into a sad excuse of a little man, void of penis. When a woman sleeps with dozens of men, receives attention from thousands more on the internet, works many comfortable office jobs, reads blogs all day, travels to Paris, London, or Barcelona, and has access to bountiful material possessions without having to work hard for them, her feminine muscles are being weakened. She loses value. Every day that she is not in the service of one man she has dedicated her life to is one that puts her farther away from ever connecting with one. Experience, it turns out, corrupts and destroys the feminine soul.

There is something admirable about a man who has done much with his life and survived, because we are given no benefit of the doubt in our pursuit of happiness. We struggle daily for basic things that women are given on a silver platter, either by the welfare state or thirsty white knights. There is no plan B for men. A man is forced to become virtuous, someone who must earn his salt every day, while a woman who has experienced the same morphs into a shrew, a calculating, un-motherly, and masculine specimen that is half-man and half-woman. She loses compassion and the ability to love one man. She becomes spoiled and ruined for the rest of her life.

Experience destroys women because their brain is not constructed to receive it. They are suitable for maintaining the hearth, for gossiping with their friends while the men risk their lives to ensure the survival of his children and his tribe. The only thing more absurd than a woman hunting zebras in ancient times is a woman today seeking out office employment to make her bread instead of serving a man in exchange for his. The only thing more absurd than a woman sleeping with every man in the tribe is a woman today needing to sexually experiment with dozens of penises as a source of entertainment or fun.

Only through experience can a man find himself, yet only through experience can a woman lose herself. The more experience she has, the more she has lost. Nature intended woman to seek protection from this cruel world behind a strong, experienced man. It’s how we’re built, and any attempt to go against this will result in misery for both sexes.

Steve Pauwels #fundie barbwire.com

Chiropractors have gotta love the cultural Left – I mean, an attentive observer could suffer whiplash tracking the whipsawing, confused, self-contradictory tenets of modern, libertine Liberalism.

Consider the purple-faced reaction to the revelation that twenty-seven-year-old Josh Duggar (of TLC’s 19 Kids and Counting) had inappropriately touched a number of young girls twelve years ago (his sisters and a babysitter among them).

Demands were seething: the now-married father of three should have been jailed for his malefaction. His openly Christian family — all of them, mom and dad, throng of offspring, their spouses, grandchildren — should be drummed out of enlightened company and lose their reality TV program permanently. Legal sanctions were even mentioned for the parents for what some observers consider an insufficient response to their son’s early-2000s’ actions.

Meanwhile, for decades society has been subjected to prurient progressives blowing out their cheeks and rolling their eyes at the mere suggestion of abstinence-based instruction for young people. “The kids,” we’re relentlessly, patronizingly tutored, ” are not going to listen. No matter what we say or do, they’re going to have sex!”

Take the the Daily Beast, which lately reported on a San Francisco “hero judge” who “rule[d] abstinence-only Sex Ed … illegal.” The same site exulted (“All Hail Scandinavia”) over a female doctor who demonstrated sex techniques for a classroomful of adolescents.

Best option? Train the panting lads to strap on a condom at some point during each tryst. Turn the young women – as many as possible, as early as possible – into fervid devotees of modern birth control technology. Sandra Fluke, anyone?

Humans, they imperturbably lecture anyone within earshot, are really just animals; “naked apes”, barely an evolutionary step above rutting canines. And kids? Especially TEENAGERS, for pity’s sake? Gland-driven little beasties. Incapable of keeping it in their pants.

Pubescent hormones uber alles!

Give the Duggar’s eldest man-child some credit for one thing — atrocious as was his misbehavior, reportedly no intercourse was involved — so no condom was needed at all! Doesn’t he get some props for that from the “do-it-but-just-don’t-contract-an-STD-or-get-anyone-preggers” set?

Admittedly, he didn’t keep his hands to himself — but, according to the kids-are-gonna-be-randy fatalism predominating trendy Left-Think, did he actually have any choice? Remember, teenage boys in particular are going to be teenage boys, right? Or so we’re unflaggingly informed.

On the other hand, if Josh Duggar’s baying denouncers insist he should have been expected to “Just say ‘No’” to those illegitimate, fourteen-year-old impulses in this one context, why is it assumed libidinal self-restraint can’t reach much beyond that among his peers? So he’s supposed to be ostentatiously scolded — his life practically ruined, in fact — for not curbing his youthful lusts in this notorious case?

Why then oughtn’t those exacting standards be expanded some to apply to all interaction between members of the opposite sex? If it’s being required he — and other boys like him — govern themselves when it comes to respecting a little sister or not copping a feel on a clueless neighbor, why is it so inconceivable that sexuo-relational boundaries be pushed a bit so that tempered, gentlemanly conduct is demanded from them across the board?

In sum: the Lothario Left’s attitude has been: Self-control for Josh Duggar? He** yeah! For the fumbling dork, however, in the backseat of Bob Seger’s “60 Chevy” (see “Night Moves“)? Or the frisky couple sneaking off for an alcohol-fueled, post-prom romp? Nothing much to be done to deter that. Those situations are inevitable. Where’s the prophylactics?

For a couple generations, at least, the tribunes of sexual revolution have been generating excuses for horny high-schoolers, even passionate pre-teens. We’ve been fed a gutless stream of surrendering, ruinously irresponsible malfeasance from those who are supposed to know better: adults’ recklessly facilitating young people’s – and not-so-young people’s – reckless behavior.

And any objections to same issuing from conservative/religious/traditional precincts have been met with agitated contempt. Recent headlines, for example, have included these flea-bitten sentiments: “Josh Duggar and the Purity Lie” and “The Duggars Dangerous Cult of Purity” (emphases mine).

Sounds to me like the young guy was merely operating according to secular Liberaldom’s bleak script. So why the shocked umbrage that he, if only passingly, comported himself as they predicted he — and all boys – eventually, inescapably will.

What’s that? Josh Duggar didn’t have to fondle those young innocents? Resistance to erotic temptation is, turns out, possible? Even by a hormone-addled kid?

Who knew?

It so happens, lots of us did — and have known, for ages. “Flee sexual immorality,” wrote one such centuries ago (1 Corinthians 6:18). “Among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality” (Ephesians 5:3).

The truth is, people — fourteen, forty-four or eighty-four years of age — are not slaves to their groins, powerless before their lusts and appetites. Regularly reminding others, including each new, maturing batch of human beings, of that rock-bottom, once widely acknowledge axiom is a healthy and desirable practice — for any society which wants to survive and flourish, that is.

Clearly, everyone won’t always abide by this sound, but admittedly challenging, counsel. Josh Duggar, regrettably, did not do so. His delinquencies do make plain, though, he should have; thus, he could have.

It’s gratifying to discover there are limits to the anything-goes abandon of the lifestyle Leftists. If this keeps up, who knows what’s next? Acknowledgment that physical intimacy on the second or third date isn’t necessarily a given? Admission that abortion isn’t the catch-all solution for the consequences of sexual carelessness? Grudging but whispered openness to the wait-until-marriage option?

Then, next thing you know, Liberals might end up shaking a finger or two at bad boys (and girls) beyond Josh Duggar.

various incels #sexist reddit.com

Re: r/Relationship_Advice: [25m] my girlfriend[24f] told me she had only slept with 3 guys, her best friend [24f] blurted out that they slept with a guy every city in Europe they visited

(SomeTurdInTheWind)

We were talking about some topic and it came to Europe and she told me that they slept with a bunch of super hot guys. It seemed that everyone tuned in then. I laughed it off and didn’t make it into a big deal.

"I laughed it off". Why do guys nowadays solve everything by grinning and smiling and laughing like chimpanzees when a bigger chimpanzee threatens to beat them up?

She had previously told me that she only been with three guys. Long story short she and her friend when they went to Europe would sleep with a hot local guy every city.

This always happens. No exceptions.

When we saw each other she didn’t even want to sleep with me for three months until we were official. And now hearing how she slept with guys hours after meeting them bugs the hell out of me.

Oh, look, the same thing as always.

(bcat124)
From the comments :

I know right now that's not the biggest priority in your brain. You're hung up on images of her fucking her way through Europe. That's just your lizard brain doing lizard brain shit. Set it aside for a moment. Difference in experience? Meh. Banging around in Europe? Meh. That's not the important shit here.

We live in a matriarchy where women have all the sexual capital and take full advantage of it. What a joke

(robfordscrakpipe)
Men, ignore your natural instincts that are hardwired in your brain to help you survive and pass your genes on, that's patriarchy. Ignore your repulsion towards promiscuous, overweight, loud, unattractive women, that's all social construction. Women, if you feel the urge to sleep with that stud at the bar, go for it! Do what feels right! Forget about your boyfriend! Anyone who tells you otherwise is a horrible person who hates women and has a fragile ego and small dick.

(elephant__dick)
If this stuff was meaningless women wouldn't freak out and lie about it. Also if it doesn't matter then why do they always make certain guys wait?

(arissiro)
Exactly - the crux of the issue here is why did her current boyfriend whom she supposedly loves have to wait 3 months, while randos all over Europe had to wait 3 seconds? Why could she make him wait and not them? Why did she feel compelled to make him wait?

(COPE_OR_ROPE)
A roastie inadvertently dropped a brutal blackpill in the comment section:

Also, many guys don't understand that women often wait longer to sleep with someone they really like and want to build something long term with. If the guy is just fun for one day of a trip it doesn't matter to wait. Quick sex doesn't equal a stronger liking of someone for women, though men seem to interpret it that way.

What's the blackpill here ?

She admits that women make betas wait months for sex while Chad get's to ravage her 10 minutes after meeting.

(Thrwwwwaway6)
The blackpill (hidden behind all that delusion) is that girls wait to sleep with guys who make good providers but aren't attractive.

(arissiro)
Yip, a lot of foid delusion there which soymales will fall for. Thing is the "reasoning" itself (if we can even call it that) is incoherent: if this sex thing is important enough for some men to have to wait for - why should it be the men the women "actually want to build something serious with" that wait, instead of random fucking strangers? That's like loaning money to random people immediately without doing credit checks whilst waiting three months on someone with a good credit rating.

You and I know what's going on of course.

(Magehunter_Skassi)
I like that one other roastie in the thread too. Honorary blackpiller. If you're going to be a slut, you may as well own it instead of lying.

I love sex. The idea of finding a different guy in every city I visit in Europe sounds exhausting, but also fun. That said, I’m not too worried about how that “makes me look”.

[...]

Like I get that some people will say shit. But why would you want to start a relationship with someone who judges you for your past anyway?

(PerfectCeI)
So basically the same as... I have a history of multiple arrests for workplace violence and thiefts, many companies wont hire me because of my criminal history but why would you want to start working for a company who judges you for your past anyway teehee

Foids really have the impulse control and accountability of a 4yo child, those Saudis are right in some ways

(mantrad)
Women are nothing, and I mean fucking nothing but cum holes, the more attractive and less used the cum hole the better, that's their only value

(GuacMerchant88)
whatever her claimed total is x by 7 to get an accurate body count. it used to by x 3 before tinder and other quick hook up apps, but modern tech has allowed instant hookups for average looking women to fuck chads at a moments notice. Although roasties are collecting a higher body count and are encouraged to do so by their fellow feminists, very few are willing to be honest with potential beta providers of their true body count. They know that even most betas will not want to finance a roastie who slept with 30+ men (which is more than 75% of women in their 20s today).

I am collecting data on this trend and will post back in a few months with charts/graphs. I will be banned when I report on it but will be good info. r/dataisbeautiful will downvote it to oblivion.

The data is indeed self-reported. The sample size as of right now is only 23 women who agreed to partake. My goal is 2000 women aged 18-40. This is just taken from Tampa. I will be in Boston, NYC, and DC in the next few months and will ask women there as well. The questions are simple:

How many men have you slept with?
Have you lied to your current partner or a potential partner about the amount of men you have slept with?
If so, what number did you tell them? (18/23 admitted lying about their number to current/potential spouse)
Why did you feel the need to lie about your number?

The first 20 responses indicate a 6.7x actual body count to claimed body count.

(arissiro)
Absolutely brutal blackpill mate. Remember this is what life's like for so many men who "aren't incel" - they get laid every now and then, sure - but it's like the homeless guy who sometimes gets to finish off some rich guy's leftover lunch at a restaurant.

(hopfield)
Ahahahhahaa look at this cope:

That's literally the opposite of how it actually is.

Like imagine you're hungry but you're too tired to do much so you just slap some baloney from Wal*Mart on dome bread and eat it. It ends the discomfort from your hunger but it still sucks and is unhealthy for you and not even very enjoyable.

But later on you get yourself together and decide to be healthier and decide it's worth it to do a bit of work to be able to eat actual good food so you learn to cook and start cooking really excellent cuisine for yourself, like 5-star restaurant stuff. It's s not only healthier but a million times more enjoyable than the stupid baloney sandwich which seriously wasn't even good at all, it was just easy.

That's how casual sex is for most women. It's the sucky baloney sandwich they didn't even enjoy, but it was just the easiest thing at the time. They know if they want an actual good meal, they have to put time and effort into it.

When a woman waits a while to have sex with you, she's not "making you wait," and it's certainly not because she thinks you're "beta," it's because she knows the only way the sex will be truly enjoyable and fulfilling for her is if she spends the time getting to know you and making a connection. Then there a chance the sex will actually be like a 5-star meal instead of a baloney sandwich. If she'd had sex with you sooner, it would have sucked for her and not even been enjoyable. She waits because she likes you enough that she'd actually like to have GOOD sex with you and maybe keep having good sex for a long time, instead of having bad sex that would make her want to never see you again.

Women aren't like men. They don't enjoy casual sex like men do. There are even numerous scientific studies showing women are unlikely to orgasm during casual sex and are likely to regret it and not really enjoy it. Putting the time in before having sex literally makes women enjoy the sex itself more, if they don't put the time in and just have sex right away the sex will be garbage like a Wal*Mart baloney sandwich.

They "make you wait" because they actually want the sex to be good and know it won't even be enjoyable for them if they just have sex right away.

"likely to regret it and not really enjoy it."

Then why the fuck do they willingly do it??? Almost as if these cucks are fucking stupid

Girls regret it so much that they go hunting for one-night-stands with Chad week after week after week.

Not even an incel. Just have to post and point out this guys a retard.

The making you wait is about making sure you've invested enough time and money into her so that you can't bail when you find out how much of a cunt she actually is.

This is some 'we wuz kingz' level coping right here. what a soy.

(Big_Iron_PP)
I wrote a poem for the OP:

Fish and dicks down in London

The two met near the Thames

He had a noble accent and

His name, I think, was James


In Paris, the Eiffel Tower

Wasn't what she tried to climb

Tho it was hard like ancient iron

Jaques was a stunning mime


In Amsterdam, where the smell

Of weed hung in the air

The dealer Daan van Dorn and her

Oh, they made a lovely pair


Madrid was hot and sticky

She siesta'd for a while

And after one bull fighting match

She dodged Juan's cum in style


In Venice on a galley

She nigh fell of and drowned

Cause it was all a shaking

When she the oarsman found


Berlin, she really loved to see

What a truly German city

She was a bit surprised when things

With Franz turned to shitty


Budapest of Hungary

She was eager to test

And Jànos did not disappoint:

He was well hung like the rest.


And finally, in Moskva cold

Her journey came to an end

She met you in a bar

And loved you as a friend

Al Bielek/Larry James #ufo #conspiracy #crackpot bielek.com

Larry leads a normal life and wants to keep it that way. He isn't interested in getting caught up in much of the hype that surrounds the Montauk project. We had no choice but to honor his request.

As you listen to the interviews with Larry, you'll pick up on the fact that his voice sounds rather young.

Larry wanted to get out of the program in 1985. The way he got out was to transfer his "soul" into another body. He did the procedure for several other people, why not for himself?

These interviews cover a wide range of topics. You'll hear both Larry talk to Al about why his soul (then Ed Cameron) was transferred to another body, different experiments that were performed with our time travel technology, and how time travel is accomplished.

According to Larry, the Montauk time travel equipment was generally operational in the early 1980's. Their group performed several time travel experiments. Apparently, they were able to alter the outcome of the American Civil war, try out different scenarios with World War II, and go all the way back to the Roman Empire to test different outcomes.

After they experimented with the past, they would evaluate if their current state (1980's) was better or worse. If better, they let the revised scenario exist - if worse, they changed the scenario back.

While performing these experiments, they quickly learned about the dangers associated with these experiments. If too many trips to the past occurred causing too much change, that time line had the potential to fracture and "blink" out of existence.

The gift of time travel can be equated to the gift of nuclear fission. Depending how it is used, great benefits can be derived - or great destruction can occur. That's why the program remains secret and will probably always remain secret.

Larry's information will certainly stretch the imagination. It will cause one to question the very nature of our existence.

Soul transfer leads to, what Larry calls, a "Swiss Cheese" memory. As with Al, certain information is remembered as if it happened yesterday, and other information remains buried until triggered by an event.

So, keep an open yet discerning mind, and get ready to change your paradigm.

TriggerFish #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

A Theory of Fukushima - HAARP Technology Caused the Nuclear Disaster?

I just found this profoundly interesting and disturbing theory (very different from the alt media's first take) They were trying to reduce the dramatic increase in air ionization levels over Japan. It was caused by plant overstress and venting during uranium/plutonium production in 2010.

A massive cargo of plutonium was exported to Japan's Fukushima reactors for processing in 2010 -2011

A problem developed where the reactors had three times more after heat and steam than normal.

Reactors were opened and they started blowing air into the atmosphere.

The release of air caused the ionization levels above Japan to skyrocket.

NATO and the IEA freaked out about the rising ionization levels.

First they tried to push the ionization down with geoengineering chemicals so the nitrogenshere would not explode. That failed.

Then HAARP was tried to reduce the ionization levels above Japan's nuclear reactors.

HAARP ran for 2.5 days according to Russian and Chinese sources.

The ionization cloud acted as a lighting rod grounding all the HAARP energy into the soil.

The powerful energy reached the rock infrastructure below the Pacific & Fukushima; The crystal structure in the ground started to vibrate.

Immense rock bed became unstable. The tectonic boundary under Japan started to move.

The HAARP hammer effect triggered the earthquake and resulting tsunami.

[link to presscore.ca]


HAARP Magnetometer data shows Japan earthquake was induced.


The United States Air Force and Navy has provided a visual insight into what caused the 9.0 magnitude off of Japan on March 11, 2011 at 05:46:23 UTC. The image above was downloaded from the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) website. It is a time-frequency spectrogram, which shows the frequency content of signals recorded by the HAARP Induction Magnetometer. This instrument, provided by the University of Tokyo, measures temporal variations in the geomagnetic field (Earth’s magnetosphere) in the ULF (ultra-low frequency) range of 0-5 Hz. Notions have been added to the image to show you what was happening the day the Japan earthquake and tsunami struck.

Cobra/Sisterhood of the Rose #conspiracy #crackpot #magick welovemassmeditation.com

Cobra: The dark forces have initialized this pandemic a few months ago as you have said to promote dystopian New World Order society. Now the lights forces are using the situation, especially the situation of global mass quarantines, to further their plans for the Event. Actually, this quarantine situation is a great opportunity for the Light Forces to evaluate the behavior of the surface population and to create much better module models of how the surface population will react when the Event happens. So they are gathering precious, valuable intel right now which will make the Event operation much, much easier when it really happens.

Debra: Did the dark forces have any idea that when they released this virus as a bioweapon that the Light Forces might use this opportunity to do purification work on the planet in preparation for the Event?

Cobra: Their expectation was for this virus to be much more dangerous, much more lethal. They were targeting a mass pandemic scenario where I would say 5 billion people infected and 50 million people dead. This was their goal; this was phase one of their operation. And phase two would be the total collapse of surface society into a “Mad Max” scenario. This was their goal, their plan. Of course, this did not happen, and it will not happen.

Debra: Can they do anything at this point to stop the positive progress that the Light Forces are making during these quarantines?

Cobra: What is happening is this whole coronavirus pandemic situation was a surprise to a certain degree for the Light Forces. Dark forces had certain advantages few months ago when they started with this operation, but this advantage is getting less and less and less. So situation is now turning slowly but surely in the favor of the Light Forces.

Greg Johnson #racist counter-currents.com

There has been a certain normalization of white men dating Asians. Because feminism has made so many otherwise attractive white women into bitches, it is easy to understand why perfectly normal white men are tempted to settle for Asian women, as they seem to be more feminine, submissive, and oriented toward home and family.

But even those who defend whites dating Asians as a normal and healthy reaction to a sick society, will immediately assume that there must be something wrong with a white man who dates a black woman. Even the most delirious Yellow Fever victims balk at that.

Hence the normalization of white male/black female pairings has emerged as an identifiable action item on the agenda for white genocide.

For a long time, such parings were quite rare in television and the movies. It seemed easier to sell images of black men as wise mentors, crime fighters, scientific geniuses, US Presidents, and God, than black women as attractive sexual partners for normal, non-defective white men.

Buckeyemike #fundie forums.worldofwarcraft.com

actually you can test gravity lol quit trying to go in circles, most of the theories they use to try to prove evolution is outright boulderdash , i mean come on carbon dating? dating fossils with the dirt they are found in? or dating the dirt by the fossils they find in them? lol come on any scientist worth his weight in lab equipment can see that isnt science

Boy Scouts of America #fundie addictinginfo.org

[Survey questions about homosexuality sent out to Boy Scouts and their parents.]

Bob is 15 years old, and the only openly gay Scout in a Boy Scout troop. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for the troop leader to allow Bob to tent with a heterosexual boy on an overnight camping trip?

Tom started in the program as a Tiger Cub, and finished every requirement for the Eagle Scout Award at 16 years of age. At his board of review Tom reveals that he is gay. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for the review board to deny his Eagle Scout award based on that admission?

Johnny, a first grade boy, has joined Tiger Cubs with his friends. Johnny’s friends and their parents unanimously nominate Johnny’s mom, who is known by them to be lesbian, to be the den leader. Johnny’s pack is chartered to a church where the doctrine of that faith does not teach that homosexuality is wrong. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for his mother to serve as a den leader for his Cub Scout den?

A troop is chartered by an organization that does not believe homosexuality is wrong and allows gays to be ministers. The youth minister traditionally serves as the Scoutmaster for the troop. The congregation hires a youth minister who is gay. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for this youth minister to serve as the Scoutmaster?

David, a Boy Scout, believes that homosexuality is wrong. His troop is chartered to a church where the doctrine of that faith also teaches that homosexuality is wrong. Steve, an openly gay youth, applies to be a member in the troop and is denied membership. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for this troop to deny Steve membership in their troop?

A gay male troop leader, along with another adult leader, is taking a group of boys on a camping trip following the youth protection guidelines of two-deep leadership. Is it acceptable or unacceptable for the gay adult leader to take adolescent boys on an overnight camping trip?

The current Boy Scouts of America requirements, stated above, prohibit open homosexuals from being Scouts or adult Scout leaders. To what extent do you support or oppose this requirement?

Different organizations that charter Boy Scout troops have different positions on the morality of homosexuality. Do you support or oppose allowing charter organizations to follow their own beliefs when selecting Boy Scout members and adult leaders, if that means there will be different standards from one organization to the next?

What is your greatest concern if the policy remains in place and openly gay youth and adults are prohibited from joining Scouting?

What is your greatest concern if the policy is changed to allow charter organizations to make their own decisions to admit openly gay Scouts and leaders?

Do you believe the current policy prohibiting open homosexuals from being Scouts or adult Scout leaders is a core value of Scouting found in the Scout Oath and Law?

If the Boy Scouts of America makes a decision on this policy that disagrees with your own view, will you continue to participate in the Boy Scouts, or will you leave the organization?

frank neat #fundie wnd.com

Too many have bought into the "New History" being taught which is a lie. 26 of the signers of the Constitution were ordained Ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and all were Christians to some degree.
again, not true. Our founding fathers were successful in creating a land where we are free to worship without interference from government. The US Congress was the first printer of the Bible and printed it to be used as a book for learning in the classrooms of our new found nation. The US capital held the largest Church service in a country for the first 100 years. Yale and Harvard were originally colleges founded to educate ministers and missionaries. We were never intended to be free from Christianity, we were intended to be free from government intervention.

Ricardo Duchesne #fundie eurocanadian.ca


Actually, Gardner's determination to identify instances of simple numerical accounting among primitive peoples as viable demonstrations of the "universality" of logical-mathematical reasoning constitutes an egregious downgrading of the very meaning of this form of intelligence. This intelligence has been characterized by stages of development from a sensorimotor stage, through pre-operational and concrete operational stages, to a formal operational stage. In the chapter where Gardner's writes that Piaget "painted a brilliant portrait of development in one domain — that of logical-mathematical thought," he forgets that adolescents in traditional cultures (not educated by the West) barely reach and cultivate the final stage of development in Piaget's theory, the stage of formal operations, in which young adolescents exhibit a capacity to figure out the "implications that obtain among a set of relative propositions" (to use Gardner's own words, 19).

No just in primitive cultures, but outside the West, the logical-mathematical intelligence barely exhibited its full potential. Mathematics is essentially a European accomplishment. Gardner says that "it is left to the greatest scientists to pose questions that no one has posed before, and then to arrive at an answer" (149). Does he know that Europeans and North Americans account for 97 percent of scientific accomplishment?

The history of logic, too, is overwhelmingly European. The magisterial eleven-volume work, Handbook of the History of Logic (2004 –2012), which was written from a "global perspective," and contains four chapters in the first two volumes on Indian and Arabic logic, cannot but dedicate all the other chapter and volumes to the West since almost all developments in logic came from this civilization.

Europeans have also been the best in "linguistic intelligence." Most of the examples of great poets, essayists, and novelists Gardner mentions are Western. We all know that humans have an innate capacity for language, but Europeans have developed the literary capabilities of their languages to the highest degree. Take the novel; it is really a European invention. The word “novel” came into use at the end of the 18th century in England as a transliteration of the Italian word “novella.” The roots of the novel can be traced back to i) Spanish picaresque tales (1500s) with their strings of episodic adventures held together by the personality of the central figure; ii) Elizabethan prose fiction and the translation of ancient Greek romances into the vernacular, iii) French heroic romance (mid 17th century) with its huge baroque narratives about thinly veiled contemporaries who always acted nobly and spoke high-flown sentiments. What British novelists added in the 1700s was a more unified and plausible (down-to-earth) plot structure, with sharply individualized and believable characters, and a less aristocratic (or more “middle class”) style of writing. The novel, in these respects, was invented in Europe, particularly after 1750 (Watt 2001). It was “associated from its inception,” in the words of Roy Porter, “with individualism and a certain political liberalism” (2000: 283). England played the leading role in this genre, cultivating a new sensibility for authenticity, personal experience and feeling, a spirit of nonconformity towards rigid and “insincere” conventions, a fascination with the inner depths of the self. Samuel Richardson’s Clarissa was one of such novels, as was Pamela and Sir Charles Grandison by the same author; as well as Sarah Fielding’s The Adventures of David Simple (1744), Henry Brooke’s The Fool of Quality (1765), Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe (1719) and Moll Flanders (1722), Lawrence Sterne’s Tristram Shandy (1759–67) and A Sentimental Journey (1767).

Same goes for musical intelligence. All humans have this intelligence but it is empirically beyond question that the European world produced most musical styles, the most sophisticated forms of musical notation, and a new polyphonic music where sounds could be seen as a phenomena moving through time, written on a paper using a codified and standardized system of notation for all sounds and rests. Europeans developed into their current forms almost all the known musical instruments. All the greatest classical composers in history are Western.

We are told that "spatial intelligence" refers to an ability to think in terms of physical space, as do architects and navigators. Drawing, jigsaw puzzles, maps, all rely on this intelligence, as well as models, graphics, charts, photographs, drawings, 3-D modeling, multimedia. Again, it so happens to be the case that almost all the greatest navigators, explorers, and geographers in history were European. The invention of modern maps, the cartographic revolution, was strictly European. Europeans are responsible for the development of models, charts, photographs, and the like. Gardner tries to downplay this reality by saying that "the capacity to make one's way around an intricate environment, to engage in complex arts and crafts, and to play sports and games of various types seems to be found everywhere" (p. 200). But most of what he says about spatial reasoning relies on Western instances. His appeals to spatial reasoning outside the West for the sake of pushing the notion that all cultures are equal constitute a downgrading of the very meaning of intelligence.

Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is about body awareness, using the body effectively and graciously, body language, hands-on-learning, making tools. Again, Europeans cultivated the highest instances of this form of intelligence. Europeans, for starters, are better athletes in most sports. Gardner says that "of all the uses of the body, none has reached greater heights...than the dance" (p. 222). Well, Europeans invented most of the dance forms in history, including the dances which reached the greater heights in difficulty and creativity, ballet and modern. They are also the greatest dancers and the greatest hands-on inventors.

Europeans have exhibited the highest levels of "naturalistic intelligence" in their far higher understanding of nature, their sensitivity towards plants and animals, their unique love for pets and for street animals. The creation of national parks is a Western achievement.

Brian #fundie blogs.orlandosentinel.com

Its really funny to see how all the evolutionists feel so threatened by this. If evolution is so pure and true, then you should have nothing to fear from "intelligent design" being taught as another theory of creation. But that's just it. You have a LOT to fear because the theory of evolution does not hold water when scrutinized. But it really is easier to believe in evolution. Believing in evolution allows you equate human beings to the beasts of the wild. When you put people on the same plane as animals instead of beings created in God's image, it makes it easier for you to justify the horrors of abortion, euthanasia, and other such atrocities.

Mack Major #fundie #mammon facebook.com

And just when you thought it was over...

The devil is sometimes allowed to attack. But he's not allowed to win - so long as we stay in faith and keep our eyes on Jesus Christ. He can slow us down a bit, but he cannot stop us. He can hinder but he cannot defeat us.

This has been an unprecedented time of spiritual warfare and attack in my life personally, and in the lives of those who help me with Eden Decoded that has lasted for more than a year now.

We've been attacked by witches, satanists, covens, occultists, black people, white people, Hispanic people, BGLO's, newspapers, websites, the Huffington Post, political writers, secular music artists, misguided ministers, psuedo-prophets and prophetesses, fake Christians, social media giants like Facebook and Twitter: the list goes on.

When you fight against the devil and demons, please expect them to fight back!

I learned this lesson from my own father, watching him cast demons out of people ever since I was a young boy. Then I watched days and weeks later as he went through all types of hellfire and warfare in his business, finances and his own personal life.

This IS war! And too often Christians forget that we don't get saved to go on spiritual picnics or sabbaticals. We get saved to disavow our citizenship in Satan's kingdom, and to become permanent members of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.

When we said yes to Jesus we said 'later' to the devil! When we became friends of the cross we become instant enemies of the powers of darkness that were defeated by the cross.

Though this warfare has been intense, the support of those sent by God to stand with us in this hour has equally been unprecedented.

Thank you to all who heard our request for help, and who gave to get Eden Decoded back up and running again! We're baaaack!

And to those who gloated, sent us nasty celebratory emails reveling in our site being down and offline - better get a refund on that victory dance because we're up and running again with full steam ahead! ??

Thanks again to everyone who gave. You will never know how much you've helped. Only God truly knows: therefore what you did in secret I pray that God rewards you for openly, in the way and manner that He sees fit. God bless you immensely.

Now back to churning out these books and articles!

Steven R. #fundie simplychristian.referata.com

The Episcopal Church in the United States is a form of Satanic worship disguised as Christianity. Filled to the brim with pomp and circumstance, unmitigated popery, and other such degenerate behaviors as allowing same-sex "marriages," this "church" is responsible for sending people to Hell.

History

King Henry VIII wanted an annulment because his wife bore not a son, but daughters. When the pope did not grant this divorce, Henry stormed off and separated the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church and therefore created the Anglican "Church." He was then able to divorce his wives and commit adultery because he was absolutely dedicated to having a son.

During the time America was under British rule, most were Anglicans. After the events of the American Revolution, the "church" was renamed the Episcopal "Church," because England was to be excised from public life.

The Episcopal "Church" was famous for supporting Darwinism and the eugenics theories of Nazi Germany.

Practices

The Episcopal "Church" has a vain and repetitious service, believes in such heresies as infant baptism and baptismal regeneration, and has icons and idols much like the Roman Catholic "Church." They allow practicing homosexual ministers, "ordain" women, and fail to recognize sin as a negative force in peoples' lives. Their spiritual leader, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is a known agnostic, and they allow the heresy of consubstantiation and using wine instead of grape juice for communion.

Taylor Swift, a vile succubus and harlot known for rejecting the lordship of Jesus Christ, is Episcopalian. This should tell you everything you need to know about this heretical sect of Satanic ritualism.

Mike King #conspiracy realhistorychannel.org

NY Times Headlines:
* Trump's Easter Back-To-Business Goal 'Catastrophic'
* Trump Says Reopen by Easter, Corporate America Says Not So Fast
* Coronavirus Advancing. All Americans Need to Shelter in Place.
* Dollar Signs Versus Vital Signs
* Trump Wants U.S. ‘Opened Up’ by Easter, Despite Health Officials’ Warn

In this tactical tug-of-war over whose script will be chosen for the final act of Coronavirus: The Movie -- we have, on one side, Trump and the patriots proposing the “happy ending” version of re-opening businesses and resuming the counter-attack on the Deep State by Easter Weekend (April 10 -12) --- and, in the other camp, there are the undefeated and still-mighty Globalists whose version of the closing scene climaxes with the “Herbert Hooverization” of Trump and allies worldwide by imposing an indefinite economy-killing “shelter-in-place” regime upon Planet Earth. Psychopath Bill Gates for example -- who, in my perfect world, would to be beaten to death with hammers on live TV -- is calling for up to an additional TEN WEEKS of shut-down.

As the above-listed pro-depression / anti-“get back to work” headlines clearly indicate, we know which ending that “the paper of record” prefers.

For the benefit of the historically rusty, a bit of Real History precedent review is in order here.

In 1928, Republican Herbert Hoover was elected President by winning 40 of the then-48 states. It was the third consecutive Republican landslide (Harding, 1920 & Coolidge, 1924). Hoover had inherited from his predecessors the booming economy of “The Roaring Twenties,” -- and optimistically spoke of continued peace and prosperity for the nation.

About six months into his term, the Federal Reserve and its subordinate banks deliberately choked off the money supply – crashing the highly leveraged stock market in October, 1929 and ushering in the Great Depression. As businesses across the country fell like dominoes, the Fed continued to contract the money supply so that both businesses and individuals couldn’t get their hands on enough currency to repay the old debts from the bubble years.

Hoover, for the most part, resisted the commie call for "action" -- wisely stating:

"Economic depression cannot be cured by legislative action or executive pronouncement. Economic wounds must be healed by the action of the cells of the economic body - the producers and consumers themselves."

That sure didn't go over too well with the Globo gangsters (cough cough) who engineered the crash. Like a trio of con-artists working the same “mark,” the Fed continued to throttle the economy, whilst the Fake News falsely blamed Hoover for not “doing enough,” whilst the Communists organized “spontaneous” street actions like the 1932 “Bonus March.” The End Result: The election of 1932 brought an end to 12 years of conservative Republican governance by installing Franklin Demono Rosenfeld in the White House in a 42-state landslide -- along with a Democrat super-majority in the Congress (most, but not all of them leftists). America would never be the same again.

Early on in his presidency, Trump took control of the Fed by dumping Globalist Janet Yenta Yellen (cough cough) and appointing Jerome Powell (the first non-Jew to chair the Fed in over 30 years). With the Fed having been tamed, the removal of Trump by the tried & true tactic of spiking interest rates / contracting money supply -- which was the original plan (here) -- was no longer an option. CoronaMania was therefore designed to do what the Central Bank could no longer do, namely, crash -- Herbert Hooverize -- the Trump's stock market and economy – albeit by different means than those utilized in 1929-1932.

Right on cue, from RealClearPolitics.com, March 25, 2020:

Headline: Will Trump Become the New Hoover? (here)

And this from the Washington Compost, March 23,2020 (accompanied by images of Trump and Hoover)

Headline: Covid-19 may destroy Donald Trump’s presidency

Sub-headline: Has Trump plunged America into another Great Depression? (here)

Bastards! But should we really be surprised? (((They))) don't care about how many people they murder in foreign wars; so why would (((they))) give a rat's butt-hole about how many American get thrown out of work? Our lives mean NOTHING to these monsters which so many millions of normies hold in such high regard as "public servants."

Like the “Russian Collusion” hoax of 2017-2019; and like the “Ukraine Phone Call” hoax of 2019-2020 – CoronaMania seems destined to backfire – maybe. The unpredictable “X-Factor” here is that 24 of America’s 50 states (including the two most populous states of California and New York) have Demonrat Governors. If enough of these repugnant villains (Newsome (CA), Cuomo (NY), Pritzker (IL), Murphy (NJ) et al) were to collectively scheme to keep their respective states on shut-down -- in spite of Trump’s Easter target date for a return to normalcy -- the Governors (and some big city Mayors) could inflict enormous damage not just upon the people of their own states, but on the nation as a whole.

It will be interesting to see how the coming civil war between the conveniently all-of-a-sudden “states’ rights” Demonrat Governors and the President plays out. Our money is on Trump coming out of this latest take-down scheme smelling like roses again. However -- if mass arrests of the criminal perps who just caused us to dump 2 Trillion on the National Credit Card don’t come out of this golden “National Emergency” opportunity; then one has got to start wondering how and when “The Storm” will ever happen. Not getting discouraged here – just a little antsy. We just need to see some bad guys disappear and die soon. That’s all.
– That being said, where the hell is Tom Hanks?"

In accordance with the dictates of New Jersey's insane and evil Governor Phil Murphy of Goldman Sachs, the Boobus Brothers are at home, "sheltering in place" ™ as they "social distance" ™ from their equally stupid and frigid wives.

St. Sugar: When the Boobusses sstart to feel the pain of not having a paycheck, they will sside with Trump againsst the Governorss!!
Editor: That's quite possible -- but the script for the final act of this secret war can still go either way, in my judgement.

Elvis is King #fundie conservatism.referata.com

The Episcopal Church in the United States is a form of Satanic worship disguised as Christianity. Filled to the brim with pomp and circumstance, unmitigated popery, and other such degenerate behaviors as allowing same-sex "marriages," this "church" is responsible for sending people to Hell.
History

King Henry VIII wanted an annulment because his wife bore not a son, but daughters. When the pope did not grant this divorce, Henry stormed off and separated the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church and therefore created the Anglican "Church." He was then able to divorce his wives and commit adultery because he was absolutely dedicated to having a son.
During the time America was under British rule, most were Anglicans. After the events of the American Revolution, the "church" was renamed the Episcopal "Church," because England was to be excised from public life.
The Episcopal "Church" was famous for supporting Darwinism and the eugenics theories of Nazi Germany.
Practices

The Episcopal "Church" has a vain and repetitious service, believes in such heresies as infant baptism and baptismal regeneration, and has icons and idols much like the Roman Catholic "Church." They allow practicing homosexual ministers, "ordain" women, and fail to recognize sin as a negative force in peoples' lives. Their spiritual leader, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is a known agnostic, and they allow the heresy of consubstantiation and using wine instead of grape juice for communion.
Taylor Swift, a vile succubus and harlot known for rejecting the lordship of Jesus Christ, is Episcopalian. This should tell you everything you need to know about this heretical sect of Satanic ritualism.

rgray222 #conspiracy alien-ufos.com

have been around since WWII but they were not really understood or did much good until the early 1950s. During the Korean War several new vests were produced for the United States military, including the M-1951, which made use of fibre-reinforced plastic or aluminium segments woven into a nylon vest. These vests represented "a vast improvement on weight, but the armor failed to stop bullets and fragments very successfully," although officially they were claimed to be able to stop 7.62x25mm Tokarev pistol rounds at the muzzle. Developed by Natick Laboratories and introduced in 1967, T65-2 plate carriers were the first vests designed to hold hard ceramic plates, making them capable of stopping 7 mm rifle rounds. It is widely speculated that the aliens that were discovered at Roswell were wearing indestructible fabric. Philip Corso describes this in great detail!

Fading Light #racist stormfront.org

The "Native American" Genocide Myth

Liberals lie constantly without conscience or remorse. They are exposed almost daily in hate-crime hoaxes, racial crime-rate statistical misinformation, and falsified historical accounts. They have been caught in enough major lies, in fact, to fill many large volumes. Just off the top of my head: Michael Brown was not shot in the back nor with his hands up. George Zimmerman is not White and did not inform the dispatcher of the race of Trayvon Martin until asked. The perpetrators of the Oberlin College “hate graffiti” were exposed as false-flagging leftists. Matthew Shepard was not killed by homophobes or because he was gay. The Tuskegee Syphilis study did not infect any Blacks with syphilis, nor refuse to treat any infected Blacks according to the medical knowledge of the time. George Stinney was not convicted of murder in a mistrial. “Jackie” at the University of Virginia was not raped. Blacks are not given longer sentences than Whites are for the same crimes. Homosexuals are not even nearly as likely to remain monogamous as heterosexuals are. Anders Breivik was not a White Nationalist. No one was ever gassed at Dachau. Homosexuality was neither common nor accepted in Ancient Greece. Black people did not “invent” Rock and Roll. Waitress Dayna Morales made up the story about receiving a discriminatory note instead of a tip. Kerri Dunn vandalized her own car to incite hatred against her political opponents. Crystal Magnum lied about being gang-raped in order to frame White men. So did Tawana Brawley. No one shouted the n-word at John Lewis at the political rally in Duluth. Eric Garner was placed in a headlock, not a choke-hold, and the coroner confirmed that no damage was done to his airway.

This is just the tiniest sample of the endless lying from the left. It is a testament to the irrationality, gullibility, and delusional self-interest of the stupider half of humanity that anyone believes anything liberals assert no matter how benign it might sound, to say nothing of their more extreme claims.

And this takes us to the American Indian Genocide Myth: the incessant assertion of the White-hating left that Europeans “committed genocide” against “Native Americans.” The latter term has been placed in quotes because they aren’t native to the Americas. No humans are native to the Americas. “Native American” is yet another evasive, politically correct propaganda label from the same lying libtards who can’t seem to keep their story straight for more than ten seconds at a time.

American Indians speaking English have called themselves Indians for centuries. The American Indian Movement was named by the American Indians (and notice which term they applied to themselves). Of course, there is that small problem of America being a long way from India. For this reason, the scientific term Amerindian was created to remedy it, which is far preferable to the entirely fake and emotion-manipulating term preferred by leftists.

So what is genocide? According to the United Nations (whose definition everyone seems to take as the most official one), it is inflicting upon a group of people conditions calculated to bring about its destruction in whole or in part. In fact, this is only a portion of the UN definition, but it is the most relevant portion.

The UN doesn’t seem to make clear in its definition the difference between a genocide and, for example, a war. Wars often involve races, nationalities, ethnical or religious groups and the killing involved in a war is generally quite deliberate. Presumably the difference is in the intent. If the war is being fought for the purpose of wiping out a group of people, it is genocide. If a bunch of them die as a consequence of a war for some other purpose, it is not. The wars between the Amerindians and European colonists, then, were not genocide. They were, in nearly all cases, started by the incessant treaty-violations of the Amerindians, and ended by the Europeans attempting a new treaty with them instead of simply wiping them out.

Meanwhile, there is no real argument from anyone that most of the Amerindian deaths associated with European colonization resulted from diseases, not war. The left asserts that this was intentional, that centuries before Germ Theory existed, Europeans were using germ-warfare against the Amerindians. The absurdity of this assertion is obvious to any thinking person: The only place Europeans could hope to get diseases to pass to the Amerindians was from each other, but unless they were also committing germ-warfare against themselves, the ready transmission of the same diseases from European to European had to be entirely accidental. So according to leftists, it was unintentional when Europeans spread diseases to each other, but it was “germ-warfare” when the same diseases inevitably spread to the Amerindians (to say nothing of the diseases such as syphilis that they gave to us).

To support this assertion of enormous numbers of intentionally inflicted “germ-warfare casualties,” the left has found . . . (wait for it!) . . . ONE sentence in a private letter written by a European in a fort under siege by Amerindian marauders prior to the existence of the United States. And what does the sentence say? It says that maybe they can get the marauding gang of Amerindians to stop murdering them by making them sick with smallpox transmitted by offering them a stack of blankets that would first have been handled by people who had smallpox.

There are a few massive problems with this “evidence,” however—a few technical issues with this one tiny sentence that constitutes the entirety of liberals’ proof of deliberate germ-warfare against the Amerindians: First, the Amerindians were already getting smallpox and had been for some time, most often via robbing and raping and murdering Whites, some of whom obviously were suffering from the disease. (Otherwise how could anyone at the fort hope to infect a blanket before giving it to an Indian?) In fact, this appears to have been the case for the gang of savages that was attacking the fort in question: They already had it, most likely contracted from the home of a nearby White family that they had murdered and robbed a few days before the siege at the fort began.

Next, there is absolutely no evidence that such a scheme of transmitting smallpox using blankets was ever attempted there or anywhere else. Ward Churchill’s assertion to the contrary turned out to be another lie from a leftist. He made the whole thing up and there was not, in reality, a fort within eight hundred miles of the location at which he claimed a fort’s soldiers had distributed infected blankets.

Last, the transmission via blankets almost certainly would not have worked in any case because smallpox cannot survive very long outside of a host’s body. The blankets would have to be freshly and wetly infected. What kind of an idiot would accept and use a stack of puss-covered blankets? The entire proposal in the sentence in question was a desperate and empty suggestion by an exhausted and distraught person grasping at straws to try to save his people.

The Amerindian Genocide claim also entirely fails to explain the enormous efforts the Europeans went to in order to keep the Amerindians from dying out. Concerned about their falling population, the American government first tried giving the individual Indians land, but they promptly sold it off for liquor, weapons, and the like instead of working it or living on it. Finally, the government set aside large reservations that could not ever be sold to any White person, nor taken away under any circumstances (hence the name “reservations”). It worked, as all Amerindian tribes presently show steadily increasing populations and when including the mixed-race Latinos and others who group with them genetically, they now have populations in the tens or millions in the US and Canada.

In short, all of this means huge sums of money were spent by Whites to (successfully) save the people liberals claim Whites were trying to exterminate. If this was attempted genocide on the part of Europeans, we really suck at it.

Recall that the UN definition of genocide includes the stipulation of “calculated” conditions. This means awareness and willful choice. Clearly Whites recognized that Amerindians were dying out, but chose NOT to maintain the detrimental conditions, and instead went to great lengths to reverse them. Compare this with the ongoing genocide of the White race by anti-Whites, who admit freely that they are aware of our falling population, and vehemently insist on maintaining the conditions resulting in our destruction. By definition, the Amerindian situation was not a genocide. The White situation IS a genocide, and liberals care not at all.

One of the most interesting and pernicious aspects of the Amerindian Genocide myth, however, is in the numbers. A favorite liberal claim is that “greater than 90%” of the Amerindians died in the wake of the arrival of Europeans. How do they know that? The Amerindians were far too primitive, illiterate, and ignorant to have censuses, and trying to search for remains at this point to count them from so long ago would be like trying to do the same for antelope or horses—ridiculous and utterly futile. The leftist solution has simply been to make up numbers—the higher the better—because then it appears that more Amerindians must have died when one looks at the far lower population numbers after Whites started counting them.

Before the age of anti-White liberalism, the best estimates by the academics were very different than they are today. For the territory that is now the United States and Canada, the US Census Bureau estimated in 1894 that the pre-Columbian Amerindian population was half a million. This was a rational estimate considering the primitive, literally stone-age conditions under which they lived throughout most of that region. In 1928, James Mooney, an ethnologist employed by the Smithsonian, estimated a little over twice this number, 1.2 million. Again, this is probably more or less reasonable for their level of technology.

It is worth pausing for a moment to reflect on the fact that liberals consider a debate “won” for their side if they can find a supporting figure from an authority such as an ethnologist working for the Smithsonian or the US Census Bureau. They consider such authority estimates final and unquestionable . . . unless those estimates do not serve their agenda.

The estimates above were good enough by all academic accounts until it became beneficial to the anti-Whites to bump them up in the 1960’s. Then leftist anthropologist Henry Dobyns resolved to work backward to get the answer that he wanted: He decided to assume (without reason or proof) that over 95% of the “native” population died from European diseases (which would be a truly astonishing mortality rate for ANY plague). Using census figures for Amerindians from after the arrival of English colonists, he declared that the pre-Columbian population for the same territory already described must have been in excess of twelve million—ten to twenty times higher than the previous estimates.

This is, of course, a typical example of leftist deception and a wonderful tool of circular reasoning for anti-Whites: They wish to describe the arrival of the Europeans as a devastating calamity for the Amerindians, so they start by assuming that it was, use the assumption to make up some numbers, and then use the numbers to back the assumption whenever the subject comes up thereafter. Liberals ceaselessly cite these numbers as “proof” of the scope of the destruction, never bothering to answer for the source of the numbers they are using.

After all, the numbers come from “experts.” If the population fell from 12 million to 490 thousand by 1900, then that’s a lot of dead people. If, however, the other experts (the ones liberals don’t approve of and whose estimates were around 500 thousand) are correct, then their population barely fell at all. Their argument boils down to declaring that the high estimates are the right ones because White people are evil, and White people are evil because the high estimates are the right ones. Got it?

What liberals can’t avoid, however, is that even in the modern world of politically correct academia, the pre-colonialism Amerindian population estimates are still all over the board. High they undoubtedly remain in nearly every case. After all, who wants to lose their career for being a “racist” by impeding the leftist agenda? And despite this, the upper-end estimates are absurdly, grotesquely, ridiculously inflated. Consider, for example, the estimates for pre-Columbian Central America, which range from 100 thousand at the low end, to about 13.5 million at the high end.

Think about that for a moment: The upper estimate is more than THIRTEEN THOUSAND PERCENT higher than the lower estimate. How does one justify such a thing mathematically? This is like saying that the weight of the average adult female is between 200 and 26000 pounds, or that the cost of a loaf of bread is between five dollars and seven hundred dollars. In math circles, this is referred to as being completely full of crap. In political circles, this is typical leftist “reasoning.”

Liberals depend upon authority arguments because their assertions fall apart immediately when examined logically. When a leftist states a statistic, assume it was simply made up out of thin air (because it probably was). Expend the effort to dig around for the real numbers since your liberal opponents never will: They care not at all about truth, nor about REAL genocides, only about getting their way in everything.

Thomas Coy #fundie ex-gaytruth.com

The movie “For the Bible tells me so” (forthebibletellsmeso.org) was shown in my home community of Flint, Michigan in the fall of 2008 as part of a series of gay events called “Out’N About.” Although the movie was billed as a documentary, it was first and foremost a gay propaganda film.

The movie has two distinct elements to it. The documentary element examines the lives of five homosexuals and how their immediate families responded to their homosexuality. That part of the movie is actually a documentary, interesting, emotionally moving, and somewhat objective. The other part of the movie is pure gay political propaganda arranged to disparage conservative Christians and present the gay political movement as the enlightened possessors of the real truth about homosexuality.
From my observations as a scholar on the gay political movement this movie has the imprint of the gay political organization known as Soulforce (www.soulforce.org).

Soulforce has been a branch of the gay political movement specifically targeting the Bible believing Christian church. Mel White is a cofounder of Soulforce and a prominent leader in the gay political movement. A favorite target of Mel White and Soulforce has been Dr. James Dobson and his organization Focus on the Family (www.focusonthefamily.com).
The fact that the movie specifically targets Dr. James Dobson and that Dr. Mel White is a predominant spokesperson throughout the movie gives the Soulforce manipulation away. The movie at the time of this writing was featured on the Soulforce website and on the website of America’s largest gay lobbying organization – The Human Rights Campaign. A fifty page study guide comes with the movie to assist in molding the interested convert into an advocate for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender equality with heterosexuality.
Besides the deception and lies presented as truths, the gay theology espoused in the film claiming that the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior is considered by many a self-serving concoction. It would take a whole book to accurately address all the deception and lies in the propaganda part of the movie, so I will select instances that best support my accusations.
Scientific lies and deception
Like most gay propaganda the movie begins its justification of homosexuality by contending that homosexuality is not something that is not chosen.

Conservative Christians knowledgeable on homosexuality, including ex-gays, and psychotherapists who help people overcome unwanted same-sex attractions, agree that clinical science has shown that homosexual attractions are not usually something that an individual chooses. That there is agreement on this point is never brought up in gay propaganda and it is not acknowledged in the movie. Instead Christians, ex-gays, and therapists who disagree with the gay worldview are shown as ninnies who ignore this and other clinical facts. Knowledgeable Christians, ex-gays, and therapists do distinguish between attractions and behavior, and most certainly maintain that individuals have a choice of whether or not they engage in any form of sexual behavior. This distinction is never mentioned in gay propaganda or the movie.

Gay propaganda and clinical science diverge after the fact that homosexuals do not choose their attractions to the same sex. Using that fact as a premise gay propaganda and the movie conclude that homosexuality is an innate condition that is unchangeable and therefore equivalent to heterosexuality. The movie specifically states that “sexual orientation cannot be changed or prevented.”

There are no facts to support the innate theory, so the movie shows a cartoon series that mocks the clinical evidence on the causal factors of homosexuality and sexual orientation change. What researchers have found is that male homosexuals usually have had past experiences of prolonged rejection by the same sex parent and same sex peers throughout childhood. As a child the homosexual never felt he was a part of his gender group, and the longing to be part of the group and the mystery of the same sex turned into same-sex attractions at puberty. This is not always the causal route to male homosexuality, but it has been documented enough to be referred to as the standard causal route.

Clinical science has also documented hundreds of cases where homosexuals have changed their sexual orientation. The evidence is overwhelming. The movie claims ex-gay organizations and psychotherapists use shame and guilt to coax homosexuals to repress their true feelings, thereby presenting ex-gay organizations as a sham and destructive to the mental well being of homosexuals. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The truth is that ex-gay organizations like Exodus International (www.exodus.to) offer real hope to individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions. Many individuals have overcome homosexual behavior and desires. A significant percentage have changed their sexual orientation, married a person of the opposite sex, and raised families.
A sexual orientation change from homosexual to heterosexual is partly a reparative process and partly a cognitive process. Motivation is the main part of the cognitive process. The motivation usually comes from religious beliefs, aspirations of a heterosexual marriage, and from a fact that gay propaganda avoids like the plague, which is that many who enter the gay world find its lifestyle very destructive. The main part of the reparative process is to understand and deal with the memories and hurt of same-sex rejection in childhood. Often there was sexual abuse that contributed to the unwanted same-sex attractions. This short introduction on the causal factors of homosexuality is more accurate than the sum of all the causal information in the movie. The movie mocks this knowledge, and in doing so mocks the truth.

Theological lies and deception

A Rev. Keene makes the statement in the movie that “All loving relationships are honored in the Bible.” This is an easily refutable lie. In the same chapter of Leviticus where homosexuality is condemned there are a number of family related sexual relationships that are prohibited. Surely sexual relationships between close relatives can be loving relationships, yet contrary to Mr. Keene they are condemned. Likewise, Leviticus 18:22 reads “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman: that is detestable.” There is no insinuation that if a man lies with another man as one lies with a woman in a loving relationship, then it is equal to a heterosexual loving relationship.

In the New Testament the Apostle Paul was informed of a man in the Corinth church who was in a loving relationship with his stepmother. Paul told the church in Corinth to “Expel the wicked man from among you” (I Corinthians 5:13). In another incidence John the Baptist was martyred for saying that it was immoral for King Herod to marry his brother’s wife (Mark 6:18). Mr. Keene’s statement is a fabrication of what he wants the Bible to say.

Mr. Keene’s statement is also a misrepresentation of gay and liberal morality. Liberal sexual morality is based on consensual sex and is not dependent on a loving relationship or marriage. In general consensual sex without love in this moral code is as just as moral as sex in a loving relationship.
The movie presents many arguments of the new gay theology. The most amusing is “What did Jesus say about homosexuality?” The answer is “nothing,” if one ignores his comparison of the destruction of Sodom and the fate of those who did not repent after seeing miracles and hearing the gospel message (Luke 10:12). The sin of bestiality (humans having sex with animals), which happens to be listed in Leviticus 18:23 right after homosexuality, was not mentioned by Jesus in the written record of the gospels. If we use the gay logic that because Jesus did not mention homosexuality it is not immoral, then the same logic applies to bestiality, and it too is no longer immoral behavior.

When one examines Satan’s appearance in the Bible as a serpent in the Garden of Eden or tempting Jesus in the wilderness, it becomes evident that Satan’s method of persuasion is to present half truths. Likewise gay propaganda often persuades with half truths. One such instance in the movie was the gay theological argument that God’s condemnation of Sodom was not because the city was steeped in homosexual behavior, but because it was inhospitable.
The half truth that gay theology presents is that Sodom was indeed inhospitable to the two angels sent to their city in the form of handsome young men. Instead of welcoming the strangers, the men of Sodom sought to anally rape the young men. What the movie does not reveal is that in the ancient world accepted homosexual behavior was not two men of the same sex in a loving reciprocal relationship. It was a dominate man sodomizing a subordinate man or youth, usually a slave or captive from a battle. It was considered a humiliation for a man to be sodomized in any type of relationship.
In a related half truth the movie states that pederasty (an adult man sodomizing an adolescent male) is not homosexuality. It is true that pederasty is considered a specific sexual orientation in itself, but it is definitely a form of homosexuality. Intellectual elites in Ancient Greece during the time of Plato and Socrates considered arranged pederasty relationships the most preferred of all loving relationships. In the late 1980s gay authors Kirk and Madsen referred to the pederasty relationships of ancient Greece as the “traditional gay family.” The values of the Grecian society allowed the free man to not only have sexual relations with his wife, but also prostitutes, both female and male slaves, and a young free man to whom he would also be a mentor. When the young free man became an adult the pederasty relationship ended, because it was dishonorable for a man to be sodomized or have effeminate characteristics.

Deception in the storytelling

The five families featured in the movie were rated as to how supportive they were to their gay child. One family, the Reitans, was given the distinction of being “LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) Advocates.” In the movie the family is shown taking part in a Soulforce sponsored demonstration at the Focus on the Family facility in Colorado Springs. With his parents at his side the gay child, Jake, makes the accusation that Focus on the Family teaches parents to reject their children.

Mary Lou Wallner was given the distinction of being “Very Unsupportive (Initially)” Mary Lou’s lesbian daughter, Anna, committed suicide. Mary Lou Wallner is now an advocate for gay rights and has been touring the nation in support of the movie. In one part of the movie she tells the videographer that she blames Dr. James Dobson for the suicide of her daughter. At that time in her life Mary Lou was a member of a conservative Christian church that believed homosexual behavior was sin. She also followed the advice of Dr. James Dobson and did not accept her daughter’s homosexuality. The movie portrays that lack of acceptance as the cause of Anna’s suicide.

The Poteat family was listed as “Partially Supportive.” This family kept an open relationship with their lesbian daughter. They too were conservative Christians, who did not approve of their daughter’s homosexuality, but their daughter was always welcome at her childhood home and she always knew her family loved her, even though they did not approve of her lesbian relationships.
Having been a follower of Dr. James Dobson myself and having attended their controversial “Love Won Out” conferences on homosexuality, I can attest that Focus on the Family does not teach parents to reject their children. Obviously, Jake has never personally investigated Dr. Dobson or Focus on the Family, but relied on second hand information from Soulforce to make his damning accusation.

Focus on the Family and their Love Won Out conferences teach parents to continue to openly love their children while continuing their disapproval of the child’s sexual behavior. Focus tells parents the truth that homosexual attractions are usually not a choice, that sexual orientation change is possible but not easy, and that parents need to love their children just as God loves them, even in their sin. The Poteat family is actually a good example of what Focus and Dr. Dobson teach.

Mary Lou Wallner was present at the screening of the movie I attended in Flint. In my research on homosexuality I have read reports and heard lectures by clinical psychologists that lesbians do not usually seek counseling because of conflicts with their sexual orientation, but rather for distress from broken relationships. In the Q and A following the movie I asked Mary Lou if her daughter had any recent relationship problems before the suicide. Mary Lou revealed that her daughter had recently broken up with her long-time lover and moved in with another lesbian who had three teenage children. About two and a half months into this new relationship the woman asked Mary Lou’s daughter to move out. Shortly after this breakup, the daughter committed suicide.

Mary Lou also revealed that her daughter was always welcome at her childhood home. When her daughter and lesbian partners visited, Mary Lou and her husband let them sleep in the same bed. It became clear very quickly how distorted the movie had portrayed Anna’s suicide and the conservative Christian beliefs Mary Lou once held. The Wallner’s were at least as supportive of their lesbian daughter as the Poteats were, and maybe even more so.
Anna Wallner’s suicide had little to do with her parent’s disapproval of homosexual behavior, but a lot to do with the destructive aspects of lesbian relationships. The movie intentionally distorted this fact and used this terrible tragedy to smear an innocent man and the organization he represents. But this is nothing new, it is standard gay propaganda.

Okonkwo Akachukwu #racist amren.com

A Nigerian’s View of Race

Whites have become lambs, practically begging for slaughter.

When a certain leader of a certain country refers to other countries, such as Nigeria, as s**tholes, that is not the least bit racist. It is, unfortunately, merely descriptive.

The fences at the school were routinely broken so that students could bring prostitutes onto the premises for a short session. It was not at all uncommon for a young student to be attending to the call of nature at night in the overgrown grass while another would be engaging a local woman only a few yards away.

Boarding students, particularly the more vulnerable junior students, often went without food or drinking water. These basic necessities should have been covered by our school fees but the funds were almost always misappropriated by school staff. Underfeeding was so widespread that my friends and I might go for two weeks without defecating. Drinking water was sometimes so scarce that we might padlock a pail of water in a locker, only to find the lock broken by morning.

Sexual molestation of the younger students was a matter of course. The only way to avoid that was to avoid sleeping in hostels. Some of my fondest childhood memories are of sleeping on the rooftops of classroom buildings to avoid predation, swatting at mosquitoes and watching the stars and discussing the nature of the universe with close friends. I was a natural storyteller, and my friends also enjoyed these evenings.

Electricity was a problem in the hostels, so it was impossible to read at night. I used to climb the fence—not to steal or to chase whores—but to find a functioning street light. I recall finishing Stephen King’s Shawshank Redemption under a street light very close to the huge glass building known as Church Gate.

King’s College is considered an elite institution in Nigeria.

If any major British government official were to ever ask me if my people are glad the British are gone, my response would be simple. “No, we are not. Come back. Please.” There is a kind of adulation of the British that is on display when a Nigerian goes to Britain for the first time—even if only for one week—and comes back with an affected British accent.

On the other hand—and I freely acknowledge this is a stark contradiction—virtually all Nigerians and Africans believe that Africa’s poverty and instability are due to European exploitation. If it weren’t for ndi onyi o cha (Igbo for “those white skins”)! I have never understood this line of reasoning. If Africa was worth plundering, why are Africans unable to plunder Africa’s resources to build their own advanced civilizations?

This African tendency to blame others for our own shortcomings is a perfectly natural, if unhealthy, coping mechanism. One cannot live year in year out in squalor, social stagnation, and rampant crime and simply accept that this is perhaps the best level at which one’s people can operate. It is far easier and all too human to push the blame elsewhere.

Another purpose for the demonization of whites by Africans is to serve as a moral justification for plundering and exploiting whites. I need not outline the very many tactics of plunder. Green-card fraudulent marriages are a common example. For years, my own family has been struggling in vain to get me to “follow tradition” by marrying an akata (Igbo slang for African-Americans) in order to get “papers.” Of course, the anchor-baby phenomenon is exploitation, as is mass migration to Europe.

A few years ago, a Nigerian friend remarked that he had survived for years in the US by never paying for groceries. Whenever he was approached by a store attendant as he wheeled his cart towards the exit, he would simply yell aggressively in our native tongue, never once pausing for breath as he made for the exit.

White guilt makes white people easy to plunder. It is why white professors everywhere give black students preferential treatment that amounts to unjust discrimination against the rest of the class.

There is something unusual about the psychological makeup of white people. It can be metaphorically described as an inner compass. Due to that inner compass, white people need very little external force or punishment. They do not need much policing, so people can apply their potential to useful activities rather than wasting time donning a uniform and swinging a night-stick.

The absence of this inner compass is why, in Nigeria, no number of police officers can enforce traffic laws at an intersection. Indeed, most traffic enforcers and police officers routinely break the laws they are supposed to uphold (and still insist on taking a bribe at every random stop).

While this inner compass has tremendous advantages for white society, one disadvantage is that members of that inwardly guided culture are prone to tremendous torments of conscience that make them vulnerable to manipulation. There seems to be a miasma of guilt inherent to the very fabric of Western culture, a feeling of inadequacy for failing to measure up to one’s internal yardstick.

Although slavery was a universal phenomenon that preceded the US, no black, Arab or Asian man ever seems to experience racial guilt because of it.

I have no idea just how far down the rabbit hole of insanity this suicidal phenomenon of white guilt will go. One thing I do know is that most cultures, especially Eastern ones, suffer little to none of the white man’s inner conundrums and have zero patience for the social shakedowns and inefficiency of black culture.

The blunt truth is, as far as blacks are concerned, whites have become lambs, practically begging for slaughter in a world filled with lean wolves. We blacks have grown accustomed, even dependent, on the easy milk of guilty teats. What will happen to us when a less masochistic civilization replaces whites?

The future I see for Africa is as an economic outpost or colony of China. We Africans possess no human capital, in an age that requires the economic leveraging of human capital. The cars in our streets do not bear African names; they bear the names of Japanese, American, French, and Italian automotive innovators.

We have no major industry other than the natural resources beneath our feet, and our elites squander the revenues on luxury items from other civilizations. We are converting our only assets into rapidly depreciating foreign trinkets and distractions.

In the natural course of things, Africa’s resources will, once again, be exploited by a civilization—in this case Chinese—that is economically and technologically superior to ours. In the next 40 years, China’s influence will be immense, and the Chinese are not sympathetic, as whites are, towards the antics of Black Lives Matter.

I doubt that the reality of our plight will ever be universally accepted by Africans. I don’t think the average Nigerian realizes just how serious the problem is. We know, deep in our hearts, that our country is not working, but what is the solution? There are only so many African migrants other countries can accept. Our problem thus becomes a world problem.

Alien Resistance #fundie #ufo alienresistance.org

Our mission is to provide orthodox biblical perspectives on the modern UFO and “alien” phenomenon, exposing proven deceptions, and equipping the church to minister truth and freedom to those currently deceived by experiences and/or strongholds related to now-popular belief systems of aliens actively visiting humanity.

Alien Resistance offers evidences that the widely-reported “alien abduction” phenomenon – while sadly quite real – is in fact a powerfully deceptive spiritual experience. Our research suggests that individuals are not being held captive by authentic biological extra terrestrial beings, but that this belief is rooted in vast levels of occult teaching and outright deception.

We feature personal and testimonial proof that the “alien abduction” experience can be stopped – both while in progress and completely terminated as a life pattern – in the name and authority of the Lord Jesus Christ (view testimonies from those who have successfully stopped abductions permanently, and contact us to know more about being set free from the influence of these tormenting entities).

We offer a vast array of articles, videos, dvds, books and public speaking events presenting evidences that people world-wide are being brought into communications with – and often tortured by – deceiving spirits that routinely teach doctrines of devils, false gospels and occultic forms of spirituality to their victims (aka “abductees” and/or “contactees”). On a larger scale, our research suggests that this deception will likely culminate in a globally-believed lie (Biblically, the “strong delusion” referred to in 2 Thess 2:11), setting the stage for the world to embrace the (even now emerging) One-World system under anti-christ, as a solution or response to a perceived alien presence.

We actively oppose, resist, rebut, and fight these deceptive strongholds and entities by presenting these findings, The Word of God, and the truth and salvation offered by God through Jesus Christ to all.

anon1822 #sexist #crackpot incels.co

The fact that women don't get bullied (nowhere near as much as men) is a huge advantage to their gender.

The first thing bluepillers would say is that women get bullied too, but that's nothing compared to what men go through.

If you're a guy, if you're not the bully, if you're not physically strong or if you're somewhat shy or not neurotypical, then you're fucked. Sometimes things are so bad that you have to switch schools, happened to me twice. Though after reading some stories of what happens in military schools I consider myself lucky. Luckily my parents even sent me to a private school with the little money they had so I got bullied much less, it was almost nice. Luckily we got a discount so we could afford it, dad knew people.

Hell, they get treated a lot nicer than boys in all situations. Even teachers have it out for you as a boy.

Even as adults they have it easier. In the workplace or any other situation, they don't have it nearly as bad. And guys with mental issues like autism or even something milder? Forget about it, you'll be the ostracized weirdo everywhere you go. As a woman you just pass off as shy.

I heard foid on foid bullying is much brutal though.

Yeah that's what normies say, fucking women are always seen as victims. Ohh their lives are so hard. God damn how can this world be so upside down, being a male is so much harder in every way and yet every normie believes women have it much harder and are even oppressed.

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

The DISCOVERY channel has produced a show titled, “Who Did You Really Marry?” Other shows attempt to take the viewer into the mind of a serial-killer or rapist. Other programs question who the neighbor is next door to you, or can you really trust your local church minister? Such shows are intended to plant seeds of doubt, distrust and paranoia throughout American society. It's not difficult to see what is happening in America, that is, the evil powers behind the New World Order want to destroy America in every way possible. A house divided cannot stand. America is divided on everything, from politics to moral issues. Television has led U.S. society to be paranoid and distrustful of everyone, even their spouse and family. People are unknowingly being mind-programmed.

Gun rights are being hotly debated right now in the U.S., but the Globalists will get their way eventually, it's just a matter of time. Americans will be disarmed. The Globalists are evil beyond imagination, murdering tens-of-millions of people (by wars they start and finance) just to fill their coffers with more money and power. The mainstream newsmedia is their primary weapon, having incredible power over the souls of men. I always watch the news objectively, that is, looking for their angle, the deceit in their reporting, and I usually find it right away since I have researched the New World Order for a decade. Everything has to be politically correct these days, feeding the immoral agendas of the sick-minded elite. It's quite easy for the globalists to accomplish their destructive goals, by simply promoting and sponsoring anyone and everything that's destructive to our faith in God and our loyalty to parents, marriage, family and nation.

Svarog123 #fundie reddit.com

There is nothing inherently harmful or immoral about having sex with children CMV

There are a number of arguments used by proponents of the prevailing cultural mythology on the subject:

1. Children are psychologically damaged by sexual activity

Sex is an inherently pleasurable activity- the claim that children are inherently "harmed" or "traumatized" by sex is demonstrably false, supported by no scientific research, and is essentially absurd, as children are not asexual (a point I will address later).

"The self-reported effects data contradict the conclusions or implications presented in previous literature reviews that harmful effects stemming from CSA are pervasive and intense in the population of persons with this experience. Baker and Duncan (1985) found that, although some respondents reported permanent harm stemming from their CSA experiences (4% of males and 13% of females), the overwhelming majority did not (96% of males and 87% of females). Severe or intense harm would be expected to linger into adulthood, but this did not occur for most respondents in this national sample, according to their self-reports, contradicting the conclusion or implication of intense harm stemming from CSA in the typical case. Meta-analyses of CSA-adjustment relations from the five national studies that reported results of adjustment measures revealed a consistent pattern: SA respondents were less well adjusted than control respondents. Importantly, however, the size of this difference (i.e., effect size) was consistently small in the case of both males and females. The unbiased effect size estimate for males and females combined was ru = .08, which indicates that CSA, assuming that it was responsible for the adjustment difference between SA and control respondents, did not produce intense problems on average."

Rind, Bruce & Tromovitch, Philip (1997). "A meta-analytic review of findings from national samples on psychological correlates of child sexual abuse," Journal of Sex Research, 34, 237-255.

The Rind meta-analysis is peer-reviewed, and its conclusion has not been discredited to date.

Often, when psychological damage does occur, it is not the result of the act itself, but rather the result of society's reaction to it:

Nelson's relationship marked "the happiest period of [her] life." "When I was a child I experienced an ongoing incestuous relationship that seemed to me to be caring and beneficial in nature. There were love and healthy self-actualization in what I perceived to be a safe environment. Suddenly one day I discerned from playground talk at school that what I was doing might be "bad". Fearing that I might, indeed, be a "bad" person, I went to my mother for reassurance. The ensuing traumatic incidents of that day inaugurated a 30-year period of psychological and emotional dysfunction that reduced family communication to mere utilitarian process and established severe limits on my subsequent developmental journey."

Sexologist Joan A. Nelson in Children and Sex, on her relationship with an adult cousin at 8 years of age December, 1981

In other words, if the prevailing belief was not that having sex as a child is the worst thing that could possibly happen, psychological issues stemming from childhood sexual experience would lessen drastically.

2. Children are essentially asexual

This is false. The orgasmic reflex develops in the womb:

"We recently observed a female fetus at 32 weeks' gestation touching the vulva with the fingers of the right hand. The caressing movements were centered primarily on the region of the clitoris. Movements stopped after 30 to 40 seconds and started again after a few minutes. Furthermore, these slight touches were repeated and were associated with short, rapid movements of pelvis and legs. After another break, in addition to this behavior, the fetus contracted the muscles of the trunk and limbs, and then clonicotonic movements of the whole body followed. Finally, she relaxed and rested.

We observed this behavior for about 20 minutes. The mother was an active and interested witness, conversing with observers about her child's experience.

Evidence of male fetuses' excitement reflex in utero, such as erection or ?masturbation” movements, has been previously reported.

The current observation seems to show not only that the excitement reflex can be evoked in female fetuses at the third trimester of gestation but also that the orgasmic reflex can be elicited during intrauterine life. This would agree with the physiologic features of female sexuality: The female sexual response is separate from reproductive functions and doesn't need a full sexual maturity to be explicit."

Giorgi, Giorgio, and Siccardi, Marco (1996). "Ultrasonographic observation of a female fetus' sexual behavior in utero," American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 175, 3(1, part 1), 753.

"In a 1999 study of undergraduate students, 5.2% of females and 12.8% of males reported having engaged in sex play with their peers involving genital contact before elementary school, and that 1.3% of girls and 4.0% of boys had engaged in sex play involving anal/genital insertion (with objects or fingers) or oral-genital intercourse before elementary school. By the end of elementary school, the numbers increased to 29.2% for females and 32.9% for males for genital contact and 12.3 for girls and 10.1% for boys for insertion or oral sex. Very little pressure and almost no coercion were reported."

Reynolds, M.A., Herbenick, D. L., & Bancroft, J. (2003). The nature of childhood sexual experiences: Two studies 50 years apart. In J. Bancroft (Ed.), Sexual Development in Childhood (pp. 134-155). Indiana: Indiana University Press.

If children masturbate, orgasm, and have sex with each other, it is absurd to claim they are asexual.

3. Children cannot consent, and therefore having sex with children is rape, and we all know rape is harmful and immoral

Consent refers to the provision of agreement- if children are capable of initiating sexual activity, it is nonsensical to claim they cannot consent to it.

For example, in the animal kingdom, which has no taboo on childhood sexuality, sex between adult and children is common:

"Both adult males and females interact sexually with adolescents and juveniles (three-to-nine-year-olds). In fact, young females go through a five-to-six-year period sometimes referred to as ADOLESCENT STERILITY (although no pathology is involved) during which they actively participate in heterosexual mating (often with adults) but never get pregnant. Sexual behavior between adults and infants of both sexes is common - about a third of the time it is initiated by the infant and may involve genital rubbing and full copulatory postures (including penetration of an adult female by a male infant). (Biological Exuberance - 274)

Who is raping whom when the infant initiate sexual activity? Does the infant rape itself or does the adult rape the infant by not denying it sexual gratification?

3a. Children lack the ability to make informed consent

Sex is not some kind of complex and incomprehensible activity that requires a lot of knowledge to preform correctly- it is one of the simplest things in existence. Animals surely don't "understand" what sex is, yet it would be absurd to say all sex between animals is harmful or immoral.

5. This thread is disgusting and so are you.

This is not an argument.

Note that even though there is nothing inherently harmful about having sex with children, in our sex-negative culture, it very often is- see Joan A Nelson's quote above for an example. The harm did not come about from the sex itself, but from society's reaction to it- but regardless, it is still grossly immoral to risk ruining a child's life for the sake of an orgasm, even if the damage comes from iatrogenic sources.

So I'm not saying it's OK to have sex with children in this day and age- it most certainly is not. But the only reason it isn't is because of society's hysterical, unscientific, and maladaptive attitude towards this subject- if this were different, I see no reason why engaging in a harmless and mutually pleasurable activity with a child would be either harmful or immoral.

Nicolas Maduro, Eduardo Saman #conspiracy bbc.com

In 2003, then-President Hugo Chavez introduced price controls for some 40 food and hygiene products to guarantee the poor had access to staple goods.

But lately, in the midst of a cash crisis, price controls seem to have become a headache.

For the first time in years, shortages and inflation have replaced security as the biggest worry for Venezuelans, according to a recent poll by Caracas-based Datanalisis.

[...]

President Nicolas Maduro says shortages are caused by US-backed, far-right groups who smuggle and hoard products in an economic war to destabilise his socialist government.

"Venezuela currently has the necessary goods to feed the people, but there is a problem with distribution," says Eduardo Saman, a former commerce minister in the government of the late Hugo Chavez.

"And distribution is in the hands of companies who operate as a cartel and seek to affect the government," he tells the BBC.