Similar posts

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

Throw your English Standard Version (ESV) that Bob Jones University sells and promotes into the garbage pail! Don't get sucked into dispensational teaching that idolizes present-day manmade Israel (founded in 1948). Here's an example of what the heresy of Zionism does to warp men's minds. Here is another example; and another! Zionism rots men's brains, turning them into superstitious quacks and junk theologians! Be aware parents and teach your children, that Luciferians are deliberately engineering society to commit fornication. If you don't believe me, watch this shocking video screenshot from YouTube of singer Taylor Swift. Sex is the God of Satanism, and they want to corrupt every teenager, through immoral media! Matthew 10:16, “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.” You need to be informed that a group of Satanists, operating in clandestine behind Hollywood and the music industry, want to turn every youth into a sex pervert! I tell you with all certainty that Taylor Swift doesn't love you! (What's with the creepy goat scene... bestiality?). I am amazed how stupid parents are, and that parents don't care about this perversion, and merely go along with it. Something is very wrong with people who are okay with this filth! If enough caring angry parents complained, something would be done about it. At a bare minimum, parents can express their angry views online to expose ungodly reprobates like Taylor Swift, who influence children to become casualties.

Our whole rotten society is saturated with demonic influences! I wrote this article to open your eyes. Everything being targeted at kids today is meant to ruin them! Evolution is a blatant lie, intended to blind children from the truth of a divine Creator—the omnipotent (all powerful) God of the universe! All of the promiscuous music videos are intended to seduce young people into thinking in terms of sex, sex, sex! They want children to become filthy homosexuals. And now parents and doctors are being pressured by the federal government to allow transgender children to embrace their sexual identity crisis at age 3. I'm not kidding! Lately I have been humming a popular old Patsy Cline song called: CRAZY!!! This world has gone totally insane!

John Buagh #fundie youtube.com

Tyler Houck: Ah yes...scripture The infallible "word of God". The sacred books man can't keep his hands off of; retranslated, rewritten, reinterpreted by generations with agendas and schemes or the blasphemously ignorant to preach to masses.
The "good book" that will damn you to an eternity of servitude.

John Baugh: Your anger seems only exceeded by your ignorance of Scripture and its preservation. There is a science called textual criticism, which is used to verify the original writings given many different copies with tiny variations because of transmission errors, like scribes misreading words or marginal notes making their way into the actual text accidentally (or on purpose.).
For example, there are ancient Greek poems that have 200 or 300 textual variants, which actually helps scholars produce the original with better accuracy. And almost no scholar rejects a piece of literature from antiquity as being flawed if it has 200 or 300 textual variants. The more textual variants, the better. The Bible has over 5,600 textual variants. Over 98% of them are simple scribal errors. none of the textual variants have any bearing on modifying the doctrines of the church.
The Bible has been preserved miraculously, and no scholar worth his or her salt rejects that notion or believes in some sort of giant conspiracy.
Furthermore, Christ has made me free, so I am not at all under any bondage whatsoever. Thus, your point is moot.

Private messages #announcement fstdt.com

I've been letting my modly minions handle approving quotes and moderating comments for the past few days because I've been spending the couple of hours I can allot to FSTDT-time a day working on a change to FSTDT that you can finally actually see and use: a private-messaging system! This whole idea developed out of the need for a convenient way for my modly minions and I to keep in touch, but I figured why not let everybody use it?

Right now it uses a separate SQLite database to store messages, partially to ease the burden on the database server if I use the SQLite database when the PM system goes live, but mostly to simplify testing and a massive performance increase. The finished product will obviously still use the user-accounts table in the main database, but if everything works out, I will keep the SQLite database for messages, because SQLite is extremely fast, can be made secure with a little work, and this is exactly the sort of 'light database' SQLite was intended to handle.

[aside]Edit: Asked permission from the host, was told no even though there is nothing in their terms of service that could interpreted or construed to the effect that using SQLite or something similar was not allowed. Figured this host was more expensive than average because it had better than average service and was liberal in what they let you do with your share of resources on their servers so long as it was legal and within reason. But nah they're just overpriced and evidently have two terms of service: one they let people see, and a 'secret' one whose terms you apparently have to figure out by breaking them and getting your account suspended. Complaining to them ain't worth my time, because if they gave a shit their service wouldn't be shit in the first place. I'm half-tempted to scrap the current PM data code and set it up so it uses a .NET DataTable whose DataSource is a flat XML file. Would use substantially more server resources than SQLite.

And that's all I have to say about that aside from the fact that we will be not be renewing our hosting account here. We will instead be moving FSTDT to a relatively high-end Linux/BSD dedicated server plan elsewhere that lets you roll your own shit, and I will set the server up to run FSTDT with nginx + Mono / ASP.NET core + PostgreSQL like I wanted to begin with. I am much more familiar, experienced, and competent with *nix servers, especially when it comes to web servers and databases. We may even make the move a little before this account expires so it coincides with the Shavy-era FSTDT rewrite. (Amusingly, every admin of the site thus far has rewritten its code to suit them.)[/aside]

Progress on the new PM system
+ Database schema
+ Module (static class or struct in C# speak) for database access that handles all SQL queries and abstracts working with a database away from the main code, but I'll likely be making small changes to the queries that return lists of messages to retrieve one 'page' at a time (one page = 25 messages) so I can paginate message lists.
+ Abstract base classes (MessageList, PagedDataNavigator, Message, and Message's child classes MessageWrite and MessageRead) — for non-programmers this more or less means I did a skeleton or 'outline' to put most of the code and now have to 'fill in the blanks' with that code.
+ Most of the code generating the HTML table for message lists, probably one of if not the hardest part because I decided to write it by hand.

As you can see, I'm about one-quarter to one-third of the way finished. Much of the code is pretty generic, and a lot of it can be reused in other parts of the FSTDT rewrite: PagedDataNavigator was already written for it, and the Message, MessageWrite, MessageRead will likely form the foundation of similar code for quotes and comments.

One more thing: Pepe's probably pretty salty right now. Hasn't been able to get a message through in five days and counting, but I'm not calling 'victory' until it's been a week. Even then, something of his will probably manage to slip through every now and then, but at nothing near the old pace of his textual diarrhea. Hopefully it require enough work to get rid of him for good.

Todd JQB #fundie disqus.com

[Note: Todd JQB changed his name earlier, he used to be VX3, and the day before, SEDAGIV]

"As a teacher of biblical history I will have to weigh in and say (username removed) is correct . The 2 different accounts of creation in Genesis 1 & 2 as two separate creation myths from different sources has been the consensus view of scholarship for quite some time. These two 2 mythological accounts were compiled at some point early during the Babylonian exile when the Torah was written."

No, you are both incorrect.

"Actually our opinion in on line with the vast majority of academic biblical scholarship. There is no more debate on this issue the creation account in the Bible is an amalgamation of the Akkadian source known as the Enuma Elish and the Sumerian source known as the Epic of Gilgamesh and also included in some areas both Greek and Phoenician elements. The Genesis creation account was written in between 600 and 400 BC."

No it isn't. You're incorrect in your unsupported statements.

"Your denial of historical facts does not change the reality of my statements that are supported by the overwhelming amount of academic studies of Genesis of the last several decades. I'm sure it will come as a shock but we have a very good idea of the origins of Jehovah and how his worship evolved over time from the cannanite pantheon of gods son of the cheif god El until Jehovah was worshipped as part of a divine couple with his female consort Asherah until around 600 BC. We even have evidence of child sacrifices being done in Israel as part of the worship of Jehovah until the Persian period that lasted until 400 BC."

You can make up whatever you want and call it a "historical fact" to your heart's content. It doesn't make it true. It also doesn't change the reality that your statements are incorrect and quite frankly, ridiculous.

"Well we have now 100 years of archeological data from Isreal and Egypt. We have the Ugaritic Texts discovered in Ras Sharma in 1928 and tablets found in Israel dated to the 8th century that demonstrates the facts stated and these have been part of the standard curriculum of Old Testament studies of every major theological seminary in the Western world for a long time."

You have nothing but speculation based on false information and the bigoted agenda of the anti-religious, anti-Bible crowd.

"I know you are troubled by this but this "information"' has been known for quite some time. The overwhelming majority of scholars are believers and many are committed Christians yet they agree with the conclusions of mainstream scholarship based on on an objective analysis of the historical evidentiary material from both archeological and written sources. The position of biblical minimalism regarding the Old Testament has been the practically unanimous view for a few decades."

I'm not troubled at all, except by the fact that while I reject nonsense, you buy into it. You can keep making absurd sweeping comments ("the overwhelming majority of scholars are believers.....") that you've deluded yourself into believing, but the reality is otherwise.

"It's not a matter of buying into it. These historical facts are part of the academic curriculum. The reality is you don't know what scholars are saying and you don't know what is being taught to students in Old Testament history classes. I know because I am in those classes. Even conservative Biblical colleges agree with the consensus in OT studies."

They're not facts, they're "facts". The reality is you simply are naive enough to buy into anything you read.

"No this is the result of 25 years of experience and research in the field. These "facts" are what is taught in every Old Testament history class. Biblical minimalism represents the practically unanimous view. Here is a good article by Old Testament professor Philip Davies (University of Sheffield) that explains misconceptions on this.
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Minimalism.shtml
I'm on the process of researching my masters dissertation that will basically demonstrate that Judaism resulted by a process of algamation of ancient. Cannanite religion with Zoroastrianism when the Israelites remodeled there religious practices in the image of the religion of Babylon. I will go as far as stating that the New Testament would not exist if the Israelites had not been in exile since most of the concepts that led to the foundation of Christianity were borrowed from the Persians."

Completely incorrect.

Dr. Jason Lisle #fundie creationstudygroup.org


Does It Matter? Jason Lisle sets the record straight.

Does it really matter what we as Christians believe about the Biblical account of creation? Some Christians are plagued by this question. Others ignore it in hopes it will “just go away.” Regardless of what where you stand on the question, the answer has profound impact.

In a recent article, William Lane Craig, a prominent Christian apologist addressed this question with the following:

“I think that [Young Earth Creationism] YEC as a scientific hypothesis is quite hopeless….But YEC as a hermeneutical hypothesis is quite another matter. I want to approach the text with an open mind, despite the terrifying prospect that YEC might actually be correct as a hermeneutical hypothesis. In that case, we would face some very hard choices. Given YEC’s failure as a scientific hypothesis, we should have to conclude that the Bible teaches scientific error and therefore revise our doctrine of inspiration to accommodate this fact. That is a route one would prefer not to take.” (emphasis added)

Craig reveals the essential struggle with any old-earth view applied to Scripture – it impacts the hermeneutic. What we believe and know from God’s Word and from the creation regarding God’s self-revelation is either negatively or positively impacted by what we believe concerning the creation.

Dr. Jason Lisle offers an exceptional response to William Lane Craig. While giving an exceptional point-by-point refutation of the thinking that elevates human reason over Biblical revelation with regard to knowing what is true, Dr. Lisle points out the necessity that both our scientific and Biblical hermeneutic must agree. What we know from science depends on the fact that the Bible is true.

“But the method of science is itself predicated upon the literal truth of Scripture, starting with an historical Genesis. Namely, our expectation that there are patterns to be found in nature is justified by the biblical revelation that God has imposed order on creation (Genesis 1) and upholds all reality by the Word of His power (Hebrews 1:3), in a consistent way with discoverable cycles (Genesis 8:22). Our expectation that our senses can reliably inform us about nature is founded on the biblical historical fact that God created our senses (Proverbs 20:12). Our presupposition that our own reasoning ability has at least some capacity to distinguish truth from error makes sense only in light of the Genesis historical fact that people are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27). Science is only justified if the Bible – including biblical creation – is true.”

Read all of Jason Lisle’s response. You will be blessed and encouraged.

Additionally, you may wish to view the presentation by Dr. Ronald Marks, Does It Matter?

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

In March, I woke up to the terrible news that a massive earthquake and tsunami had devastated Japan.

Today I can still see the TV images of the tsunami hitting the eastern coast of Japan. The mud, debris, and destruction were almost unbelievable to watch.

Now, there is a different kind of tsunami I want to write about. It’s one that is also causing major destruction, and it’s happening all around us as I write. This tsunami is biblical compromise in the church, and it’s creating waves of spiritual destruction throughout the Christian world.

I have written a number of blogs recently about Christian academics who are publishing books and articles—and giving talks—on topics relating to how they approach the Bible, and Genesis in particular. The blogs revealed that an increasing number of Christian academics teach that:

* Adam is just a metaphor for Israel and was not a real person.
* Genesis chapter 1 is not a material account of origins, but is supposedly about the creation of some “cosmic temple.”
* God took two animals and gave them “animal amnesia”’ so they wouldn’t remember all the death over the supposed millions of years that turned them into Adam and Eve.
* The image of God evolved in man over time.
* The apostle Paul “would have flunked hermeneutics” (the practice of Bible interpretation).
* The “apostles were lousy at exegesis” (expositing the biblical text), etc.

Konstantin Oleksishin #fundie amazon.com

Frank R. Eggers, you pretty familiar with the passage. but the difference between Christian and false teacher is precisely based on his methodology of studying the Bible. Christian is the one who uses exegesis. And you guys are the ones who rape the Bible in whatever way you want.

When you read newspaper about some local events, do you allegorize, and pick and choose what you like there? Do you allegorize temperature forecast? Why then do you false teachers twist the Bible, when it is PLAIN, and every honest scholar who knows original language will tell you that you're lier?

There is no 'context' or any cultural situation found in the Bible to support your 'queer theology'. It's simply not there. You can wishfully suppress the evidence and create your own pity lies, but this will not change the fact of history. Homosexual Christian is about as possible as square circle. This is so disgraceful, I can not believe people have guts to twist Bible so bad...

Archbishop Cranmer #fundie archbishopcranmer.com

‘Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man’ is a Jesuit maxim attributed to Saint Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus. He probably never said it, or if he did, he almost certainly said: ‘Give me the boy for the first seven years and I will show you the man’. The quote is also attributed to Aristotle, but in a sense the source doesn’t matter, for by its attribution to both one of the greatest spiritual minds and one of the greatest philosophical thinkers ever to have existed, it moves beyond cultural constructivism to transcendent truth: the workings of the mind were designed to be subject to time and space.

And into that time and space comes children’s education, by which process their moral, cultural and religious values are inculcated and their politics are moulded – from the history lesson which scorns the ethics of empire to the singing of ‘I vow to thee my country’ in the daily act of collective worship, schools are places where political perspectives become truths and religious exposure becomes morality. There is, of course, much debate concerning the proper aims of education and the right balance (should such a thing exist) between the prescriptive statutes of governments and the freedoms of parents and particular religious groups, but in a liberal democracy there must be the means to impart the knowledge of citizenship which is deemed necessary to sustain that liberal democracy, or the state ceases generation-by-generation to be either liberal or democratic.

Relationship and Sex Education (formerly Sex and Relationship Education) is one of those subjects which straddles the government-parent-religion tensions of responsibility and provision. For some, it is the task of parents to teach sexual morality and reify good relationship; for others, it is the joint responsibility of parents and religious communities, with a civic minimum imparting the essential facts of biology and social reality. For others still, mindful of parental delinquency and religious prejudice in this regard, it is fundamentally a function of the state to ensure that all children are taught the knowledge and life skills they will need to develop healthy relationships and stay safe while having sex.

The question and tension which then arises is related to age-appropriateness: at what point does the scientific naming of private body parts or discussion about where babies come from become consideration of emotional and physical changes; and then at what point those changes become discussions about different kinds of families or the differences between boys and girls; and then at what point those differences become discussions about engaging in sex, contraception or condoms, homosexuality and transgender people. And what about abortion? And then there is sexual experimentation, orgasms, group sexual experiences, oral sex, masturbation…

Would it surprise you to know that discussions about transgender are deemed appropriate for eight-year-olds?

One state primary school in Birmingham, where the children are predominantly Muslim, introduced RSE lessons to promote LGBT equality. The Guardian reported in January that the programme includes “the welcoming of people of any race, colour or religion and those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender”. There is, of course, nothing wrong with welcoming people, but what is the age-appropriate way of explaining lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to a four-year-old? What are books entitled ‘Mommy, Mama and Me‘ or ‘King & King‘ designed to inculcate about the morality of same-sex relationships and same-sex marriages? Birmingham school LGBT Muslim protestOne parent Fatima Shah is quoted: “Children are being told it’s OK to be gay, yet 98% of children at this school are Muslim. It’s a Muslim community. [Mr Moffat (assistant headteacher)] said all parents are on board with it, but the reality is, no parents are on board with it.” She added: “We have nothing against Mr Moffat – we are as British as they come. We respect the British values… but the problem is, he is not respecting our ethos as a community. We don’t send our children to school to learn about LGBT. We send them to school to learn maths, science and English.”

Andrew Moffat, who is gay and was appointed MBE in 2017 for services to education, responded: “I’m just teaching children from an early age that there are different families out there and, let’s not forget, that in some schools there are children with two mums, so I see it that they’re not being taught anything. All they’re seeing is their family is being accepted. We want all children in Birmingham to know that their family is normal; that their family is accepted and welcomed in schools.”

Last week Mr Moffat gave in, and subjugated the ethos of his school to the religious ethos of the majority Muslim parents: all LGBT lessons have been stopped. He did this because hundreds of those parents decided to withdraw their children from the lessons, which is their legal right. But what if RSE were to become mandatory, as the Government intends? What option would parents then have if they felt their children were being taught matters of sex and sexuality which they deemed to be age-inappropriate? “We are not a bunch of homophobic mothers,” Fatima Shah said. “We just feel that some of these lessons are inappropriate. Some of the themes being discussed are very adult and complex and the children are getting confused. They need to be allowed to be children rather than having to constantly think about equalities and rights.”

The themes being discussed are complex for adults, too, because it matters of sexuality and gender it isn’t at all clear where nature end and nurture begins. And that is the essence of the grievance these Muslim parents have: they feel their children are not simply being education in the sociological fact of homosexuality and transgender, but inculcated – or ‘indoctrinated’, as one parent put it – into the moral virtue of such expressions of identity. Now, you may believe that homosexuality is as innate as heterosexuality, and transgender is simply another increment on the spectrum of human diversity, but for others the causal debate is more nuanced, not least because there is conflicting evidence from eminent scientists and psychologists on both sides of the divide. While some favour the ‘nature’ explanation based on biology or genetics, others incline to the ‘nurture’ theory, based on the psychological reaction to upbringing and environment, which obviously includes education.

The Bible’s understanding of biology (and, indeed, that of the Qur’an) is a world apart from modern studies, and theologians are as divided as scientists. Some insist that cultural factors contribute in psycho-sexual development, embracing Freudian psychological theory, for example, which asserts that homosexual orientation is a consequence of the failure to identify with the same-sex parent; that a physical or emotional distance between the child and the same-sex parent results in a failure to be able to identify with one’s own sex. This results in a same-sex deficit, which the homosexual is unconsciously trying to repair by creating emotional and sexual relationships with people of the same sex. It is not so much a moral degeneracy but an emotional immaturity, and one therefore capable of being healed through therapy.

This is the view of the great majority of Muslims, and also of a great many Christians and Jews. The cause of homosexual orientation being somehow a combination of both nature and nurture – a psychogenetic fusion – would therefore be susceptible to educational inculcation. If the ethos of a school is toward ‘tolerance’ of homosexuality and transgender as ‘natural’, and that ethos is reified by teachers who impart notions of equal validity and moral parity, then what the Bible or Qur’an happen to say becomes irrelevant: British values trump God’s created order. If a child feels a bit gender-neutral or trans one day, why not explore androgyny further? Why not try living as the opposite sex for a while? It might be fun. It certainly makes you a bit more interesting and gets you noticed.

There is no easy solution to this: the government-parent-religion tensions will persist in state education until one party asserts its dominance – which appears to be imminent – at which point the other parties will respond or react. While reason demands the serious critical consideration of scientific studies, and certainly those which are concerned with the possibility that same-sex preference and transgender may be genetically programmed, not all innate tendencies in children are either good or desirable. But that is too nuanced a debate in this febrile atmosphere. It is to be noted that in the hundreds of parents who have withdrawn their children from LGBT lessons in this school, sporting their banners declaring ‘Education not Indoctrination’, ‘My Child My Right’ and ‘Say No to sexualisation of children’, they have not been condemned as homophobes or bigots by LGBT lobby groups. If these had been Christian parents, however, no doubt Amanda Spielman would have issued an instant press release, and Peter Tatchell would have been there in a flash.

Bible Study Tools #fundie biblestudytools.com

(*Exerpts from a pager defending YEC*)


(1) That the verb “created” in Genesis 1:1 is in the perfect tense is very true. That “when a perfect verb is used at the beginning of a unit in Hebrew narrative, it usually functions to describe an event that precedes the main storyline” is less defensible. The perfect tense is by far the most common tense used in Hebrew and as such carries very little exegetical freight (think the aorist in Greek). Having said this, the likeliest explanation of the verb is that it details an event that is actually part of the biblical story line, not an undefined precedent to the storyline that stands temporally outside of it. See below.

(2) I also disagree that Genesis 1:3–2:3 represents a “highly patterned structure of forming and filling” (informed readers will recognize here the language of the highly inventive “framework theory” popular today). Instead, this chapter is, in terms of its linguistic features, a very mundane and simply structured piece of Hebrew narrative not unlike most of the rest of the book. All the syntactical and rhetorical features of this chapter point routinely to a narrative sequence of consecutive days—days that must necessarily occur in immediate succession for the very survival of the unfolding universe.

The Earth, Darkness, and Water Are Created Before “The First Day.”
Building on his assumption, above, that Genesis 1:1–2 details the background to the creative week, Taylor’s article now clearly asserts that light, darkness, earth, and water existed before the creation week (and apparently a long time before, in order to accommodate the assured results of science). However, if, as I have argued in point (1), Genesis 1:1–2 details the actual creation of the unformed and unfilled materials that occurred on Day 1, this argument fails.

Who is right? Well, Exodus 20:11 gives us a very clear answer: “In six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.” There could be no plainer rebuttal of Taylor’s affirmation: the heavens and the earth and the seas were not created “before the first day,” but rather on one of those six days, viz., the first.

Taylor’s arguments that (1) light existed before the celestial beings and (2) reached earth immediately are thorny ones for which YECs do not have a unified answer, but few see these as serious problems. In answer to the first problem some YECs argue a temporary light source or light sourced in God himself. Ultimately the debate is incidental. After all, God hears without ears and sees without eyes, so it is not hard for us to extrapolate light without a sun. In answer to the second problem some suggest that God created with apparent age and others that the speed of light has slowed since the creation week. Again, however, this is an intramural and incidental debate. God is a supernatural God who makes bread appear instantly without growing the grain, milling it, or baking it; likewise, making mature light is not difficult for our supernatural and omnipotent God.

The Seventh Day Is Not 24 Hours Long
Sure it is. Miles Van Pelt’s comments aside, it would appear that the argument from Exodus 20:11 is unassailable. The Israelites were to work six ordinary days and rest for one ordinary day, just as God created in six ordinary days and rested for one ordinary day—one that started at evening Friday and ended the same time on the following day. That the original Sabbath, by analogy, points to a greater rest for the people of God (Heb 10 etc.) in no way suggests that the Sabbath template itself was itself a “greater day.” Admittedly, there is no “evening-morning” clause used of the seventh day in Genesis 2, but there is no syntactical reason forthcoming to believe that it was anything other than an ordinary day.

The “Day” of Genesis 2:4 Cannot Be 24 Hours Long.
True. And you’ll not find a YEC who affirms otherwise. Some will be astonished by this, no doubt, but we young-earth creations really have noticed Genesis 2:4 before today, and our answer is long-standing and well developed—if only our detractors cared to read rather than assume our arguments. The YEC argument is not an unqualified affirmation that the word yom always refers to a 24-hour day. If one of us were to make such an argument, then our old-earth brothers would have good reason to snicker. But we don’t say this. And so I beg the old-earth community to have the integrity to stop rehearsing this silly strawman as though it were a legitimate argument.

....

This brings me, finally, to five positive arguments why we ought to think of the days of Genesis 1 as literal, several of them distilled from the material above:

The days of Genesis 1 are literal, 24-hour days because when one examines the many other singular uses of yom in a non-compound grammatical structure throughout the OT, the idea of a literal day is nearly universal.
The days of Genesis 1 are literal, 24-hour days because they are accompanied by ordinals (first, second, third, etc.). Of the more than 150 uses of yom with an ordinal in the rest of the Hebrew OT, just one (Hos 6:2) refers to something other than a literal day.
The days of Genesis 1 are literal, 24-hour days because of the use of the qualifier “evening and morning” throughout Genesis 1. It seems to go without saying that while literal days have mornings and evenings, figurative days do not.
The days of Genesis 1 are literal, 24-hour days because anything other than literal days renders the comparison with Exodus 20:11 a matter of equivocation. Israel worked six literal days and rested for one literal day. God created for six literal days and rested for one literal day. The idea of God creating via a six-point framework and then resting eternally does not seem to offer much of a precedent for Israel’s seven-day workweek.
Finally, and more historical/theological than exegetical in nature, the days of Genesis 1 are literal, 24-hour days because this has been the overwhelmingly majority plain reading of the text throughout church history—at least until it came into conflict with the “assured results of modern science.” The old-earth idea of non-literal days is without serious doubt a product not of grammatical-historical exegesis, but of the accommodation of the Bible to the assured results of modern science as independent, norming factors in biblical interpretation. Old-earth creationism is at its heart a blunt denial, I would argue, of the Bible as the norma Normans non normata.

"Everyone shot JFK!" Award

drkresearch #conspiracy nodisinfo.com

UPDATED: A List of the Conspirators Behind JFK’s Murder

This is a partial list of the criminal minds behind the murder of John F. Kennedy. The degree and scope of this assassination was vast. The number of conspirators, co-conspirators, assassins, plotters, and financiers was equally vast.

...

The names of those who plotted, directly or indirectly, the murder of John F. Kennedy; and the names of those with foreknowledge of the plot. (Not inclusive.) Our additions/upgrades:

The Rockefeller cabal, including Nelson and David Rockefeller
Rothschild cabal
Allen Dulles, Zionist agent and cousin of David Rockefeller
James Jesus Angleton, known Israeli-Firster, admitted avid agent of Zionism
William Harvey, alcoholic, dire opponent of President Kennedy
Meyer Lansky, a key contributor and the leading Zionist mob figure in America
David Atlee Phillips
David Morales
Ann Egerter
Richard Helms
Desmond FitzGerald
McGeorge Bundy
Robert Maheu
Lawrence Houston
Frank Wisner
Ferenc Nagy, former Hungarian Prime Minister and embedded Zionist spy
William Pawley
Tracy Barnes
Bill Bright
Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge
Ambassador Thomas Mann
Thomas Karamessines
Richard Cain
Colonel Boris Pash
J.C. King
Thomas Clines
I. Irving Davidson
Lt. Lucien Conien
Carl Jenkins
General Lyman Lemnizter
George Joannides
Sergeant Daniel Groth
E. Howard Hunt
Sheffield Edwards
General Thomas Power
Louis Bloomfield
Dr. Sidney Gottlieb
Hal Hendrix
Floyd Boring
Sam Halpern
Edward Lansdale
Lt. Col. George Whitmeyer
Sergio Arcacha Smith
Emilio Santana
Carlos Quiroga
William Sullivan
Ruth Paine
Henry Luce
Michael Paine
Cord Meyer
Eddie Bayo
Anne Goodpasture
Forrest Sorrels
John Rosselli
Eladio del Valle
Frank Sturgis
Mitch WerBell III
Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell
Richard Case Nagell
General Lucius Clay
Richard Bissell
Win Scott
Felix Rodgriguez
Elmer Moore
Jane Roman
Claire Booth Luce
John Martino
Rip Robertson
Jack Ruby (actually, Jack Rubenstein)
Thomas Eli Davis III
Emory Roberts
Jack Crichton
General Curtis Lemay
General Charles Cabell
Clint Murchison
Charles Willoughby
David Ferrie
Guy Banister
Ted Shackley
Cliff Carter
Lyndon Johnson
General William Quinn
Lee Oswald (scapegoat; no evidence that he was plotting the assassination)

Other known moles and/or individuals with foreknowledge include:

John (Jean) DeMenil, Russian exile from Houston, TX, and head of Schlumberger, director of a conglomeration of Russian solidarists
Carlos Prio Socarras, ex-Cuban president
Gen. Joseph F. Carroll
Walter Sheridan of the Defense Industrial Security Command
Roy M. Cohn, an important mole of Intercontinental Company of Garland, TX, subsidiary of Lionel Corp.
Bobby Baker
E. E. Bradley of so-called American Council of Christian Churches, a front for international espionage activities
Benny Singelbaum, courier of laundered funds for purposes of assasinations
Albert Alexander Osborne, alias John H. Bowen, overseer of a number of the assassins based in Mexico (per Talbott)
Walter Domberger, cabalist and handler of Nazi scientists associated with the hit
Walter Jenkins, a key LBJ assistant
Fred Korth, former Secretary of the Navy fired by Kennedy
Jean Demenil, head of Schlumberger and a director of Russian exile so-called Solidarists
Clifford Jones, ex-Lieutenant Gov. Nevada
Wernher Von Braun, German Nazi rocket scientist engineer
L.J. McWille, Las Vegas, NV., partner in Havana gambling with Jack Rubenstein
Robert Ray McKeowan, known gun-runner and associate of Jack Rubenstein and Calros Prios
Morris Dalitz
Lewis Rosenstiel
Joe Bonanno, international mafia crime boss operating out of Montreal, Canada
Edwin Weisl, associate, LBJ
Irvine Devine, Las Vegas gambling operative; wife an apparent mob money courrier
Chauncey Holt, Charles Harrelson and Charles Rogers, the three tramps of Dealey Plaza, clear and obvious assassination cohorts
Ralph Paul, Dallas partner of Jack Rubenstein, Carousel Club
Maurice Brooks Gatlin
Sylvia Duran, employee, Cuban Embassy in Mexico
Munir Chourbagi, uncle of former King Farouk of Egypt (assassinated)
Gutierez di Spadafora, part of the ruling clique of the Mossad precursor, Permindex
Enrico Mantello (also known as Henry Mandel), an Italian fascist
Guiseppee Zigiotti, had of the the Italian political party (at that time), Fascist Nationalist Association for Militia Arms
H. Simonfay, former Nazi party leader and Hungarian emigre
Michael Mertz (a definite plotter and assassination mole), aka JQWIN
Rolando Masferrer
Bernard Barker
Ted Shackley
Senators Robert Kerr, George Smathers, and Thomas Dodd
Gen. John Medaris
Col. Howard Burris

Moving Merch #announcement fstdt.com

Hey folks, largely finished with that moving business finally. AC is wonderful, now I just need to figure out what to do with a dozen empty totes and I've got some shit to sell.

While I was moving a few ideas were floated for new Archive Icons and I want folks opinions. I've never really come up with anything better than Shotgun Jesus, but I have someone who is interested in doing a redraw of it at some point, which got us to talking about the others. CSTDT, I think we have a good one, an alien, wearing a tinfoil hat, while hosting a radio show. I think this is gold, better than what we have gold, and the artist is interested as well. RSTDT I have something to float but it's an old in joke and I'm still trying to make it work, a neo-Nazi singing I feel pretty. I'd need an iconic image from the musical to pull it off, but it's my favorite idea so far.

Anyone have opinions or thoughts? Assuming I get this done it would make fundie merch possible.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

People who live in gross immorality become so used to it that the awfulness of sin is gone. Think with me, if you will, how evil America has become. We teach our children the blatant lies of evolution, without the slightest shred of proof to back up the ludicrous claims. What was once an unproven theory is now arrogantly (and sinfully) taught by wicked men and women as fact. And please don't mistake the legitimate science of an old earth for the bogus deception of evolution. The Bible teaches that the earth is indeed millions of years old, but mankind was created by God at approximately 4,000 B.C. as taught in the Genesis account of Creation. For an in-depth Biblical exegesis on this important matter, please read, THE TRUTH ABOUT EVOLUTION (or don't let Satan make a monkey out of you) by Dr. Max D. Younce.

How wicked is America? We have slaughtered, brutally murdered over 55,000,000 precious babies since Roe vs. Wade in 1972 and the number is only going higher and higher! Worldwide, a startling 1,700,000,000 children have been murdered by abortion! Sicko John Wayne Gacy murdered 33 young men and was sentenced to death; yet there are abortion doctors who have murdered THOUSANDS of human beings in the womb, cutting their bodies into pieces like Jeffrey Dahmer, putting their body parts into refrigerators, and even selling the BODY PARTS! Yet these evil doctors of death are sinfully honored by a wicked society which craves more and more death and gore on television. TV has completely DESENSITIZED our society to the value of human life and the horrific evils of abortion and war. Americans have become indifferent, complacent and spoiled.

I have just touched the tip of the iceberg concerning America's utter wickedness in the sight of God, and the irony of a Noah's ark theme park amidst such a wicked people! As I type, at least 13 states have now legalized homosexual unions (errantly called “marriages”). The only “gay marriage” is between one man and one woman. Homosexuality is a disgusting sin which brings the judgment of God. It's just a matter of time, likely if Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton is appointed Commander-In-Thief of our nation, that the U.S. Supreme Court (supreme arrogance against God) will legalize same-sex unions at a federal level, just like Roe vs. Wade (of which 37 states had already legalized abortion at the time it was federalized). Same-sex marriage is the death of America in so many ways! Even in Noah's time we don't read about homosexuals getting legally married, which is sanctioning the wickedness, claiming it is good and acceptable to God. Biblically, God hates all sin (Psalms 97:10; Hebrews 1:9). God destroyed the entire world by flood because of their constant wickedness. We need 40 days of rain today!

Fundie of the year results 2019 #announcement

The votes for fundie of the year are in! Here are some of the folks who made this show impossible:

Religious Fundie: Lady Checkmate (11/17)

She’s no longer a public figure, but she will always live on in our hearts and memories for her for her extreme censorship, troll paranoia and homophobia.

Go forth and conquer, fellow sockpuppets of Peewee.

Wingnut: Rabbis For Hitler (8/17), Monarchieliga (8⁄17)

This one was a draw between these two.

I’ll just let the phrase “Rabbis for Hitler” stand on its own. I have nothing to add to it.

As for the monarchist movement? I’ll just link to the anti-reactionary FAQ if you want to see it debunked. Or, if you prefer, I’ll just declare myself king and order the monarchy to be torn down, like the end of Magic Knight Rayearth. That show managed to be though-provoking and fun at the same time in a way that TV rarely manages.

Moonbat: EmmaRoseheart (7/17)

Alternatively, she could earn the “Hitler Ate Sugar” award for concluding that verisimilitude, being a root characteristic of fascism, is therefore fascist. A classic “there is no world outside of literary criticism” moonbat.

CT: Jacob Wohl (6/17), Deep State Exposed (6⁄17)

Two anti-feminist houses, both alike in insanity, come to another draw. Wohl pulls a bizarre concept where teh femenists somehow hate locked briefcases for their manliness, while Deep State Exposed takes “transvestigation” to it’s illogical conclusion and decides that the First Ladies of the United States were all trans.

Racist: Cuyen (9/17)

But incels are just a support group. Nothing problematic at all about sex tourism, and using your white privilege and money to extort sex. No, sirree, bob, nothing but a support group.

Ableist: Judith Newman (11/17)

You know how most bigots lighten up when it gets between them and their family, and you sometimes make fun of them for being hypocrites? I’d rather Judith Newman was a hypocrite.

Grifter: Sandra Porta (8/17)

wut

Mary Sue: Caamib (7/16)

Nobody takes you seriously, caamib. That’s probably a bad thing, considering the chance that you might shoot up a school or something, but your beliefs are so far outside of the norm that other self-identified incels aren’t sexist enough for you. In spite of others’ doxxing you and digging up newspaper articles about you, there’s a part of me that refuses to believe that you’re for real.

Funniest Quote: DJS (Pillowfucker) (10/17)

I voted for the “seven elements of a crime” one, but the masturbation guru one is pretty funny, too. Davey also comes across as not-for-real, but at least he has the excuse that he was born into Christianity, rather than coming to it on his own like an incel must have.

Nightmare Fuel: Rev. Ronald E. Williams and Patti Williams (9/17)

This is actually a third-party article based on a boarding school that has been in FSTDT’s Top 100 for over a decade. And it thoroughly deserves being reposted. This isn’t just evil, it’s kind of dumb, proving that anyone who does it is so twisted that they not only don’t act charitably towards infants, they don’t even act in their own best interests any more. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you, Mr. and Mrs. Williams?! And why aren’t you in jail?

Magnetic Crank: Sherry Shriner (8/18), Victor Justice (8⁄18)

One more draw. Sherry Shiner combines “New Age” quackery with Christianity, both, by name. She seems to think that the New Ages are right about everything, while simultaneously thinking they’re in league with the Devil. The post is borderline keyword-stuffing with its talk of DNA strands, androgyny, lizards, and gold.

Victor Justice, at least, seems to at least follow recognizable tropes of wingnuttery, and everything seems to follow from there. He just wants to discredit the environmentalists, and will do anything else necessary to pull it off.

Board: Daily Stormer (9/16)

Andrew Anglin desperately wants to be The Joker. Maybe he can follow Heath Ledger’s example?

Movement: QAnon (8/17)

A warmed-over version of old Satanism hate, combined with political conspiracy theories, and turned into a dumb meme. Truly, it is representative of the pinnacle of the decade.

Submitter: Bastethotep (9/17)

My friend, and fellow moderator. You have been around here longer than I have, and every sign shows no sign of stopping any time soon. You are truly a constant in this ever-changing world. Thanks.

Comment: Skidie(1) (6/17)

Dang, you can be harsh. But what’s better, unlike several commenters and most fundie OPs, you’re also completely fair. I just hope your optimistic view of the future really does come to pass.

Jake Wilson #fundie seedbed.com

I am not sure if I’ve sent this already. Anyway, here goes – a few general comments relating to the above article:

I think the denial of eternal torment is simply a feature of fallen and degenerated mankind – they don’t like the prospect, so they explain it away. And that’s basically all there is to it.

Even if the Bible warned on every page about everlasting destruction and torment, they would explain it away (instead of submitting to God). And most people love it that way, it just sells better.

The real reason for denying eternal torment cannot not be found in Scripture, but lies in a combination of wishful thinking, humanistic conditioning, and being used by the adversary – in short, in having a rebellious heart. It is comparable to what the Nazis did when they lured one load after the other into the death chambers, telling them not to worry.

Modern man has created God in his own image, i.e. on his own terms and as a projection of his own alienated heart. If he can’t identify with God as revealed in Scripture, he simply creates a nicer one (e.g. “a God of love won’t condemn people to eternal suffering”). I can’t imagine that anyone who is born of water and Spirit (with the sign of tongues) would dare to explain away what Yeshua has warned us about again and again – it’s probably one of the most wicked things one can do.

Needless to say that the punishment will be much sorer for those who explain away the deterrent and thereby cause others to join them in the pit.I sometimes wonder what people think the Messiah suffered and died for. So we can walk on streets of gold and if we’re unlucky we’ll peacefully rest in our grave (I mean, how dumb can you get?)

Maybe people will have the chance to present the results of their exegesis or eisegesis on Judgment Day, who knows? They may explain to God why they thought the lake of fire was a relic of medieval thought, etc. Of course, if they have died in their sins, i.e. unregenerate, they’ll go anyway to hell despite their hermeneutics – they’ve had their warnings. Shalom,

Jake

http://www.hanotzrim.com

We are not under the law [of sin & death], but under grace [to walk in the law]. Rom. vi, 15

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.

Skywatcher57 #conspiracy christiannews.net

That's a very good question, Richard! For centuries, we have had liberals and conservatives who have been at war with each other, so to speak. It's fair to say, as you suggest...there ARE lexicographers all over the world past and present, who are in cahoots with the New World Order. They make it no secret, and have been in cahoots to change society, preparing it for the rule of the one world dictator, whom the Bible calls the Antichrist.

For those of us who know the Book, we are seeing the steps literally happening more and more each day as we approach that horrible time in our world's life. In fact, lexicographers are currently working on lexicons for the counterfeit NWO bibles that infiltrated our churches, schools, hotels, motels, courts, etc., since the '50's. That doesn't make them right, but they are the majority now, because there are so many per-versions of the Holy Bible out there, giving people false doctrines, false hopes, and preparing them for their own demise.
Further proof of this are the Georgian Guide Stones and the "17 Sustainability Development Goals" put forward by the UN.

Their first goal is to eliminate global poverty; short of extermination of the poor (to be determined by the UN), how else can they achieve this evil goal? This is where evolution comes into play again, just as it did in Hitler's day. If you do not meet all the criteria, you're exterminated. In my country (Canada) assisted suicide is permitted, which is another genocidal building block upon abortion. We are now being told that our population is so low (due to aborting generations of our babies), that we MUST take in immigrants to make up the difference. The real goal is infiltration and domination for Allah (the moon god). I have no issue with fair and balanced immigration, except our Prime Minister is a professed Muslim, and immediately after coming into office, he appointed a Somalian-born Muslim as our Federal Minister of Immigration. He did that to ensure that only Muslims get in, barbarians who do NOT assimilate, but dominate. Detroit City is a prime example of that. This is evidence of evolution and the New World Order conspiracy (not theory) at play. Forgive me. like old Sophia, "I digress!"

The complete and accurate title of Charles Darwin's thesis proves this, "On the Origin of Species (or more completely, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life)"

I took that from Wikipedia, and it is correct. Did you get the last part of that long title, "...or the preservation of favoured RACES..."?

Wouldn't you say that from the title alone, that the evolutionary theory was and is being so strongly promoted is extremely RACIST? This title is being cleverly spoken of in its "shortened form", so that people will not declare it to be a racist work! So you see, people need to stop regurgitating everything they've been told, and actually do their own digging.

Much history, etc. online is being revised and rewritten by lexicographers, etc., but thankfully, there are still a number of us old diehards who still possess copies of the original unadulterated works that we can refer to.

You are right, the dogmatic Christians who once believed in the literal interpretation of the Bible are a minority. It wasn't always that way, but as children are being born to ungodly and unChristian parent(s), they move away from the "ancient landmarks", as the Bible calls them. They become more biblically illiterate and move away from the morals, ethics and beliefs of their forefathers. In turn, they pass the ungodliness and ignorance on to their children.

As nature would have it, many solid Bible-believing Christians die each day, and that too, makes us a minority. Therefore, the world is in the mess it is in today. I would prefer to be in the minority that is correctly reading and interpreting God's Word and be saved, than those who are not! Christ said, "Enter you in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leads to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads to life, and few there be that find it." Mt. 7: 13, 14. The majority is not always right, as we see at the voting polls on both sides of the border.

Consequently, we have anarchy brewing because every person is a law unto themselves, as the Bible says. "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes"...lawlessness! That results in confusion and chaos, as the politically correct faction are promoting. We older sled dogs who held to our religious God-fearing (reverential) convictions are quickly being outnumbered by the liberals and the Muslims, and soon, there is coming a day when that will result in very bloody and bitter fruit...due to ignorance...and following the pack. For the record, I'm not racist nor do I hate ANYBODY! I don't like the idea that our governmental leaders are too stupid and blind (if they are) to allow our enemies to flood unabated into our countries. In my province, in the news today, a 75 year old couple are being deported because they erred on a minor immigration point many years ago! Another friend of mine had her passport application denied because on it, she said her hair was gray; it's white now. All they had to do was look at this woman's picture on the document and they would know it was her! We have to have all kinds of documentation to prove who we are, but our enemies do not! That is a major conspiracy that is going to gravely affect us all! And, I'm very literal about that!

I, and many others, still hold to the literal interpretation of the Holy Bible because proper hermeneutics (interpretation) demands it. When I see it literally coming to pass, I'm wise to continue with my literal interpretation, wouldn't you say so? In light of what I just said in my previous paragraph, I can see Rev. 20: 4 coming to pass LITERALLY...beheading for one's faith. By the way, those who do not embrace the barbaric and culture of the Dark Ages will also be beheaded. It's all in the Qur'an, which I have; there's nothing peaceful about it anywhere, and people all over the world are embracing these people and their way of doing things. One may call this, "evolution", but I and many others call this clever societal engineering, planned genocide.

For many years, there was a faction of Christendom that got away from the basics, as humanism and secularism crept into the Church, and they allegorized almost everything in the book, trying to avoid God's judgment of them. By doing this, they fell heir to it, and that judgment is closer than most would dare to believe. That's a long answer to your short question, but I like to cover all the bases.

Michael Pearl #fundie nogreaterjoy.org

But results have been disappointing, even tragic, for some. A father wrote me, telling the sad story of how his homeschooled “Christian” son, eighteen years old, went off to a “Christian school” and after one year came home professing atheism. He had been “enlightened” with psychology, manuscript evidences, and philosophy. He had become sexually involved, approved of sodomy, and his choice of reading and viewing was pornography. He ridiculed the faith he seemingly held from his youth. This is one true story among an increasing number.

(Submitter note: Manuscript evidence refers to the common practice of textual criticism, which is the attempt to study and weed out copying errors by comparing different ancient texts. In other words, this kid's faith has been shattered by discovering the mere *possibility* of a typo.)

Doug Renselle #fundie quantonics.com

Quantum~learning is holographic image fledging of holographic~flux mind.

"Doug, what do you mean by 'image~fledging?'" Simply, quantum~imaginationings.

Doug assumes quantum~reality issi quantum~holographic. What we colloquially refer 'The Matrix,' is actually a (many, any) hologram(s) of holograms. Our best clue to this is conjecture by David Bohm and Karl Pribram. Another clue is sentient sensing qua. Our eyes sense photons. Photons are quantum~packetized holograms. Our hearing of phonons is similar. Our olfactory smell omnistinguishes effervescent holographic packetized molecules. And so on...

Now we can choose, via being students of quantonics, to view all those sensory packets as holographic images which our quantum~holographic minds 'store' and learn in a mental hologram of holograms. This quantum~process we may choose to call "quantum~cognitive imagination." Once cognized any holographic imagination's potentia for quantum~recognition becomes stochastically significant.

Doug will provide more omniscussion here on many relevant topics, including:

*neurons,
*energy wells (a la Jeffrey Satinover in his Quantum Brain)
Doug is working on novel graphics of H5W energy wells may be modeled.
*quantum~waves as packetized sensory energy holograms,
*Doug's novel hermeneutics of peaqlos to describe 'content of energy wells,'
*Autiot's fractal~recursive~energy descriptionings of a 'real learning' lesson as shee'oor. In Autiot, right to left: Raysh~Vav~Ayin~Yod~Sheen. There is much to write here.
*etc.

As you can see, there is much to omniscuss here.

David Chase Taylor #conspiracy sites.google.com

The Masonic Order
The Masonic Order, otherwise known as Freemasonry, is a global fraternal organization which allegedly traces its origins to stonemasons. It currently exists in various forms around the world with an estimated membership by the United Grand Lodge of England at around 6 million. Freemasonry describes itself as a “beautiful system of morality” that is, “veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols”. In short, the Masonic Order is composed of non-Jewish members and therefore receives nearly all the publicity in respect to orders and secret societies of the Roman Empire. In other words, Freemasonry is a smokescreen which enables Jewish-Roman orders (e.g., Dominicans, Franciscans, Rosicrucians, etc.) to operate freely out in the open with litter or no mind. Because Freemasons are considered goyim (non-Jews), they are expendable and therefore are assassinated, set up, or used as patsies in various schemes. Although Masonic Lodges are allegedly independent and sovereign bodies that govern Freemasonry in their respective country, state, or geographical area, modern historical accounts emphatically state that “There is no international, world-wide Grand Lodge that supervises all of Freemasonry. Each Grand Lodge is independent, and they do not necessarily recognize each other as being legitimate”. Translation: There is a global organization which governs all Freemasons. Although the United Grand Lodge of England, which has over .25 million members meeting in over 8,000 Lodges, is publically touted as the largest and most powerful Masonic Lodge, the CIA of Switzerland is ultimately responsible for moving the pawns of Freemasonry around the chessboard of the underworld. Thus, all of Freemasonry is in fact part of centralized entity acting in a unified manner at the behest of the Holy See (i.e., CIA).


Freemason Symbology
The logo of the Masonic Order boldly depicts the letter “G”, an acronym for Greenland which is currently home to the Roman Empire. It also contains a square in the shape of the letter “V”, an acronym for Victoria, the Roman goddess of victory. The square, which is a 90° angle which, numerology speaking, numerically represents “Greenlandia”, the original name of Greenland whose digital sum is 90 (i.e., the digit sum of “Greenlandia” is calculated as 7+18+5+5+14+12+1+14+4+9+1 = 90). Furthermore, the digital root of 90 is 9 (i.e., the digit root of 90 is calculated as 9+0 = 9) which is representative of the letter “R” (i.e., “G”) in the Roman Score (i.e., the Roman alphabet), an acronym for Rome. Greco-Roman symbology such as arches, columns, crescents, crosses, eagles and stars, as well as the Eye of Providence, are rife throughout Freemasonry as evidenced in "The Structure of Freemasonry".

Origins of Freemasonry
According to the book “Cracking the Freemason's Code” (2006) by Freemason historian Robert L.D. Cooper, the earliest known Masonic rituals were held on the porch of King Solomon’s Temple in Israel. As evidenced by the arches, columns and domes found in artistic renditions of Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem, it is clearly Greco-Roman in nature. The notion that the Roman Empire would allow the Jews to build their city and temple using Roman architecture in the region of the Mediterranean which was under Roman control is preposterous. Therefore, it can be ascertained that history of the Jews, King Solomon’s Temple included, has been fabricated order to give the Jewish race the necessary historical narrative in order to cover for the Roman Empire which has since vacated to Greenland. Consequently, Scottish writer and Freemason James Anderson states that it is possible to trace Freemasonry back to the Greek mathematicians Euclid and Pythagoras, all the way up through Moses, the Jewish Essenes and to the Culdees of the Middles Ages. In other words, Freemasonry is Greco-Roman in origin. Curiously, Anderson describes Masons as Noachides which was extrapolated by Albert Mackey, ultimately putting the Biblical Noah into the equation. Anderson’s account appears to be a veiled reference to the Royal Antediluvian Order of Buffaloes (RAOB) which was founded in England after the alleged Fall of the Roman Empire and whose seal contains a depiction of Noah’s Ark. This notion is further corroborated by Sottish writer and original Freemason Andrew Michael Ramsay who stated that the Masonic Order started with the Druids, the high priests of the Imperial Cult of Rome. There have also been allegations that Freemasonry is linked to the Roman Collegia and the Comacine masters who coincidentally specialized in Roman architecture. German Masonic historian Joseph Gabriel Findel reportedly sought to link the origins of Freemasonry to Roman Catholic cathedrals which are responsible to this day for instituting Freemasonry on a local level. Regardless of which origin of Freemasonry is to believed, they are all Greco-Roma in nature. In other words, all roads of Freemasonry lead to Rome.

Freemasonic Tools
Historically speaking, Freemasons have been used to found countries (e.g., the United States), hold office during economic collapse (e.g. Franklin D. Roosevelt), and take their respective countries to war (e.g., George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, etc.). Freemasons are chosen premeditatively so that there is no Jewish connection to the bloodshed and economic chaos which generally ensues these historic milestones. Any sort of political backlash or blowback is subsequently blamed on an individual Freemason or Freemasons rather than on the CIA of Switzerland and its minions which are ultimately responsible. Consequently, over the years, thousands of members of the Masonic Order have been used by the Roman Empire as pawns for various deeds on the grand chessboard of the underworld. For example, Freemason Roald Amundsen (1872-1928) was a Norwegian polar explorer who allegedly discovered the South Pole, a continent which does not exist in reality. Also, Freemason Bernt Balchen (1899-1973) was an aerial navigator and military leader who, along with Admiral Richard E. Byrd, allegedly dropped Masonic flags over the North Pole in the Artic and the South Pole in Antarctica. This of course was impossible unless they dropped the flags over Mt. Zion in Greenland and Ayers Rock in Australia, the respective North and South poles of the Earth. Although just a microcosm, Amundsen and Balchen are examples of how Freemason tools are used in order to create fraudulent history and shape public opinion. The list of famous Freemasons who have been used for various ends is extensive and staggering to say the least. It includes congressmen, governors, judges, lawyers, presidents, and prime ministers from almost every nation on Earth. Although just a microcosm, the following list of presidents and prime ministers from 26 countries shows how Freemasonry is used on a global scale: Australia: Prime Minister Edmund Barton, Prime Minister George Reid, Prime Minister Joseph Cook, and Prime Minister Robert Menzies; Argentina: President Domingo Faustino Sarmiento; Belgium: Prime Minister Camille Huysmans; Canada: Prime Minister John A. Macdonald, Prime Minister John Abbott, Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, Prime Minister Mackenzie Bowell, Prime Minister R. B. Bennett, and Prime Minister Robert Borden; Chile: President José Miguel Carrera, and President Salvador Allende; Coast Rice: President Bernardo Soto Alfaro; Congo: President Pascal Lissouba; Czechoslovakia: President Edvard Beneš; Ecuador: President Eloy Alfaro; Finland: Prime Minister Johan Wilhelm Rangell, and President Risto Ryti; France: Prime Minister Émile Combes, and President Jules Grévy; Gabon: President Omar Bongo; Honduras: President Francisco Bertrand (2x); Iceland: President Sveinn Björnsson; Italy: Prime Minister Francesco Crispi, and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi; Japan: Prime Minister Ichiro Hatoyama (3x); Mexico: President Antonio López de Santa Anna, President Benito Juárez, President Miguel Alemán Valdés, and President Plutarco Elías Calles; New Zealand: Prime Minister Francis Bell, and Prime Minister Richard Seddon; Peru: President Remigio Morales Bermúdez; Philippines: President Emilio Aguinaldo, President José Abad Santos, and President José P. Laurel; Romania: Prime Minister Alexandru G. Golescu, Prime Minister Alexandru Vaida-Voevod (3x), Prime Minister Constantin Argetoianu, Prime Minister Dimitrie Bratianu, Prime Minister Dimitrie Sturdza (4x), Prime Minister Gheorghe Grigore Cantacuzino, Prime Minister Ion C. Bratianu, Prime Minister Ion Ghica (2x), Prime Minister Mihail Kogalniceanu, Prime Minister Miron Cristea, Prime Minister Octavian Goga, and Prime Minister Titu Maiorescu; Spain: Prime Minister Práxedes Mateo Sagasta; Turkey: President Süleyman Demirel; Venezuela: President Antonio Guzmán Blanco (3x), and President Ignacio Andrade; United Kingdom: Prime Minister George Canning and Prime Minister Winston Churchill; and the United States: President George Washington, President James Monroe, President Andrew Jackson, President James K. Polk, President James Buchanan, President Andrew Johnson, President James A. Garfield, President William McKinley, President Theodore Roosevelt, President William Howard Taft, President Warren G. Harding, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, President Harry S Truman, President Gerald Ford, and President Lyndon B. Johnson.

Masonic Founding of America
The Founding Fathers of the United States such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and James Monroe were almost all Freemasons, further confirming that the American Revolution against the British Empire was staged, albeit elaborately so. According to reports, at least 9 Freemasons signed the U.S. Declaration of Independence, at least 13 Freemason signed the U.S. Constitution, and there were at least 33 Freemason generals in George Washington’s army that won the American Revolutionary War, including Washington himself. In other words, the American Revolution and the subsequent creation of the 13 Colonies which eventually became the United States, an allegedly free, independent and sovereign nation, were completely fabricated. Aside from the Masonic Founding Fathers, at total of 15 out of 44 U.S. Presidents have thus far been Freemasons (i.e., George Washington, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S Truman, Gerald Ford, and Lyndon B. Johnson). It is imperative to note that the Freemasonic loyalties of a politician are generally only revealed years after said politician has died. Therefore, the total number of Freemasonic U.S. presidents may be much higher. In other words, U.S. Presidents such as Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush may have been Freemasons but it won’t be publically disclosed for years. The same goes for the presidents and prime ministers of other nations.

Freemasonic Treachery
In order for Freemason presidents and prime ministers to betray their respective counties (as they routinely do), they are basically taught a religion of treason. In short, Freemasonry teaches its members to hold back from fully committing to their respective nations, enabling those in political office to do unspeakable things to their fellow citizens. Compared to Operative Masonry's clear denunciations of treachery, Speculative Masonry (instituted after 1723) is far more ambiguous, ultimately allowing for treason. According to the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, Masonic disapproval of treachery is not on moral grounds but rather on the grounds of inconvenience to other Masons. In other words, it’s not morally wrong for Masons to commit treason; it’s only wrong for Masons to betray fellow Masons who are generally giving the orders to commit treason. The Old Catholic Encyclopedia argues that "Loyalty to freedom overrides all other considerations”, ultimately justifying treason. Freemasonic historian Albert Mackey corroborated this notion when he stated, "... if treason or rebellion were masonic crimes, almost every mason in the United Colonies (America), in 1776, would have been subject to expulsion and every Lodge to a forfeiture of its warrant by the Grand Lodges of England and Scotland, under whose jurisdiction they were at the time”. The fact that the definition of treason in respect to Freemasonry is found in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia shows exactly whom Freemasonry ultimately serves—Rome. Nevertheless, as a legal disclaimer, Freemasonry officially states in respect to treason that, "In the state you are to be a quiet and peaceful subject, true to your government and just to your country; You are not to countenance disloyalty or rebellion, but patiently submit to legal authority and conform with cheerfulness to the government of the country in which you live”. Consequently, a number of governments have publically suppressed Freemasonry due to its secret nature and international connections. After the founding of the modern Masonic Order in England dates back to 1717, numerous European cities and states have banned or restricted Masonic lodges, including but not limited to: Austria (1795), Baden, Switzerland (1813), Bavaria (1784), Berne, Switzerland (1745), Geneva, Switzerland (1738), Holland (1735); Italy (c. 1738), Pakistan (1972), Portugal (c. 1738), Russia, (1822), Spain (c. 1738), Sweden (1738), and Zurich, Switzerland (1740). Needless to say, the very public persecution of Freemasonry was designed to convey the notion that the Masonic Order is not a government entity organized and funded by the Roman Catholic Church. The bans in Switzerland are especially curious considering that the CIA of Switzerland ultimately has command and control over Freemasonry, hence the very public attempt to separate itself from it.

Rosicrucian Freemasonry
According to British historian David Stevenson, Greco-Roman-based Rosicrucianism has been very influential to Freemasonry. This notion was later corroborate by French writer Jean Pierre Bayard who stated that two Rosicrucian-inspired Masonic rites emerged towards the end of 18th century (i.e., the Rectified Scottish Rite, and the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite). Led by Johann Christoph von Wöllner and General Johann Rudolf von Bischoffwerder, Masonic lodges were reportedly infiltrated, eventually succumbing to the control of the Rosy Cross. In time, many Freemasons became Rosicrucianists and Rosicrucianism was subsequently established in numerous Masonic lodges. Consequently, the 18th degree of Freemasonry is now entitled Knight of the Rose Croix, a tribute to Rosicrucianism. The Rosicrucian symbol of the Rose Cross is coincidentally also the official symbol of Freemasonry. It is used in certain Masonic rituals which require candidates to be Master Masons. Lastly, the Great Architect of the Universe, a Rosicrucian conception of God, is also the Masonic conception of God. Therefore, in deity, title, ritual and symbol, Freemasonry mimics Rosicrucianism.

Jewish Control of Freemasonry
According to Adam Weishaupt, the alleged and founder of the Order of Illuminati, Freemasonry is a secret society created within the secret society of the Illuminati. In reality however, Freemasonry is a secret society within a secret Jewish society which is (albeit unwittingly) ultimately controlled by the Roman Empire in Greenland. In other words, Freemasons have no real power; they are just tools which are routinely used and disposed of by the CIA of Switzerland. Because Freemasonry is a secret society for goyim (non-Jews), its initiations revolve around the construction of the Temple of Solomon, a mythical Jewish temple that allegedly once stood on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem. Consequently, attacks on Freemasonry as being a tool of Jewish control in the underworld are predictably labeled “anti-Semitic”. British professor Andrew Prescott of the University of Sheffield states, "Since at least the time of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, anti-Semitism has gone hand in hand with anti-masonry”. Despite its critics, the Protocols detail exactly how and why the Jewish power structure uses Freemasonic Lodges to attract public officials. As translated into modern English, the Protocols state : “We [the Jews] shall create and multiply Free Masonic lodges in all the countries of the world and bring all types of people into them – people who may become or who are already prominent in public activity. In these lodges we shall find our principal intelligence office and means of influence…. It is natural that no one else other than us should lead Masonic activities, for we know where we are heading…Gentile-based Freemasonry serves as a smokescreen for us and our plans. But the plan of action of our Force, even its very existence, remains an unknown mystery to the people…This has served as the basis for our organization of secret Freemasonry which is not known to, and has aims which are not even so much as suspected by, the Goy. These Goy cattle are attracted by us into the "show" army of Masonic lodges in order feel superior to, and look down upon their fellow Goys”. In order to fend off accusations that Freemasonry is nothing more than a Jewish front, the CIA has attempted to link those who espouse these viewpoints with Middle Eastern terrorists, all of which are coincidentally state-sponsored. For example, back in 1980, the Iraqi penal code was changed by Saddam Hussein's ruling Ba'ath Party, ultimately making it a felony to "promote or acclaim Zionist principles, including Freemasonry, or who associate [themselves] with Zionist organizations". The terror group Hamas states in article 28 of its Covenant that Freemasonry "work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions”. Since Israel admittedly spawned Hamas, it has command and control over its Covenant. Therefore, the aforementioned reference to Freemasonry is in fact true, albeit from the mouth of terrorists.

Catholic Church & Freemasonry
By far, the Roman Catholic Church has the longest history of public objection to Freemasonry. This is because Freemasonry is a tool of the Roman Empire and therefore it wants to publically distance itself from the Masonic Order as much as possible. Despite the attempted separation, Greco-Roman symbology such as arches, columns, crescents, crosses, eagles, stars, as well as the Eye of Providence, are rife within Freemasonry as witnessed in "The Structure of Freemasonry". Nevertheless, objections raised by the Church are based on the allegation that Masonry teaches a naturalistic deistic religion which is allegedly in conflict with the Church’s doctrine. In order to create the necessary narrative that the Church is diametrically opposed to Freemasonry (despite creating it), a number of rather bi-polar decrees, laws and letters have been issued since the early 18th century. Starting in 1736, the Inquisition investigated a Masonic Lodge in Florence, Italy for heresy, which it ultimately condemned a year later 1737. In response to this investigation, Pope Clement XII's issued a Papal Bull on April 28, 1738, entitled “In Eminenti Apostolatus”, the first official Papal prohibition on Freemasonry. The Church ban of Freemasonry was ultimately reiterated and expanded upon by Pope Benedict XIV (1751), Pope Pius VII (1821), Pope Leo XII (1826), Pope Pius VIII (1829), Pope Gregory XVI (1832), and Pope Pius IX (1846, 1849, 1864, 1865, 1869, 1873). The “Humanum Genus” (1884), a papal encyclical promulgated by Pope Leo XIII, states that Freemasonry is a dangerous sect (cult) and demands that all bishops be vigilant on its abuses. The Papal prohibition on Freemasonry was reiterated by Pope Leo XIII who issued a Papal Bull on October 15, 1890, entitled “Ab Apostolici”, further highlighting the Church’s negative stance on Freemasonry. In 1917, the Code of Canon Law explicitly declared that joining Freemasonry entailed automatic excommunication, and banned books favoring Freemasonry. In 1974, Cardinal Šeper, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, sent a private letter which stated in part: "The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith...has ruled that Canon 2335 no longer automatically bars a Catholic from membership of masonic groups...And so, a Catholic who joins the Freemasons is excommunicated only if the policies and actions of the Freemasons in his area are known to be hostile to the Church." In 1983, the Church issued a new Code of Canon Law stating: “A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict." However, unlike its predecessor, the new Canon Law did not explicitly name the Masonic Order among the secret societies it condemns. Consequently, the letter by Šeper along with the new Canon Law led Catholics and Freemasons to believe that the ban on Catholics becoming Freemasons may have been lifted. However, the matter was quickly clarified in 1983 by Prefect Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger who, with the personal approval of Pope John Paul II, issued a Declaration on Masonic Associations, which reiterated the Church's objections to Freemasonry. The Declaration states in part: "The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion...the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association(s) remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden.” By officially maintaining that Freemasonry is evil and illegal, the Roman Catholic Church can ban, censor or shut down Masonic lodges if and when they ever get out of control. This is also why Freemasons allegedly worship a number of demons, devils and deities (i.e., Baal, Baphomet, Dajjal, Great Architect of the Universe (GAOTU), Jahbulon, Lucifer, Osiris, Rahu, Satan, and YHWH). By claiming that Freemasonry is Satanic in nature, any Freemason can be publically vilified by the Catholic Church at any time.

Nazi Freemasonry
According to modern historical accounts, the Nazis claimed that high-degree Masons were part of a Jewish conspiracy that resulted in Germany's defeat during World War I. While Freemasons likely played a role in Germany’s defeat, they also played a decisive role in the Nazi Party and Germany’s instigation of World War II. In other worlds, Freemasons were used in Germany by the Jewish power structure in both World War I and World War II. Nevertheless, in “Mein Kampf” (1925), Adolf Hitler wrote that Freemasonry had succumbed to the Jews and that it was being used as a tool to pull the upper strata of German society into Jewish schemes. Since Freemasonry has been an instrument of Jewish control over the goyim (non-Jews) since its inception, Hitler’s comments are both true and untrue at the same time. In “Mein Kampf”, Hitler states, "The general pacifistic paralysis of the national instinct of self-preservation begun by Freemasonry". In other words, Freemasonry was being used by the Jews to lure citizens into betraying their own country, an admitted tenant of Freemasonry. Considering that Hitler’s paternal grandfather was a Jew, which was later confirmed in 2010 by a DNA test which revealed Hitler’s Jewish decent, and he was married to Eva Braun who was also confirmed to be Jewish in 2014, everything Hitler stated in respect to Freemasonry and the Jews must, in retrospect, be reexamined for ulterior motives. In 1933, Reichstag President and founder of the Gestapo Hermann Göring stated, "…in National Socialist Germany, there is no place for Freemasonry”. Under the cover of the Enabling Act, the German Ministry of the Interior allegedly ordered the disbandment of Freemasonry on January 8, 1934, including the confiscation of all property and Lodges. Germans who had been members of Freemasonry when Hitler came to power in 1933 were allegedly prohibited from holding office in the Nazi Party or its paramilitary arms. Since the German Ministry of Defense explicitly forbade German officers from becoming Freemasons, those who were Masons were allegedly Masonic forced out, becoming ineligible for appointment in public service. Consequently, special sections of the German Security Service (i.e., the “Sicherheitsdienst des Reichsführers-SS”) and the Office of the High Command of Security Service (i.e., the “SS-Reichssicherheitshauptamt”) were allegedly established to eradicate Freemasonry in Germany. Shortly thereafter, Hitler announced in the “Voelkischer Beobachter” (i.e., the Nazi Party newspaper) the final dissolution of all Masonic Lodges in Germany on August 8, 1935. The article stated that a conspiracy involving the Masonic Order and World Jewry was seeking to create a World Republic. In 1937, propagandist Joseph Goebbels inaugurated an "Anti-Masonic Exposition" to display objects seized by the state. Similar exhibitions were reportedly held throughout the occupied countries of Europe. The preserved records of the Office of the High Command of Security Service (i.e., the “SS-Reichssicherheitshauptamt”) reportedly documented the persecution of Freemasons. During the World War II, Freemasonry was allegedly banned by proclamation in all countries that were either allied with the Nazis or under Nazi control, including Norway and France. As evidenced, modern historical accounts are filled with examples of Freemason persecution in Germany. However, as with much of modern history, the opposite is true. In other words, Germany was rife with Freemasonry, hence the extensive historical cover denouncing its role in Nazi Germany. Freemasonry was never more evident in Nazi Germany than in the case of German General Friedrich Paulus who was denounced as a "High-grade Freemason" when he surrendered to the Soviet Union in 1943. Paulus is infamous for leading Nazi Germany to its greatest defeat when 265,000 Axis allied troops were encircled and defeated in Russia. Of the 107,000 captured, only 6,000 survived captivity. Needless to say, Paulus’ treacherous actions are indicative of Freemasonry which is in essence a religion of treason. Therefore, like the Jews, the persecution of Freemasonry under the Nazi regime has been grossly exaggerated. In fact, the only reason that the Nazis were allowed to seize power in Germany and destroy much of Europe was due to Freemasons who, following the rules of Freemasonry as dictated in the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, held Freemasonry morally higher than their own country. Consequently, claims that Freemasonic concentration camp inmates were graded as political prisoners and forced to wear an inverted red triangle were likely fabricated. Claims that 80,000 and 200,000 Freemasons were murdered under the Nazi regime were also evidently fabricated in order to provide the necessary cover for the Freemasons which were instrumental in Nazi Germany which was untimely responsible for killing tens of millions of people across Europe.

Concentration Camp Freemasonry
In order to further sell the notion that Freemasons were banned in Nazi Germany, the elaborate story of Liberté chérie was created. According to modern historical accounts, on November 15, 1943, eight Belgian Freemasons (i.e., Amédée Miclotte, Franz Rochat, Guy Hannecart, Henri Story, Jean De Schrijver, Jean Sugg, Luc Somerhausen and Paul Hanson) founded a Masonic Lodge entitled the “Loge Liberté chérie”, meaning “Cherished Liberty Lodge” in French. They makeshift Masonic lodge was allegedly located inside Hut 6 of Emslandlager VII, a Nazi concentration camp in Esterwegen, Germany. In time, the group initiated, passed, and raised Brother Fernand Erauw, making for a total of 9 members. The number “9” is symbolic for it represents the letter “I” which is inherent to intelligence agencies (e.g., CIA, FBI, MI5, ISI, etc.). According to the story, a Catholic priest stood watch over the group so that they could hold their meetings in secret. According to Freemason Somerhausen, the lodge asked a community of Catholic priests for assistance "with their prayers" during their meetings which were reportedly dedicated to the symbol of the Great Architect of the Universe, the "The future of Belgium", and the, "The position of women in Freemasonry". Considering that 5 of the Belgium Freemasons admittedly had intelligence connections, it can be ascertained that the group, if it ever existed, served as an Jewish intelligence front: Franz Rochat reportedly worked for the underground press and the resistance publication entitled the “Voice of the Belgians”; Jean Sugg, along with Rochat, co-operated the underground press while contributing to clandestine publications, including: La Libre Belgique, La Légion Noire, Le Petit Belge, and L'Anti Boche; Jean De Schrijver was reportedly arrested on charges of espionage and possession of arms; Fernand Erauw was allegedly a member of the "Secret Army"; and Guy Hannecart was a lawyer and the leader of La Voix des Belges, a clandestine newspaper. Therefore, the Freemasons, the lodge and the story are not exactly what they appear to be. Had Freemasonry been illegal in Nazi Germany as claimed, these men would never have been allowed to practice Freemasonry in a concentration camp. Although only conjecture, the story of Liberté chérie appears to be a microcosm of how Freemasonry works in that is is watched over and controlled by the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church. After Freemasons have been used for a particular purpose, they are usually double-crossed and disposed of, as were a majority of the men from Liberté chérie.

Dave Armstrong #fundie patheos.com

Truly obscene, crude, sexually-oriented language is beneath the standards of the Bible and the Catholic Church. The way some (many!) talk today was confined to locker rooms, bars, and bachelor parties when I was in college 35 years ago (and mostly just to men). And I think that was a good thing.
Oh, for sure we had Woodstock and George Carlin and R-rated movies and punk rock. But it wasn’t everywhere; in-your-face, mainstream, on TV, inane, and obscene hip hop songs blaring from the next car over at the gas station . . . People instinctively knew that it was to be confined and strictly limited. It was “behind closed doors.” It wasn’t the stuff of public articles and Thanksgiving dinners. People were scandalized in 1972 when they learned (through the notorious Watergate tapes) that President Nixon said “GD.” They really were! It wasn’t just prudes and 70-year-old ladies in purple tennis shoes who taught Sunday School. I’m old enough (58) to personally remember all that.

Society has regressed, as it has in so many other ways. Now women can swear like sailors or pimps (even publicly, even in Catholic circles!). “You’ve come a long way, baby.” People not only see nothing wrong with that, but wonder how anyone possibly could, as if objection to it were the strangest thing in the world and confined to the most ridiculous, antiquated, almost self-parodied “fundamentalists.” Thank God for Netflix, used DVDs, and many cable channels, so parents can still get good quality TV and movies for the family, amidst the nearly universal cultural decline of language.

I think it’s pathetic and disgraceful. Men have so looked up to women and admired them, traditionally, precisely because we feel they are on such a higher level (morally) than we are: the finer creatures. It’s why there is such a huge fuss made about Mother’s Day, while I always joke that Father’s Day is about on the level of Groundhog Day. “Mom, baseball, and apple pie”, etc. I have always sincerely believed this. If that’s now considered old-fashioned and quaint, so be it. Count me in. It used to be called “chivalry” till the radical feminists (not feminism per se) did all they could to mock and destroy it as a cultural norm. My wife and all the women I admire are up on the pedestal.

St. Paul stated that “there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28; RSV). It’s not an unequal scenario at all. We’re equals under God. I’m not advocating at all that there should be a double standard: with women held to a higher level. Let’s get that straight. A few people on Facebook, reading an early version of this post mistakenly thought that.

I’m not against women having freedom to act as they please, as men do. I’m disappointed when they become coarse and crude like so many men are. What a shame. Why in the world would women seek to emulate men’s worst characteristics? Even the Catholic / Christian / cultural notion that one doesn’t speak a certain way “in mixed company” is now lost. That was out of respect for women, in deference to them as finer creatures: not as crude and vulgar as men are. Now women join right in, and talk the same way themselves!

We all fall short in many ways. I’m not talking about the occasional slip, use of strong language in an outburst of passion, or in tragic situations, exclamations when we hit our head, etc., not even the relatively minor “swear words” (though obviously those should be tempered in any sort of professional or church setting), but rather, about brazen, consistent use, vulgarity, obscenity, sexual gutter language, and (above all) trying to rationalize it away as a non-issue, as if it is perfectly fine, and unfathomable that a Catholic organization would ever consider dismissing a writer on the grounds of persistent bad and insulting language.

My friend Patti Sheffield, on my Facebook page, outlined some of the biblical data regarding proper language:

"Ephesians 5:1-5 is pretty explicit on the conduct expected of Christians, and verse 4 specifically condemns “obscenity or silly or suggestive talk”, not just taking God’s name in vain. Ephesians 4:29 [“Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it may impart grace to those who hear”], included in the list of rules for new Christians, explicitly forbade foul language. James also warned in his writing that we must learn to bridle our tongues. That means, simply put, have a filter. If someone is going to proclaim the Gospel (by being an apologist or a writer), then at least, have a filter."

"If we can’t be bothered to do that, we’re just conforming ourselves to the world instead of transforming it in Christ. And as Christ warns us in Matthew 12:36-37, we will be called to account for every careless word we make, and that will be a big factor in our final judgment. Why risk it for the sake of what some call humor?"

And let’s not forget the sage, stinging advice in the book of James:

"James 3:3-11 If we put bits into the mouths of horses that they may obey us, we guide their whole bodies. [4] Look at the ships also; though they are so great and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. [5] So the tongue is a little member and boasts of great things. How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire! [6] And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is an unrighteous world among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the cycle of nature, and set on fire by hell. [7] For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by humankind, [8] but no human being can tame the tongue — a restless evil, full of deadly poison. [9] With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who are made in the likeness of God. [10] From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brethren, this ought not to be so. [11] Does a spring pour forth from the same opening fresh water and brackish?"

Again, I’m not saying that women are held to one ethical standard and men to another: the old ridiculous double standard. No! It is us admiring women because they voluntarily chose to be more moral than we knew ourselves to be. It has to do also with men and women being fundamentally different in the first place. Ideally, we look up to each other, because of the complementarity that God designed.

The Catholic tradition is what taught the beauty and necessity of waiting till marriage, while the sexual revolution has brought us wonderful things like ubiquitous pornography. That really raises women’s stature in the eyes of men, doesn’t it? We need to understand what chivalry is in the first place and what has gotten our society into the sad, pathetic state it is now, after 50 years of wonderful sexual liberation. Everyone’s ecstatically happy, aren’t they? Families and marriages are better than they have ever been. Not! How’s the culture doing on marriage and treatment of women, post sexual revolution? How well has that pitiful social experiment / wholesale rebellion against sane, sensible tradition worked out?

As long as women continue to give out the “benefits” without demanding the commitment, we’ll be in the mess we’re in. That’s just about the root of it: caving into mens’ sinful sexual desires and emotional manipulations. It’s what has caused illegitimacy rates in the inner cities to rise to an astounding 80%. That and the broken home that usually results are some of the leading sociological indicators (my major) of poverty and a life of misery.

In practice, traditionally, women have been more moral sexually than men have been. Whether that was due to the double standard or the fear of pregnancy or the social stigma, or actually understanding the goodness of waiting till marriage, or various combinations of the above, it is a demonstrable fact. That has now mostly broken down.

And in practice, traditionally, women controlled their language much better than men did. All I’m saying was that men admired that. You admire what someone does better than yourself. I’m not in any way, shape, or form saying that men get a bigger pass and have less responsibility to follow Scripture and the Church. I’m simply describing the usual sinful reality of it. It’s the distinction between prescription (the should and ought) and description (the actual fact).

I still think women have the edge in sanctity: in practice. But radical feminism and unisexism are working very hard to make sure that women are equally as sinful as men in all areas. For the most radical feminists, their working philosophy has been to “hate men and to simultaneously do everything possible to be exactly like them in every way.” Sort of the “identifying with the oppressor” routine.

Language is one of these areas. Premarital sex is another. This is my point. There used to be a pronounced difference [no pun intended!] in how women talked. So we men admired them for that. Now that distinction is rapidly diminishing, and I think it’s a shame, because it means that women are relatively more sinful (as a generalization) in this area than they used to be, and that’s a very sad thing and a loss of yet another element of Catholic tradition and the traditional relationship between the sexes.

Feminism (mainstream, not radical) actually gives credence to my argument here, by its own rhetoric and self-understanding. If women are not higher creatures than men in some sense, how is it that feminists are (and indeed the thrust of the secular culture also is) always urging men to be more like women: more sensitive, nurturing, and communicative in particular? This presupposes that women have these traits that men desperately need to learn and emulate. Now how could that be if women were not indeed “higher” than men, for whatever reason, in those respects? And that leads back to my point. We look up to y’all because you really do have characteristics that we lack.

It can work both ways, though. My wife often complains about groups of women going right into gossip and complaining about their husbands. This is a major fault in women, and one where they can learn from the generally better example of men. Men almost never run down their wives in public; hardly even in private, one-to-one. They instinctively regard that as low-class, cheap, utterly inappropriate, and a bad reflection on them (since they chose to marry this woman). It’s just not done. So this is an instance where women could be raised up a bit by imitating what men almost always do. Both genders have their characteristic besetting sins. I would say that the biggest ones are lust for men and nagging / complaining for women.

But this is another instance of women themselves thinking they are superior to men. If they didn’t, the many women who do this wouldn’t sit there for hours gossiping about their husbands and assuming they are dolts who “don’t get it” and who don’t grasp the simplest things, like being able to openly, honestly express their feelings (like most women do), and often assume at the same time naively, foolishly assume that they are perfectly innocent as to the origin and continuance of various marital difficulties: as if it doesn’t take two.

Of course, historically, there was indeed the dreadful double standard, with the “good girls” and the “bad girls.” That was because men demanded immoral sex (this being our leading fault). It was very wrong, and it was primarily men’s fault. There will always be women willing to take advantage of men’s weakness and leading sin, for profit. Hence, prostitution.

Likewise, the Victorians went too far in terms of being anti-sex (though this is often exaggerated). The devil exploits everything to his ends. If a culture adopts a fairly Christian outlook that premarital sex is wrong, then there will be the tendency, because of sin, to go too far and get to the place where sex is regarded as “dirty” and “evil”: even marital sex.

That was what started ancient gnosticism. But this isn’t the Catholic position. The Church Fathers strongly tended towards this error, too. I’ve read them. I compiled three books of their quotes. They were opposing the rampantly sexual pagan Romans, and so they sometimes went too far in the other direction. This is the human tendency, and the devil exploits it to the max. The true biblical view is found in the Song of Solomon: unashamed sexuality within the bounds that God set for us, for our own good and pleasure.

various commenters #fundie reddit.com

This is just ridiculous :D

image

(folderol)
Want to laugh even harder? Go to any university website and have a look at the current research projects these gender studies PhD's are doing.

The Effects of 80's Punk Rock on Latino Women in Peru Ages 25 - 50 is an example. At my local uni. it's mostly studies about women in rock music. I can't think of any gender that has affected rock music less than women. Because oppression!! No because men are better at it. Both genders have their strengths, one of men's is music. Just a fact of life and there should be no shame in that.

(Channel_Dedede)
When the people studying "biology" don't understand the basics of biology...

(cherrybombstation)
That stupid commie bitch professor Melissa Click of the University of Missouri (you remember, the "I need some muscle over here!" bitch,) did her PhD dissertation on 50 Shades of Gray. She also wrote about Twitter and Twilight's affects on millennial women's sexuality.

Missouri had the number one journalism school in the country at one point. Number one. And they were hiring social justice bitches like her to teach the next wave. Seriously, look at some of the goddamn utter drivel she has had published.

“Twitards and Tyler’s Van: Anti-fans, Twilight, and textuality.”
“Fifty Shades of postfeminism: Contextualizing readers’ reflections on the erotic romance series. In E. Levine (ed.) Feeling Feminine: Popular Culture for Women in the Early 21st Century.”
“It’s ‘a good thing’: The commodification of femininity, affluence and whiteness in the Martha Stewart phenomenon.”
Academia is a fucking tragedy now. So glad I got out

(loopymcgee)
omg, lol I work with a girl who has her Ph.D. in Feminist Studies (gag) I almost cant stand being around her. This is one degree I wouldnt want the debt from... oh, she also has a transgender daughter (born a son) who is SIX and gets embarrassed talking about how babies are made..

(need_fork_split_3)
She has a son that she abuses.

(1youlove)
That is not a coincidence that she has this degree and has a "trans" six year old. She did this to him. I would call CPS if I were you.

(FindtheOwl)
I'm aware this is a meme, however... this reminds me that the far left are sociopaths. They really don't value human life. Posturing and virtue signaling is what they are all about.

They are so conceited and self-centered they have lost the ability to 1) empathize with other humans that don't share their perspective identically, 2) admit they are wrong about anything ever, 3) be saved or salvaged

Edward Cline #fundie ruleofreason.blogspot.co.nz

(This is an alternate history scenario of a "Better world" where George Bush was much harsher after 9/11)

Enemy Capitals Attacked

But suddenly the Bush-inspired violence in Europe came to an abrupt end. After the storm, came a quiet. At first, it was not understood why. But soon, everyone knew why.

On October 5th, drones armed with battlefield nuclear bombs eliminated portions of Riyadh, Tehran, Dubai and Damascus. In Tehran, political opposition forces rounded up survivors of the Mohammad Khatami/Mahmoud Ahmadinejad religious regime and executed them, and their bodies hung upside-down from lampposts, just as the bodies of Mussolini and his mistress were displayed in Italy. Iranians are still struggling to consolidate a republican government.

King Fahd, principal members of the House of Saud, and most of the king’s advisors rose as super-heated molecules in the mushroom cloud that towered over Riyadh. Impoverished survivors of the House have been jockeying for and bickering over the king’s title to rule a country that no longer exists ever since. Saudi brothers and cousins of the late king have resorted to assassination and murder of each other in a turf war that recalls the Prohibition gang wars of 20th century America.

The royal family of Abu Dhabi fled when U.S. Navy vessels approached its shores. The United Arab Emirates subsequently disintegrated. Navy Seal teams and Special Forces units covertly sent into Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. and Iran before the drone launches neutralized, before they could act, the security forces responsible for sabotaging oil facilities in case of hostilities. Stealth bombers pinpointed the palaces and bunkers of Saddam Hussein in and around Bagdad and flattened them with tons of heavy ordnance, including napalm. Hussein and his sons were consumed in the fires. The Iraqi government collapsed and this artificially created country has also been in a state of chaos ever since, marked by interminable tribal warfare between Sunnis, Shi’ites and Kurds.

Oil fields nationalized or expropriated by the Arabs were returned to their rightful owners, American, British and French oil companies. Although many of the claims are nearly a century old and now mired in court challenges and disputes over prior claims, oil is flowing and is cheap. Aramco, a Saudi-American “partnership” for decades, was abruptly dissolved. The Petroleum Club of Houston filed for bankruptcy. Numerous stocks of companies in which Arabs held majority interests were delisted from trading on Wall Street.

Holy Shrines Eliminated

But what ended what might have been continued rioting and dissension in Europe and elsewhere for years by immigrant Muslims was President Bush’s most courageous act. On October 6th, without warning, one Stealth bomber took off from the Enterprise in the Mediterranean, and another from Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany. The first dropped a two-kiloton bomb on Mecca. The second dropped a two-kiloton bomb on Mohammad’s burial place in Medina. The Kaaba in Mecca and the Green Dome in Medina were rendered gaseous. Tens of thousands of pilgrims perished in the blasts.

More stunned than Westerners by the operation were Muslims. Their holy shrines were erased from existence in milliseconds. The expected wrath of Allah did not materialize. He had forsaken his chosen people. The sun did not rise in the West. The stars did not begin to vanish. The Five Pillars of Islam were rendered redundant, proven meaningless. The absence of supernatural retaliation and vengeful global punishment resulted in mass disorientation among Muslims, a species of trauma still being studied by top psychologists in major universities. Suicide rates among Muslims skyrocketed –suicides that did not include bombs detonated in public, but which were private affairs of family heads killing their own families before themselves.

Countless other Muslims simply ceased adhering to the faith. Once-faithful Muslims proclaimed their apostasy, preaching tearfully and angrily to sympathetic crowds about what a fraud Islam was. Women discarded their burqas and veils, and even burned them in the streets in demonstrations of freedom. Prayer rugs were turned into welcome mats or converted into scratching posts for cats. Mosques in Western nations were eventually abandoned by the dozens. Once-influential imams and mullahs preached to ever diminishing congregations. Several clerics were arrested by authorities for plotting terrorist acts against the U.S. government and are serving life sentences.

In a completely unrelated and unexpected development, on October 6th the government of Hosni Mubarak announced the return of the Suez Canal to the British and French governments. “The government and people of Egypt,” announced Mubarak, “apologize for the actions of Gamal Abdel Nasser Hussein, who was nothing more than a bandit aided and abetted in his theft by a very strange American president.”

By April of 2002, the world had settled down again. Vladimir Putin of Russia had stopped making bellicose threats against the U.S. and directed his energies to extinguishing the Islamic “separatist” movements within Russia. Former Soviet “republics” have formed an effective alliance against Russia to forestall any “reunification” moves by Moscow. China clamped down on the “democracy” movement there, evicted Western business and industrial “partners” and confiscated their holdings. Hong Kong defied Peking with its own separatist movement and won its independence.

Droves of diehard Muslims began returning whence they came, abandoning their self-created ghettos and separatist enclaves, leaving Western nations now hostile to their creed, to countries still governed by the diminishing power of Sharia law, or where they thought there was still a chance of reestablishing it. Talk of a global caliphate ceased. Islamic “civil rights” organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations” and the Islamic Society and Circle of North America found their funding drying up and they dissolved. Several officials of those organizations left the U.S. just ahead of arrest by authorities investigating their role in the attacks, or just steps ahead of being served subpoenas by authorities investigating their finances. The Muslim Brotherhood, sire of all such organizations in the West, experienced a renewed extermination effort by Mubarak’s government.

George Bush was severely criticized by the American and European press. He was accused of “cowboy geopolitics” and charged with jeopardizing world peace with his unilateral military actions, actions taken without first consulting the United Nations. Calls were made in the U.N. by Russia and China to hold the U.S. responsible for the “callous collateral casualties, in the hundreds of thousands, in actions that can only be described as criminal.” Newly appointed Secretary of State John Bolton answered them in January, 2002, “If the United Nations regards the United States as a renegade nation, why is this body still here?”

FlatCommunication5 #transphobia reddit.com

For the sake of clarity: "old school" transsexuals, crossdressers, and autogynephiles are all the same people

The contemporary transgender movements is an offshoot of the straight male crossdressing culture of the 1980s and 1990s. These men all fit the AGP profile to a T: Joe Roberts and David MacKellar were NASA engineers. Many of these men transitioned and had SRS. A lot of them basically ran empires creating and selling 'feminizing' guides (books, DVDs etc) and accessories. There was a lot of in-fighting between crossdressers and "true transsexuals" (similar to ‘transgenders’ vs truscum). Neverthless, they lobbied relentlessly throughout the late 1990s. In the aftermath of Matthew Shepard’s murder, they demanded gay rights activists to include “gender identity” to their anti-discrimination lobbying and could be quite forceful about it. They were joining lesbian organizations as far back as 1997. Phyllis Frye (he defended a TIM who had married a man in a landmark case) is an attorney and he participated in the drafting of the International Gender Bill of Rights. Notice Martine Rothblatt's signature. Rothblatt is a friend of Susan Stryker. (the timeline of the article mentions the "gender identity" controversy and concludes with the story of a black TIM's arrest without mentioning straight male crossdressers at all - which is strategic. It mentions TIMs protesting the APA for "pathologizing trans people" in the 1990s)

from Sandy Stone's The Empire Strikes Back

Initially, the only textbook on the subject of transsexualism was Harry Benjamin's definitive work The Transsexual Phenomenon (1966). ... When the first clinics were constituted, Benjamin's book was the researchers' standard reference. And when the first transsexuals were evaluated for their suitability for surgery, their behavior matched up gratifyingly with Benjamin's criteria. The researchers produced papers which reported on this, and which were used as bases for funding.

It took a surprisingly long time--several years--for the researchers to realize that the reason the candidates' behavioral profiles matched Benjamin's so well was that the candidates, too, had read Benjamin's book, which was passed from hand to hand within the transsexual community, and they were only too happy to provide the behavior that led to acceptance for surgery.

This sort of careful repositioning created interesting problems. Among them was the determination of the permissible range of expressions of physical sexuality. This was a large gray area in the candidates' self-presentations, because Benjamin's subjects did not talk about any erotic sense of their own bodies. Consequently nobody else who came to the clinics did either. By textual authority, physical men who lived as women and who identified themselves as transsexuals, as opposed to male transvestites for whom erotic penile sensation was permissible, could not experience penile pleasure. Into the 1980s there was not a single preoperative male -to-female transsexual for whom data was available who experienced genital sexual pleasure while living in the "gender of choice". ...

Then there's Reed Rickson, a TIF who was Harry Benjamin's patient in the 1960s. Rickson's family ran a smelting business and she grew up wealthy. She founded the Erickson Educational Foundation (EEF) in 1964, a philanthropic organization funded entirely by herself, whose stated goals were "to provide assistance and support in areas where human potential was limited by adverse physical, mental or social conditions, or where the scope of research was too new, controversial or imaginative to receive traditionally oriented support." The EEF funded the creation of the Harry Benjamin Foundation and the opening of the Johns Hopkins gender clinic as well as countless research efforts, journals, and newsletters.

Dallas Denny, a TIM with degrees in psychology and sociology, took over EEF after Rickson’s death in the 1990s. Dallas Denny edited the magazine Tapestry (“tapestry” refers to the convergence of [autogynephilic] crossdressers and transsexuals. The magazine has existed since the late 1970s) and directed the crossdressing conference Fantasia Fair. He was a personal friend of Joe Roberts, crossdresser who appears in the Tri-Ess documentary. (check the comments for some overt old school AGP. They mention Alison Laing, a crossdresser who transitioned who published feminizing guides for crossdressers and the “Lobby Days” ) Denny has written guidelines for gender therapists throughout the 1990s and 2000s

A study sample from 1987 reveals that "(s)ome history of fetishistic arousal was acknowledged by over 80% of the heterosexual males, compared to fewer than 10% of homosexual males and no homosexual females." A 2011 study confirms this finding (69% self-report transvestic fetishism, 6 times more often than HSTS). AGP transsexuals have NEVER been the minority. As for AGP transition being pragmatic in some cases, this is what old school AGP transsexuals have done. (gaming the system + creating the transgender movement)

Various Fundies #fundie #homophobia youtube.com

(=Fundie backlash against pro gay Christian YouTube channel “Taboo Topics”=)

1. CableCutter: Inc When paul wrote that he wasnt referring to moral law....he was talking about ceremony laws.... so its ok to kill ?(thats what you are saying, when you said paul said we are no longer under the law. Your hermeneutic (BIBLE interpretation) is so wrong.

2. Anthony J. McGirr: You don't care about the truth. And you are pushing an agenda. That's why you keep posting anti-Christian posts.

3. Melvin Castillo: Her spirit is weak.

4. Jeffrey Potter: You have elevated emotions above truth. If you can use the Bible to justify anything...throw it away. You don't need it. You can manipulate it to say anything you want. It saddens me to think what potential you have in being trained in righteousness and being equipped for God's kingdom. There is still time to repent. My heart breaks for ya'. All of our battles are in the realm of the spiritual... If homosexuality was normal and God was okay with it...then if you could place all of like gendered homosexual people on an island with no traveling off that island and no other visitors able to come to the island....after 150 years...would there be any families? Granted... there have been some interesting questions one can ask the pastors to keep them accountable to God's word and feeding His sheep...but to say that what the Holy Spirit teaches is wrong cuz it doesn't line up with your feelings or interpretation is basically you having a tantrum against God cuz your pastors may not have been well equipped to deal with the seeker and questioner as opposed to just keeping the pews filled and etc. As much as you hold up the human emotion to be such a gentle thing that shouldn't be damaged... I can see that you're hurting. I will pray for you.

5. Josh DeSalvo Sure: many of the laws were related to being seperate from the other pagan nations regarding clothes, foods consumed, and other aesthetic aspects which was done away with after Christ fulfilled the law and Gentiles were welcomed into the Kingdom of God. However, Jesus nor any other text in scripture, indicates giving up the entirety of the law such as being obedient to God and His commands as well as the judiciary system necessary to solve issues within the church. We understand this through how Jesus communicates with His disciples as well as how Paul communicates with the church's through His letters, they speak with the understanding that the audience knows the commands he has laid out for them in the Old Testament and should be following them accordingly. Only thing mentioned in scripture regarding gentiles following the "Jewish Law" related to circumcision and foods sacrificed to idols in Acts 15:29. Paul identifies the necessity of law in Roman's 7 and 8 and our expectations of Christians and the necessity to follow the law.

6. Shayla: The same arguments in this video have been proven by Christian scholars and apologists to be inconsistent. These are old arguments. It’s very easy to say what she’s saying in an isolated environment without actually testing the validity and consistency of her statements against someone who truly understands the Bible. Her error stems from completely misunderstanding the covenants within the Bible and the purpose and application of each covenant which is illustrated as you move from the old to the New Testament. They are entwined. Misunderstanding that leads to exactly what we see in this video. Nice try though

7. Jam AK: An atheist who doesn t have the Holy spirit gives us a bible study! Good fruit is sexual immorality????what???? Homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God (1corinthians 6:9-10 i read in other languages it translates as homosexuals... nice try.

Ian Lucraft #fundie thestar.co.uk

Primark pulls "shocking" and "racist" Walking Dead t-shirt from stores after Sheffield man's angry complaint

Primark has removed a t-shirt promoting hit US TV show The Walking Dead from its stores after it was branded "fantastically offensive" and "racist" by an angry Sheffield shopper.

Outraged Ian Lucraft was so offended by the "explicit" t-shirt that he complained directly to the discount clothing store's chief executive - and Primark has now apologised and removed the men's t-shirt from its branches.

Mr Lucraft and his wife Gwen had visited the firm's recently opened branch in The Moor in Sheffield city centre to buy a present for their grandson when they spotted the white t-shirt with the message "eeny meeny miny moe" and a picture of a bloodied baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire. The phrase and bat are both used by a character in the hit show.

He said: "We were shocked when we came face to face with a new t-shirt with a racially explicit graphic and text.

"It was fantastically offensive and I can only assume that no-one in the process of ordering it knew what they were doing or were aware of its subliminal messages.

He said: "The slogan is “Eeeny meenie miny moe…..” It stops there, but of course we all know what the original said: “catch a n***** by his toe."

"The graphic has a large American baseball bat, wrapped round with barbed wire, and covered with blood. This image relates directly to the practice of assaulting black people in America.

"It is directly threatening of a racist assault, and if I were black and were faced by a wearer I would know just where I stood."

The slogan comes from the final episode of the sixth series of the critically acclaimed horror drama in which zombies have overrrun a post-apocalyptic world.

Martinlutherking.org #conspiracy martinlutherking.org


WHEN THE COMMUNISTS TOOK OVER a country, one of the first things that they did was to confiscate all the privately-held weapons, to deny the people the physical ability to resist tyranny. But even more insidious than the theft of the people's weapons was the theft of their history. Official Communist "historians" rewrote history to fit the current party line. In many countries, revered national heroes were excised from the history books, or their real deeds were distorted to fit Communist ideology, and Communist killers and criminals were converted into official "saints." Holidays were declared in honor of the beasts who murdered countless nations.

Did you know that much the same process has occurred right here in America?

Every January, the media go into a kind of almost spastic frenzy of adulation for the so-called "Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr." King has even had a national holiday declared in his honor, an honor accorded to no other American, not Washington, not Jefferson, not Lincoln. (Washington and Lincoln no longer have holidays -- they share the generic-sounding "President's Day.") A liberal judge has sealed the FBI files on King until the year 2027. What are they hiding? Let's take a look at this modern-day plastic god.

Born in 1929, King was the son of a Black preacher known at the time only as "Daddy King." "Daddy King" named his son Michael. In 1935, "Daddy King" had an inspiration to name himself after the Protestant reformer Martin Luther. He declared to his congregation that henceforth they were to refer to him as "Martin Luther King" and to his son as "Martin Luther King, Jr." None of this name changing was ever legalized in court. "Daddy" King's son's real name is to this day Michael King.

King's Brazen Cheating

We read in Michael Hoffman's "Holiday for a Cheater":

The first public sermon that King ever gave, in 1947 at the Ebenezer Baptist Church, was plagiarized from a homily by Protestant clergyman Harry Emerson Fosdick entitled "Life is What You Make It," according to the testimony of King's best friend of that time, Reverend Larry H. Williams.

The first book that King wrote, "Stride Toward Freedom, - -was plagiarized from numerous sources, all unattributed, according to documentation recently assembled by sympathetic King scholars Keith D. Miller, Ira G. Zepp, Jr., and David J. Garrow.

And no less an authoritative source than the four senior editors of "The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.- - (an official publication of the Martin Luther King Center for Nonviolent Social Change, Inc., whose staff includes King's widow Coretta), stated of King's writings at both Boston University and Crozer Theological Seminary: "Judged retroactively by the standards of academic scholarship, [his writings] are tragically flawed by numerous instances of plagiarism.... Appropriated passages are particularly evident in his writings in his major field of graduate study, systematic theology."

King's essay, "The Place of Reason and Experience in Finding God," written at Crozer, pirated passages from the work of theologian Edgar S. Brightman, author of "The Finding of God."

Another of King's theses, "Contemporary Continental Theology," written shortly after he entered Boston University, was largely stolen from a book by Walter Marshall Horton.

King's doctoral dissertation, "A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Harry Nelson Wieman," for which he was awarded a PhD in theology, contains more than fifty complete sentences plagiarized from the PhD dissertation of Dr. Jack Boozer, "The Place of Reason in Paul Tillich's Concept of God."

According to "The Martin Luther King Papers", in King's dissertation "only 49 per cent of sentences in the section on Tillich contain five or more words that were King's own...."!

In "The Journal of American History", June 1991, page 87, David J. Garrow, a leftist academic who is sympathetic to King, says that King's wife, Coretta Scott King, who also served as his secretary, was an accomplice in his repeated cheating. ("King's Plagiarism: Imitation, Insecurity and Transformation," The Journal of American History, June 1991, p. 87)

Reading Garrow's article, one is led to the inescapable conclusion that King cheated because he had chosen for himself a political role in which a PhD would be useful, and, lacking the intellectual ability to obtain the title fairly, went after it by any means necessary. Why, then, one might ask, did the professors at Crozer Theological Seminary and Boston University grant him passing grades and a PhD? Garrow states on page 89: "King's academic compositions, especially at Boston University, were almost without exception little more than summary descriptions... and comparisons of other's writings. Nonetheless, the papers almost always received desirable letter grades, strongly suggesting that King's professors did not expect more...." The editors of "The Martin Luther King Jr. Papers" state that "...the failure of King's teachers to notice his pattern of textual appropriation is somewhat remarkable...."

But researcher Michael Hoffman tells us "...actually the malfeasance of the professors is not at all remarkable. King was politically correct, he was Black, and he had ambitions. The leftist [professors were] happy to award a doctorate to such a candidate no matter how much fraud was involved. Nor is it any wonder that it has taken forty years for the truth about King's record of nearly constant intellectual piracy to be made public."

Supposed scholars, who in reality shared King's vision of a racially mixed and Marxist America, purposely covered up his cheating for decades. The cover-up still continues. From the "New York Times" of October 11, 1991, page 15, we learn that on October 10th of that year, a committee of researchers at Boston University admitted that, "There is no question but that Dr. King plagiarized in the dissertation." However, despite its finding, the committee said that "No thought should be given to the revocation of Dr. King's doctoral degree," an action the panel said "would serve no purpose."

No purpose, indeed! Justice demands that, in light of his willful fraud as a student, the "reverend" and the "doctor" should be removed from King's name.

Communist Beliefs and Connections

Well friends, he is not a legitimate reverend, he is not a bona fide PhD, and his name isn't really "Martin Luther King, Jr." What's left? Just a sexual degenerate, an America-hating Communist, and a criminal betrayer of even the interests of his own people.

On Labor Day, 1957, a special meeting was attended by Martin Luther King and four others at a strange institution called the Highlander Folk School in Monteagle, Tennessee. The Highlander Folk School was a Communist front, having been founded by Myles Horton (Communist Party organizer for Tennessee) and Don West (Communist Party organizer for North Carolina). The leaders of this meeting with King were the aforementioned Horton and West, along with Abner Berry and James Dumbrowski, all open and acknowledged members of the Communist Party, USA. The agenda of the meeting was a plan to tour the Southern states to initiate demonstrations and riots.

From 1955 to 1960, Martin Luther King's associate, advisor, and personal secretary was one Bayard Rustin. In 1936 Rustin joined the Young Communist League at New York City College. Convicted of draft-dodging, he went to prison for two years in 1944. On January 23, 1953 the "Los Angeles Times" reported his conviction and sentencing to jail for 60 days for lewd vagrancy and homosexual perversion. Rustin attended the 16th Convention of the Communist Party, USA in February, 1957. One month later, he and King founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, or SCLC for short. The president of the SCLC was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The vice-president of the SCLC was the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, who was also the president of an identified Communist front known as the Southern Conference Educational Fund, an organization whose field director, a Mr. Carl Braden, was simultaneously a national sponsor of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, of which you may have heard. The program director of the SCLC was the Reverend Andrew Young, in more recent years Jimmy Carter's ambassador to the UN and mayor of Atlanta. Young, by the way, was trained at the Highlander Folk School, previously mentioned.

Soon after returning from a trip to Moscow in 1958, Rustin organized the first of King's famous marches on Washington. The official organ of the Communist Party, "The Worker,- - openly declared the march to be a Communist project. Although he left King's employ as secretary in 1961, Rustin was called upon by King to be second in command of the much larger march on Washington which took place on August 28, 1963.

Bayard Rustin's replacement in 1961 as secretary and advisor to King was Jack O'Dell, also known as Hunter Pitts O'Dell. According to official records, in 1962 Jack O'Dell was a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party, USA. He had been listed as a Communist Party member as early as 1956. O'Dell was also given the job of acting executive director for SCLC activities for the entire Southeast, according to the St. Louis "Globe-Democrat - -of October 26, 1962. At that time, there were still some patriots in the press corps, and word of O'Dell's party membership became known.

What did King do? Shortly after the negative news reports, King fired O'Dell with much fanfare. And he then, without the fanfare, "immediately hired him again- - as director of the New York office of the SCLC, as confirmed by the "Richmond News-Leader - -of September 27, 1963. In 1963 a Black man from Monroe, North Carolina named Robert Williams made a trip to Peking, China. Exactly 20 days before King's 1963 march on Washington, Williams successfully urged Mao Tse-Tung to speak out on behalf of King's movement. Mr. Williams was also around this time maintaining his primary residence in Cuba, from which he made regular broadcasts to the southern US, three times a week, from high-power AM transmitters in Havana under the title "Radio Free Dixie." In these broadcasts, he urged violent attacks by Blacks against White Americans.

During this period, Williams wrote a book entitled "Negroes With Guns." The writer of the foreword for this book? None other than Martin Luther King, Jr. It is also interesting to note that the editors and publishers of this book were to a man all supporters of the infamous Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

According to King's biographer and sympathizer David J. Garrow, "King privately described himself as a Marxist." In his 1981 book, "The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr.", Garrow quotes King as saying in SCLC staff meetings, "...we have moved into a new era, which must be an era of revolution.... The whole structure of American life must be changed.... We are engaged in the class struggle."

Jewish Communist Stanley Levison can best be described as King's behind-the-scenes "handler." Levison, who had for years been in charge of the secret funnelling of Soviet funds to the Communist Party, USA, was King's mentor and was actually the brains behind many of King's more successful ploys. It was Levison who edited King's book, "Stride Toward Freedom." It was Levison who arranged for a publisher. Levison even prepared King's income tax returns! It was Levison who really controlled the fund-raising and agitation activities of the SCLC. Levison wrote many of King's speeches. King described Levison as one of his "closest friends."

FBI: King Bought Sex With SCLC Money

The Federal Bureau of Investigation had for many years been aware of Stanley Levison's Communist activities. It was Levison's close association with King that brought about the initial FBI interest in King.

Lest you be tempted to believe the controlled media's lie about "racists" in the FBI being out to "get" King, you should be aware that the man most responsible for the FBI's probe of King was Assistant Director William C. Sullivan. Sullivan describes himself as a liberal, and says that initially "I was one hundred per cent for King...because I saw him as an effective and badly needed leader for the Black people in their desire for civil rights." The probe of King not only confirmed their suspicions about King's Communist beliefs and associations, but it also revealed King to be a despicable hypocrite, an immoral degenerate, and a worthless charlatan.

According to Assistant Director Sullivan, who had direct access to the surveillance files on King which are denied the American people, King had embezzled or misapplied substantial amounts of money contributed to the "civil rights" movement. King used SCLC funds to pay for liquor, and numerous prostitutes both Black and White, who were brought to his hotel rooms, often two at a time, for drunken sex parties which sometimes lasted for several days. These types of activities were the norm for King's speaking and organizing tours.

In fact, an outfit called The National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis, Tennessee, which is putting on display the two bedrooms from the Lorraine Motel where King stayed the night before he was shot, has declined to depict in any way the "occupants - -of those rooms. That "according to exhibit designer Gerard Eisterhold "would be "close to blasphemy." The reason? Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spent his last night on Earth having sex with two women at the motel and physically beating and abusing a third.

Sullivan also stated that King had alienated the affections of numerous married women. According to Sullivan, who in 30 years with the Bureau hadáseen everything there was to be seen of the seamy side of life, King was one of only seven people he had ever encountered who was such a total degenerate.

Noting the violence that almost invariably attended King's supposedly "non-violent" marches, Sullivan's probe revealed a very different King from the carefully crafted public image. King welcomed members of many different Black groups as members of his SCLC, many of them advocates and practitioners of violence. King's only admonition on the subject was that they should embrace "tactical nonviolence."

Sullivan also relates an incident in which King met in a financial conference with Communist Party representatives, not knowing that one of the participants was an infiltrator actually working for the FBI.

J. Edgar Hoover personally saw to it that documented information on King's Communist connections was provided to the President and to Congress. And conclusive information from FBI files was also provided to major newspapers and news wire services. But were the American people informed of King's real nature? No, for even in the 1960s, the fix was in "the controlled media and the bought politicians were bound and determined to push their racial mixing program on America. King was their man and nothing was going to get in their way. With a few minor exceptions, these facts have been kept from the American people. The pro-King propaganda machine grinds on, and it is even reported that a serious proposal has been made to add some of King's writings as a new book in the Bible.

Ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of this radio program is far greater than to prove to you the immorality and subversion of this man called King. I want you to start to think for yourselves. I want you to consider this: What are the forces and motivation behind the controlled media's active promotion of King? What does it tell you about our politicians when you see them, almost without exception, falling all over themselves to honor King as a national hero? What does it tell you about our society when any public criticism of this moral leper and Communist functionary is considered grounds for dismissal? What does it tell you about the controlled media when you see how they have successfully suppressed the truth and held out a picture of King that can only be described as a colossal lie? You need to think, my fellow Americans. You desperately need to wake up.

David Chase Taylor #conspiracy sites.google.com

Isis was a goddess of Ancient Egypt (which is historical cover for the Greco-Roman Empire) who was admittedly worshiped throughout the Greco-Roman world. Her name means “throne” and she was the patroness of nature and magic who is often depicted as the mother of Horus, the hawk-headed god of war. Isis (S+S) or “SS” was evidently the goddess of the Greco-Roman “system” of war and fascism which was created by Minos on the Island of Crete. Although Chania (C/K+N) is known as the founding city of Crete, the city of Knossos (C/K+N+S+S) was likely the second. Based on the double “SS” found within its name, the city of Knossos was likely the first capital of Crete where Greco-Roman warship armed with cannon and gunpowder was birthed. According to modern historical accounts, the religion of Isis spread throughout the Roman Empire. Roman practitioners of Isis used a rose in worship, an apparent tribute to the Island of Rhodes, the primary military base of the Greco-Roman Empire’s which was responsible for developing the ship. The sun atop the head of Isis is likely a symbolic reference to fire of Roman cannons which gave the Greco-Roman Empire unrivaled naval supremecy. Because Isis was the god of the magical Greek Fire (i.e., Roman gunpowder), temples, where human sacrifices were held, and obelisks (i.e., gravestones) were erected in her honor. Neoclassical Greco-Roman temples to Isis include but are not limited to: the Temple of Isis at Philae (Agilkia Island, Egypt); the Temple of Isis (Delos, Greece); and the Temple of Isis (Pompeii, Italy).

Isis Symbology
The sacred image of Isis with her child Horus (which became the model for the Christian Madonna with the baby Jesus), appears to be an allegorical metaphor for the “system” (i.e., Isis) feeding the “baby” or Babylon, the former capitol of the Roman Empire. Interestingly, the symbol of Isis is a “tiet” or “tyet” (meaning “welfare” and “life”) which was also called the “Knot of Isis”. Tiet is an apparent reference to the tit or breast of Isis whose symbol coincidentally mimics a woman’s nipple. The “Knot of Isis” a likely reference to the aforementioned city of Knossos. Isis is always pictured holding the “ankh” which is alleged to be an Egyptian hieroglyphic character that is known as “key of life”. Although being “Egyptian” in origin, the “ankh” features the arrow shape of the Island of Rhodes intersected with the Greek cross of Tau which also doubles as the Crete-shaped fasces.

Isis & Zeus Comparrison
It is imperative to note that Isis (S+S) and Zeus (Z+S) are consonatly the same in Roman-English because the letter "Z" is often replaced with the letter "S" (e.g., close, confuse, easy, has, his, is, pose, president, raise, rose, use, was, etc.). Therefore, their names are in essence one and the same. While Isis means "throne", Zeus is often depicted sitting in a throne. While Isis is depicted with the sun atop her head (symbolizing fire), Zeus is depicted holding lightningbolts (symbolizing fire). Both the sun of Isis and the lightning of Zeus represent Greek Fire, otherwise known as Roman gunpowder which was vital in the Greco-Roman Empire's defeat of every nation and culture on earth.


Tributes to Isis
Modern tributes to “SS” are numerous, a few of which include the Swastika, the Nazi Waffen-SS (whose shape mimics Zeus' lightnight bolts), the SOS distress signal, the name of Israel (Isis+Ra+El), the “ß” (“SS”) letter in German, the ISS (International Space Station) and the “USS” title for all U.S. Navy ships (e.g., “USS Dwight D. Eisenhower”). Isis (Zeus) is also found on the wall of the U.S. Senate where two “S”-shaped-branches form an “SS” or an “SZ” around twin Greco-Roman fasces. This is fitting because the U.S. Senate has approved and funded more wars over the last 200 years than any government on Earth. That being said, the wars were planned by the CIA of Switzerland.

?eus
Zeus is "Father of Gods and men", the King of the Gods, and the King of Heaven who oversees the universe. In Greek mythology, he is the god of sky, thunder and lightning who rules over Mount Olympus which is located in Greenland. According to the Greek geographer Pausanias, "That Zeus is king in heaven is a saying common to all men". Symbols attributed to Zeus include the thunderbolt, eagle, bull, and oak. Zeus is frequently depicted in Greek art either standing, striding forward, with a thunderbolt leveled in his raised right hand, or seated on a throne. The thunderbolt of Zeus is a symbolic reference to Greek Fire (i.e., Roman gunpowder) which was used by the Greco-Roman Empire to conquer the world. With one exception, Greeks were unanimous in recognizing the birthplace of Zeus as the Island of Crete where he was worshipped at caves near Knossos. In order to dispel any notion that Isis and Zeus were gods of a city, Hellenistic writer Euhemerus reportedly wrote that Zeus was a great king of Crete who posthumously turned into a deity. Neoclassical Greco-Roman temples to Zeus found near the Mediterranean Sea include but are not limited to: the Temple of Olympian Zeus (Athens, Greece); the Temple of Zeus (Cyrene, Greece); the Temple of Zeus (Nemea, Greece); the Temple of Zeus (Olympia, Greece); and the Temple of the Olympian Zeus (Agrigento, Sicily).

Jesus = Esus = Isis
The name of Jesus appears to be the same as Esus or Hesus (an aspirated form of Esus), a Celtic god worshiped by the Imperial Cult of Rome which coincidentally mirrors the Greco-Roman god of Isis. Aside from the fact that in the language of Spanish the name of Jesus is pronounced “Hay-SOOS” (a possible tribute to the Greco-Roman god of Zeus which is the same god as Isis), the 18th century Druidic revivalist Iolo Morgannwg identified Esus (S+S) with Jesus (J/G+S+S) based on the strength of the similarity of their respective names. Predictably however, modern scholars state that the striking resemblance between Esus and Jesus is purely coincidental. However, the Ichthys, a basic symbol consisting of two intersecting arcs that resemble the profile of a fish, was reportedly used as a Christian symbol in the first decades of the 2nd century. Its popularity among Christians was allegedly due to the fact that the five initial letters of the Greek word for fish (ICHTHYS) describes the character of Christ: “Iesous Christos Theou Yios Soter” (??s??? ???st??, Te?? ????, S?t??), meaning, “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior”. In order words, “Iesous” (S+S) was the first word to describe the deity that is now called Jesus. The Catholic Church corroborated this notion a few hundred years later when Pope John Paul II published a declaration on August 6, 2000, officially declaring that the title of Dominus Iesus means “The Lord Jesus” in English. Although the vowels change (the Roman alphabet did not contain vowels) the consonant letters of “S” and “S” stay the same. In other words, Iesus (S+S) is the official name of Jesus according to the Catholic Church who not only produced the Holy Bible but are admittedly the "sole Church of Christ" according to the Nicene Creed. Therefore, they have the final word on the official name of Jesus. Consequently therefore, the worship of Esus, Hesus, Iesous, Iesus or Jesus is the unintentional worship Greco-Roman god of Isis.

Esus Symbology
Esus is most known for his depiction on the Pillar of the Boatmen (c. 100 AD) which also contains the Tarvos Trigaranus. The Pillar of the Boatmen is a stone block statue with multiple depictions of Roman and Gaulish deities, including the god of Esus. It originally stood in a temple in the Roman “civitas” of Lutetia which was located in modern day Paris, France. In both engravings, Esus is portrayed cutting down branches from a tree with his axe. Esus is accompanied on a different panel of the Pillar of the Boatmen by Tarvos Trigaranus, the ‘bull with three cranes’ or crowns. The imagery of the bull (B+L) is likely representative of “Baby Line” or “Babylon”, the former capitol of the Greco-Roman Empire. The bull’s three horns as well as the three cranes are likely representative of the number “33” which doubles “CC”, an numerical acronym for Chania, Crete, the birthplace of the Roman Empire. The three horns of the bull or Babylon individually appear to represent the three homes or dens of Rome (i.e., Island of Crete, Island of Sicily, and the Island of Greenland). Consequently, Eusu chopping down the tree with an axe likely represents the cutting of the 13 Bloodlines of Rome who vacated Babylon for Greenland, ending their family tree in the underworld.


Human Sacrifices to Esus
A well-known section in an epic poem “Bellum Civile” or “Pharsalia” (c. 60 AD) by the Roman poet Lucan talks about the gory blood sacrifice offered to a triad of Celtic deities (i.e., Esus, Teutates and Taranis. According to the Berne Commentary on Lucan, human victims that were sacrificed to Esus were suspended from a tree and flailed. The use of trees, particularly oak trees, in human sacrifice is rampant throughout the lore of gods associated with the Greco-Roman Empire (e.g., Odin, Thor, etc.). The Gallic medical writer Marcellus of Bordeaux appears to offer a second textual reference to Esus in his “De Medicamentis” (c. 400 AD), a compendium of pharmacological preparations written in Latin in the early 5th century, the sole source for several Celtic words. The work contains a “magico-medical charm” in Gaulish which appears to invoke the aid of Esus in curing throat trouble. Marcellus’s account of Esus is spelled Aisus (S+S), a name consonantly the same as Esus (S+S), “Iesous” (S+S), Iesus (S+S) and Isis (S+S). The strange medical reference appears to be an inside joke as the victims of human sacrifice carried out by the Imperial Cult of Rome routinely had their throats cut while being hung upside down from a tree. Consequently, due to gravity, the blood would gush out, providing a blood bath for those participating in the sacrifice. It is imperative to note that all religious denominations who worship Jesus (e.g., Baptist, Catholic, Christian, Lutheran, Jehovah’s Witness, Methodist, Mormon, Presbyterian, etc.) are Roman Catholic and therefore are, albeit unwittingly, worshiping the Greco-Roman god of Isis.

Global Worship of Esus
John Arnott MacCulloch, one of Scotland's pre-eminent scholars on Celtic religion and mythology, offered a summary on the scholarly interpretations of Esus in 1911, stating in part: “The whole represents some myth unknown to us…Esus was worshipped at Paris and at Trèves…a coin with the name Æsus [S+S] was found in England; and personal names like Esugenos, "son of Esus," and Esunertus, "he who has the strength of Esus," occur in England, France, and Switzerland. Thus the cult of this god may have been comparatively widespread. But there is no evidence that [Esus] was a Celtic Jehovah [another name for Jesus] or a member, with Teutates and Taranis, of a pan-Celtic triad, or that this triad, introduced by Gauls, was not accepted by the Druids.” MacCulloch’s reference to a Celtic god and the Druids is interesting for they are both part of the Imperial Cult of Rome who carried out the aforementioned blood sacrifices. The notion that Esus was a global deity is indicative of Isis who was worshipped throughout the global Roman Empire prior to the alleged Fall of Rome. Lastly, the fact that Switzerland is mentioned by MacCulloch is not just by chance for the small European country is the primary proxy state of the Roman Empire which is solely responsible for plotting and financing assassinations, terror attacks and wars on a global level. Therefore, the worship of Isis would not be possible by the Romans in Greenland if it were not for Switzerland doing her dirty work in the underworld.

William Retzel #fundie quora.com

To build a case for the reality of God, we must start with the evidence for God. We have to show that first a Higher power exists. Second: if its one or many Gods. Third: if its a deist type it theistic type. Fourth: what makes the theistic God true of the Bible compared to Islam. Five: whats the evidence for Jesus and if Jesus claims to be God does the evidence support that. The evidence below will shed light on every one of the questions above.

The Kalam study, Ontological, teleological, archeological, biological, philosophical, historical, forensic evidence, manuscript textual criticism, early church fathers letters, secular sources, eye witnesses, amazing 360 degree life changes once hearing or seeing the truth, testimonials, prophecies fortold in the past and recorded historical events actually took place, moral law that is transcending, space,time, and matter came into existence during the big bang which means before the big bang there was no matter or natural relm. It took something from the supernatural relm that had to be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent. All points to a theistic God.

Just from secular sources, manuscripts, fragments, and early church fathers letters brings even the scholar skeptics to admit our current Bible is atleast 98% accurate to the original sources.

Making the Bible the best evidence to show who God is.

Cold case detective J Warner Wallace who has been on tv a few times for solving really old cold cases decided to try and prove the Bible wrong by using forensic science and investigating the eye witness accounts. Which surprised him how accurate they came to any eye witness accounts he had came across many times and eventually the evidence led to accept Christ.

Christianity became true when the very real historical the Jesus called Christ was crucified and from eye witness and secular sources speak of this event happening. Then something crazy happened 3 days later that gave great courage to the scared and hiding disciples that they gave their lives for claiming Jesus had risen ( in which only God can defeat death). Something turned the middle east and Rome upside down and Christianity spread like wild fire. The early church creed almost sounded as if I dare you to investigate the still alive eye witnesses for yourselves.

Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner #fundie rightwingwatch.org

(Women and hats and gay marriage caused God to burn down Colorado)

Buehner: Colorado is asking for judgment and God is delivering it in little pieces. He is very gracious that He hasn’t destroyed the whole state yet; I think that’s an act of grace. But then the question is: of all of Colorado, why Colorado Springs? I mean, Colorado Springs is the Christian mecca. Why not wipe out Boulder or Denver? I mean those people are in more radical rebellion.

Swanson: Oh yeah, they’re Democrats up there.

Buehner: And the answer is: judgment begins in the House of God.

…

Swanson: Coming back from Australia, I’m stuck in fourteen hours of these visual presentations, sitcoms and stuff, on seventeen screens in front of me and I’ve never seen so many breasts in all of my life. The immodesty going on in our society is far worse than it was back when Cheers, Family Ties and The Cosby Show was playing. I mean every form of aberrant sexuality and women’s breasts are shown in front of me almost nonstop for fourteen hours. It’s just such an oppressive, horrible, horrible world and so many of our young girls in our Christian churches are running down to Wal-Mart and buying the same clothes. These are the sorts of things that I’m bringing out in front of God’s people, I’m saying: how are we going to repent of the sexual sin that is paraded in front of us in the wider culture? Why do we have to submit to theses sexual sins again and again?

I brought up androgyny and how many young boys are running out and doing the metrosexual thing with the skinny pants and the little fairy shoes. They’re working on the gender blender for themselves and they don’t want to look like a man and God is just so upset, He hates it when man are not manly in their approach. 1 Corinthians 6 speaks about homosexuality and feminine behavior and feminine dress for men. God does not want men to be androgynous and feminine like in their approach; He gave them facial hair for a reason.

These are the sorts of things that I preached yesterday because I said, you could just say, ‘well all of the unisex, homosexual, metrosexual stuff that’s out in the world is so bad but we’re not going to repent of anything, we’re not going to look any different, we’re not going to bear any fruits of repentance in the way that we dress and the way that we interact.’ Then I brought out the whole thing on feminism and how feminism has corrupted our women today. I brought out this quote from Forbes magazine, July 27, 2012:

It’s hard to deny the key role that fashion has played in the women’s movement…Ms. Magazine points to New York City women garment workers in the early 20th century who wore hats to signify that they were earning their own money, and thus financially independent. Women in the 1980s adopted a male style of dress—ties, tailored skirt suits, shoulder pads—in order to gain a foothold in the male dominated world of business. And Carol Moseley Braun, the first African American woman elected to the U.S. Senate, wore a pantsuit on the Senate floor in 1993, ending the Senate’s ban on women wearing slacks there.

My question was: Do you resist feminist trends? Do you argue with it? Do you find ways to oppose it? Or do you just succumb to it and just kowtow to feminism? Dave, I’m afraid this stuff is all over the place in our nice little evangelical, reformed, conservative, fundamentalist churches.

Buehner: Kevin my main text this last Lord’s Day: God is a consuming fire.

FRANCESCO LATORRE #fundie usa.forzanuova.info

That said, we should not be surprised that the far-left favour child sex. After all, the very basis of their cultural Marxist ideology is the idea that Christian morality is ‘reactioinary’ and has to be smashed in order to prepared the ground for revolution. That’s why groups such as the Socialist Workers Party support the legalisation of pedophilia by the abolition of the age of consent.

This leftist promotion of perversion is basically the brainchild of György Lukács, a Hungarian-based (but not Hungarian) Bolshevik who was deputy commissar for culture in the Béla Kun regime in Hungary in 1919. Lukács’ goal was openly and avowedly to eradicate Christianity and Christian morality from Hungarian society, and he believed that one of the most effective methods of achieving this would be to undermine sexual morality through the introduction of compulsory sex education in schools.

To achieve his aims, he introduced a radical programme in schools which included graphic literature being handed out to children, the promotion of promiscuity, the mocking of monogamy, and the scorning of their parents’ moral ethics.

The Béla Kun regime in Hungary lasted only six months, so György Lukács never got to see the rotten fruit of his plans. But unfortunately his ideas didn’t die with regime. Four years later he turned up in Frankfurt for a Marxist study week, where he shared his ideas amongst a fascinated group. One of the Marxists there, Felix Weil, was so taken with Lukács’ ideas that he used the fortune he had inherited to finance the Institute of Social research in Frankfurt – what became known as the Frankfurt School – incorporating many of Lukács’ ideas in its teaching.

The goal of the Institute was to translate Marxism from economic into cultural terms, since economic Marxism hadn’t had the success amongst the working classes that they had expected or hoped for. The reason for this lack of success, they surmised, was that the working classes had been contaminated with traditional bourgeois morals. So they set about breaking those morals through a number of means, including portraying traditional attitudes as “prejudice”, promoting androgyny, homosexuality and other perversions and by seeking to subvert the language through what we now know as “political correctness”.

Which, on reflection, is what should have told us that Antiphobic Aktion was not the work of trolls, but simply a ‘kite-flyer’ for the far-left’s next big assault on decency and Christian society – the attempt to normalise pedophilia. Because that was part of the long-term goal when they began their first, tentative propaganda about the need to halt the ‘repression’ of adult male homosexuality. It’s all part of the same plan!

Amos Moses #fundie disqus.com

(on some story about the Pope)

Reason2012:
Matthew 23.9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

Parodyx:
The tired old "Call no man Father" thing. You guys really need new material. That's known as a PRATT (Previously Refuted a Thousand Times).

Amos Moses:
all i see is scripture ..... and then you say "PRATT" ..... scripture has not been refuted ..... ever ..... except by the unregenerate narcissists who are legends in their own minds and are want to believe their own propaganda ............ NUFFIN

Parodyx:
This is a good time to school you on what it means to have an interpretation of the words of scripture. Scripture also says call no man "leader" or "teacher" yet that is somehow acceptable. This is hypocrisy on a grand scale, Amos. What are we to make of the Scriptures that contradict this one? For example, in Mark 7:9-13, Jesus criticizes the Pharisees and scribes for not honoring their "fathers."
Father-son relationships are found all over the Bible. You either have to say that the Bible's contradicting itself or leave room for interpretation, in this case hyperbole in the language used. And let's not forget how many interpretations the original words have already been through.

Amos Moses:
No .... adding to scripture is forbidden .... interpretation of scripture is ADDING to scripture ..... and then it is NO LONGER scripture ........

Parodyx:
No, Amos, interpreting scripture is what you do when you read it. Your brain decides for you what the words mean. And the problem is that what your brain comes up with is going to be different from what another Christian's brain comes up with.
No one's adding anything by interpreting it.

Amos Moses:
"interpreting scripture is what you do when you read it"
NO .... when you read it .... it says what it says ..... when you "interpret it" ..... you try to make it say what you want and NOT what it said ........ so NOT scripture at that point ........

Parodyx:
Here's another dictionary definition for you, since you seem to need them so often:
INTERPRET - v. explain the meaning of (information, words, or actions)."the evidence is difficult to interpret"synonyms:explain, elucidate, expound, explicate, clarify, illuminate, shed light on

Amos Moses:
nope ...... we are not allowed to bring our "interpretation" to the word of God ...... expository reading is not interpretation ...... another synonym is exegesis ....... we do not go to the text with our preconceived notion of what it says and then come up with our theology ....... we read what it says and take our theology from it .......... the dictionary gives a general idea but it lacks specificity ..... scripture interprets scripture ....... not the dictionary ...........

CH #sexist heartiste.wordpress.com

Testosterone levels have been plummeting in Western men for at least two generations and this fact is without question. I will speculate in this post what a multigenerational, age-independent decline in T will portend for American society, should the trend not shortly reverse itself.

women will dress and act sluttier to capture the attention of increasingly benumbed men who need the services of the hardest of hardcore porn to feel aroused.
team sports will disappear.
drama club will be a required class.
politics will intensify its shift leftward because low T men will vote more like women.
the national (and psychological) borders protecting the low T men from predation will remain, for all practical purposes, open to the sewer world until, inevitably, higher T conquerors arrive in sufficient number to wipe out the low T White submissivists.
inventiveness and entrepreneurship will stagnate, and contract.
any big job or goal will demand more oversight, more paper pushing, more regulatory hurdles to overcome. the days when men gathered and made shit happen on a reasonable time frame will be over. it’ll be an HR dystopia of endless meetings all the way down to the musty cellar of the gossip mill.
corporations will turn into ghettos of bickering crones, slutty college girls, and yes-manlets. nothing will be produced but social media apps and articles about online dating. the resulting economic collapse will create a run on arable urban land as millions of useless SWPLs fight to the death for patches of communal gardens to plant their sad kale and heirloom tomatoes.
therapy and self-medication will shoot through the roof.
heart disease, cancer, and obesity will rise again (or continue the general upwards rise) among men.
the rate of infidelity will increase.
the rate of divorce will hold steady or increase (we may have hit the divorce industrial complex saturation point).
marriage will increasingly be platforms for brides to take selfies and grooms to blubber during the vows. jerkboy best men will be tasked with the job of deflowering any virgin brides remaining in the wilds as the soyfatted grooms recite lines from their favorite feminist poets.
fertility will continue declining.
the rate of cuckoldry will increase.
cat ownership will increase among men.
muscle cars will become a distant relic.
there will be vanishingly little entertainment made with a straight male sensibility in mind.
weird sexual paraphilias and fetishes will rise (those afflicted with declining libido will compensate with outlandish substitutes to bring back that lovin’ feeling).
the prevalence of sexual dysfunctions will increase.
feminism will get increasingly shrill, and male feminists increasingly servile and pathetic.
the population of basement bachelors, cat ladies and bitter spinsters will explode.
sexbots will be the only romantic companionship for half the population.
high libido men — cads — will reign supreme in the actual sexual market (what’s left of it) as opposed to the pretend sexual market that lonely feminists jabber about during their intersectionality bullshit sessions.
androgyny will become the norm.
polyandry will be common.
polygyny will be rare, but more entrenched. (the few high T men who aren’t eunuchs will have no trouble keeping de facto harems of smitten lovers satisfied and compliant)
balls, penises, jawlines, chins, noses, and musculature will literally shrink in men. ears may become floppy.
a million sociologists with shitty research papers no one has any intention of replicating will claim that beta male orbiters are our strength. they will write of the virtues of polygamy and the matriarchy, as their civilization burns down around them.
no one will ever again speak anything close to the truth about the world, about the sexes, about the races. equalist self-delusion will be taught in schools under the subject “everything but math”.
math will succumb soon afterward.
art will suck. music will suck. architecture will suck. literature will suck. this will continue a trend long evident. houellebecq may very well be our last great author.
tissue boxes will be handed out in movie theaters so that the 70-30 male-female audience may dab their eyes sitting through a full line-up of sappy rom-coms.
Mars? Uh, no. More like, the space program will be dead and the androgynes of the future will come to remember the moon landing as a myth promulgated by ancient hirsute men imprisoned in a strictly binary sexuality, who possessed a vestigial feature called a “jawline” and squinted a lot.
infrastructure will continue crumbling. instead of doing something about it, everyone will wait for the next tragedy when a bridge fails and then participate in a candlelight vigil and cry a lot. they will repeat this process until everyone is dead from preventable tragedies.
John Scalzi will be Premier of this Empire of Aromatase. His rule will not last long. Muslims, blacks, and black Muslims will overrun the Femme West and every capital will ring out with the dulcet ululations of muhammed’s flock.

Recall the Law of Gender Conservation:

?Masculinity = ?Femininity

Or, ?T = ?E, for short.

Nature abhors a testosterone vacuum. If one tribe’s men has low T, the fapuum will be filled with (in no particular order or likelihood of emergence):

invader men who have higher T
aggrocunts of man-jaw and boy-hip who have lower E (to align with the lower T of their men)
intratribe men with high T who somehow evolved an immunity against the low T disease.

Option one is genocide. Not fun.
Option two is bed death. Not fun.
Option three is our best bet for saving the West. Society will rebound as Nature, in her infinite wisdom, entrusts the low T landscape to high T spermlords who, despite feminists’ faux abhorrence to the contrary, will piledrive a wide swath through a lot of parched pussy that has spent decades lost in an anhedonic wilderness of un-men.

But if we don’t get our borders under control and stop seeding our water supply with endocrine-disrupting chemsexicals, Option Three will never have a chance to pass.

dianadepoitiers #wingnut #sexist amren.com

RE: Kiss Me Now, You Nazi! Refusing to Date Woke Women Makes You ‘Dangerous’ and ‘Far-Right’, Apparently

What about househusbands? That's a badge I happily wear.

What about them? They score between 0-1 on a 1-10 attractiveness scale .

It would drive me insane to have a househusband.

”Because that is what she WANTS to do. Feminists are not against women being housewives if they want.”

Yes they are. I cannot tell you how many nasty, hateful screeds I’ve read online about housewives. They say we’re lazy, stupid, worthless, slaves to men, etc. They only want women to do what they want, if it fits in with the liberal ideology.

Feminists resent domestic women despite lip-service to "women's choice."

Domestic women, unless rich-by-daddy, automatically depend on a man for their livelihood. This irks feminists to no end, but not because they think those women will be enslaved to a man, as folklore would have you believe; but because they know men willingly enslave themselves to those domestic wives by bringing them livelihood and protection on a platter - something an authentic Feminist could have never inspired in a man to begin with.

Because that is what she WANTS to do. Feminists are not against women being housewives if they want.

This is because:

1. Feminists are individualists, not holistic, civilization-oriented thinkers. Civilizations are not built strictly with what individuals WANT (their whims).

2. Feminists know their aggressive ideology and propaganda denigrates individual choices they personally despise anyway (Fems DO despise the housewife role and they resent women who can afford to choose this role).
Note how it is increasingly difficult for family with traditional values to choose to keep the wife in a strictly domestic role. They tell you you have a choice; but with enough women coaxed in the workplace, the provider/homemaker option becomes an unrealistic economic options for many. Only theoretical.

Generally speaking, when everyone is told that they can do whatever suits them, personally, and that their society should accommodate every individual with the widest possible array of choices - you end up with no civilization.

The bottom line is that, with very rare exceptions, most women contribute best to civilization by fulfilling reproductive and domestic roles, not "professional/technical."

Just like most men contribute best in the public sphere, not when they change diapies.

In fact, if you examine closer the so-called "workplace" (as if the domestic area is not a "workplace") most women mess around in frivolous, bureaucratic, paper-shuffling, make-work, resource-wasting, water-cooler gossiping jobs, not in value-adding jobs.

Women's value remains in the private sphere. It always has, it always will. The rare, highly competent female surgeon (or what not) can easily be replaced with an equivalent male. Keep the rare Anna Coulter in the public world - that one would probably explode if confined to domesticity.

Otherwise, it's not worth messing up your civilization for very rare individual exceptions to the rule.

Bring women back home. Make the Private Sphere Great Again!

Unfortunately, guys do not have a choice in what we want to do; same goes I suppose for most women. The 'elites' who have destroyed this once great country have made sure of that by importing tens of millions of illiterate turd worlders, ordering LE to let them run wild as they destroy the civilization that white people built over the last 500 years, and then their corporate world refuses to employ white people as anything other than fry cooks, toilet cleaners and floor sweepers. Jeff Sessions observed that 60% of all white STEM graduates never work in their field 5 years after graduation, or effectively, NEVER. This is because the corp world like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, et al employ h2b types, illegals and worse. But of course the MSM blames YT for anything that is wrong in this country. That record is getting very old and after 3 or 4 generations we have gotten wise to who is that bunch of clowns behind the curtin in the OZ throne room.

Yes. And what feminists do not want the public to understand is that when you hurt most men, you automatically hurt most women too.

Women are not attracted to weak, vulnerable, dispossessed men - whether they have enough money/power of their own or not. Just like men are not attracted to ugly, fat, fighter-type, non-feminine women.

It's nobody's fault. It's not that the sexes are mean to each other. It's what we have evolve to look for. A better world is a world where both sexes are encouraged and helped along to become the most of what the opposite sex looks for in a partner. That's kind, humane and beautiful.

It is why every young woman secretly dreams of being an inspirational princess who leaves glitter behind as she walks. It's why every guy dreams of being James Bond - who leaves bodies behind (as needed) as he walks.

Most leftist women are feminine conforming.

Originally, maybe. Increasingly less so, as feminism continues to weave its works. Most people with minimal observational acumen, who have had the chance to compare and contrast female populations in various feminist and non-feminist cultures (aka "perspective"), can recognize the subtly masculine traits of most contemporary western women when compared to women elsewhere.

Outspoken (translate loud), assertive (translate aggressive), confident (translate full-of-themselves or just nonchalant), trying hard to be funny (translate 'not funny'), cool (translate cold), comfortable and buddy-like around men (translate slutty), etc. They may wear lipstick and sport mermaid hair but their subtly masculine traits are less subtle with every decade. Western men and women are now pushed to converge in a gray area of androgyny.

Though the pretty feminine women see nothing wrong with what their non-feminie conforming sisters are doing.

Ever heard of virtue signaling? They don't want to act "judgy" because the culture says it' not cool; but I can promise you they they DO recognize plenty wrong with what their overtly non-feminine "sisters" are doing (non-feminine as in more or less butchy). On this point, this only means less sexual competition for them. Btw, there's no "sisterhood."

You appear to have little understanding of the depths of female hypocrisy and manipulation abilities.

Really? I’ve never met a feminist that didn’t double down on the lunacy and tried to emotionally castrate their sons and turn them into “feminist men”.

It can be confusing to distinguish all the conscious and subconscious motivations behind a woman's feminist identity. Not all declared feminists are created equal. There are authentic feminists (true genetic failures as women); there are popularity-driven feminists (women as herd creatures opt for what seems most popular); there are vanity-driven feminists (attention whores/ celebrities of the Me Too persuasion); there are defensive feminists (afraid of the rigors and upward pressures patriarchal societies often impose on women), etc. I'd say most female feminists fall in the latter two categories.

The popularity-driven ones usually don't know their left from right and just parrot back whatever sounds "cool" and "with it."

u/XXandangry #Sexist #Transphobia reddit.com

TIF classification project - open to feedback

While we classify TIMs as AGP and HSTS, I've noticed that there is a lack of consistent TIF typology. So, I went ahead and made one.

My sources: almost a year of undercover activity on trans forums (3 different characters, 2 TIFs, 1 TIM), 5 real life run-ins with TIFs (all types), a talk with a female victim of a predatory one, a predatory TIF in my extended family.

Warning: upsetting issues ahead - rape, fetishism, violence, mental illness

Self-hating

Motivated by societal distress caused by being female. Lesbians, tomboys and/or rape victims. The most known and arguably common type. Most of detransitioners come from this group.

Sexuality: Either homosexual (“straight” for them) or so obliterated by trauma so as to be completely non-existent (“asexual”). If not asexual, then either masochists/submissive, or “vanilla” (not perverted).

ID: Most are “men”, but there is a significant minority of those who ID as sexless (agender, nonbinary, neutrois etc.). They don’t really want to become men, as much as they want to stop being women.

Detransition rate: Very high. Feminism empowers non-conformists, lesbians, and victims, and so serves as a safe place for them to go. Furthermore, the general society views “I just wanted to be accepted” as an acceptable feminine motivation. The one exception are those who are 10+ years into it, didn’t get any nasty side effects from procedures, and have a partner and a job. They’ll stick with the devil they know.

Common mental disorders: Anorexia, dysmorphia, anxiety, depression, autism.

Interests: Vary a lot. Plenty of quiet, bookish types. Often some sort of stereotypically masculine sport. Not that many of them are otherkin or furries, but plenty are therians. They often shun stereotypically feminine hobbies they genuinely enjoy and push themselves into things men in their lives do.

Transition: Baggy clothes, short haircuts, binding breasts. Normal male or unisex names. Hormones. Mastectomy and hysterectomy are common, but phallus is usually not constructed. They mumble something about “not good enough yet”, but it’s actually because they want to desex themselves and find penises disgusting.

“Goals”: Either a normal, respectable dude, or a sexless being.

How to approach: Gentle conversation is the best. Affirm that loving women is okay, that any “masculine” interest is cool, that she didn’t deserve her assault/trauma – without calling her a woman outright. She has a lot of baggage attached to that word. Slowly build a friendly relationship, gently bring up side effects of hormones and surgeries. Once you see doubt, direct her towards detransitioners.

Kweer

Motivated by desire to be special and shallow aesthetics of the gender-special movement. Often there is a mild autoandrophilic element (caused by too much yaoi).

Sexuality: Straight (or “uwu gay boys”). Some of them identify as bisexual, but it’s hard to determine if it’s genuine bisexuality or attraction to manly men and she/her “femboys”. Fetish-wise, into a lot of weird stuff. Furries, tentacles, latex, transformation, this sort of thing, often as a switch (both the doer and the target of the act). Sometimes come across as pedophilic, due to inappropriate conduct around children, sharing NSFW information with them etc. This, however, usually comes from the “sex positive” ideology, rather than genuine pedophilia (this is more of a “predatory” thing).

ID: Actually, a minority of them are “men” (I’d say 20-30%). A lot of them call themselves half man, half woman (bigender, genderqueer etc.) or “genderfluid”.

Detransition rate: Complicated. Young and “out” only on tumblr? Will go away. 25+ and a head of a LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ organisation? Not likely to back down. With every IRL thing done in the trans direction (coming out, hormones, surgeries, legal stuff, joining organisations), the chance of detransition drops significantly.

Common mental disorders: Narcissism, borderline, schizotypal, maladaptive daydreaming, sometimes a mild form of psychosis.

Interests: Cartoons, especially anime, drawing, making jewellery (with various obscure flags, to sell on Etsy). Lots of them are otherkin – the more special, the better (fairies, dragons, deities etc.), furries are also well-represented among them. Some of them are self-proclaimed witches or “spiritual” types. Overall they have a very poor relationship with reality.

Transition: Loads of flag patches, colourful hair, either binding without packing or packing without binding (uwu androgyny). Batshit insane names, often neopronouns. Further transition varies, from all the way to “my body is a boy’s body because it belongs to a boy!” Often get tattoos and piercings.

“Goals”: Feminine bottom gay boy, handsome-but-still-pretty top yaoi boy with a hairless body of a Greek god, or a sparkling hermaphroditic alien who is adored by everyone.

How to approach: Don’t feed her delusions. Don’t give her undue attention. Allow her to talk about her gender fluctuations and kin memories, and just go “mhm”. No “omg, you’re so valid”, but no “you’re fucking crazy”. Include her in women-only spaces and events, keep her away from queer spaces/websites. Practical activities, like horse riding or camping are great ideas. The younger she is, the easier for her it will be to shake it off.

Predatory

A complicated, mostly invisible type. Born with psychopathic traits, which causes them to not socialise as female fully (as they lack empathy, enjoy hurting others etc.) and therefore relate to male culture strongly.

Sexuality: Orientation wise, all over the scale, mostly in the middle. Usually call themselves bisexual or “pansexual”, very often “aromantic” (incapable of feeling love). Sadist/dominant, with fetishes like rape, impregnation (with them in the male role), mutilation, cannibalism etc. Often pedos or into bestiality. Two huge elements in this type’s sexuality are what I’d call autohybristophilia – attraction to the image of oneself as a male killer/rapist – and corruption fetish – the fantasy of destroying someone, body and mind, and “remaking” them - they enjoy the thrill of exposing children to fetishes or “cracking eggs”.

ID: Almost all “men”.

Detransition rate: Zero, or at least very low. I've never met one that had any regret or doubt, and I've never met a detransitioner who used to be this type. They seem to more self-assured that the other types, have less interest in fitting in, women usually find their company repulsive or dangerous, mainstream society doesn't find "it got me off" a feminine motivation...

Common mental disorders: Psychopathy, various paraphilias.

Interests: There is always some strong interest in the grotesque/macabre, horror, gore etc. They like people getting hurt, and watch horror films or even real-life gore like most dudes watch porn. Some are otherkin (usually something vague like “monsterkin”, in stark contrast to kweer ones, who have entire characters), but they are less active in the community. Other interests vary wildly, they usually don’t obsessively hide “girly” interests like self-hating ones do.

Transition: Normal male fashion, packing (stuffing underwear) with or without binding. Names might be normal or batshit insane, they are usually less anal about pronouns, whatever they use. Go all the way – hormones, all surgeries etc. Very common of them to take up weightlifting and get tattoos. A lot of them use special huge strapons that transfer sensation or even ejaculate (anatomic autoandrophilia) instead of or before surgery.

“Goals”: The potential to hurt outweights aesthetics. Typically the “ideal body” has huge muscles and a big penis, but it might be very ugly or even nonhuman. Worth mentioning, this is not the same as a revenge fantasy some women (including self-hating TIFs) indulge in. That is “I don’t have power, but if I could hurt the people who hurt me, I’d have power at least over that situation”, this is “I like hurting people, and if I had power, I’d hurt them even more/without consequences”.

How to approach: sigh Tell me if you know. I'd argue it's better not to aproach them - you'll get laughed at at best, pulled into a weird mind game at worst. Stay away from them in real life. Out of 3 I met face to face, two were sex offenders and one beat me up. If one is your child - if she's really young, you might teach her empathy and emotional regulation, otherwise you're probably out of luck.

Notes:

It's possible for one to be two or all types at once. It's possible for one to pretend to be the other for various reasons. It's possible for a non-trans woman to have some traits of one or more type (if she's at risk of transition and/or a TRA ally).

There are two additional factors, both for TIMs and TIFs, - DSD/intersex conditions (which can cause weird socialisation) and actual delusions ("I'm a man on an astral plane" or "I have ovaries, but my doctor can't find them").

Hey, cynical lurkers - none of those are "true trans".

I'm open to constructive criticism.

I can talk about my experiences if you're curious.

Conservapedia #fundie conservapedia.com

* Moral depravity: The history of the atheist community and various studies regarding the atheist community point to moral depravity being a causal factor for atheism. In addition, there is the historical matter of deceit being used in a major way to propagate atheism from the time of Charles Darwin onward. Also, Bible exegesis points to the moral depravity of atheists. Moral depravity is certainly one of the prime causes of atheism.

* Rebellion: Atheism stems from a deliberate choice to ignore the reality of God's existence [1] (If there was a God, there wouldn't be so much suffering.)[2]

* Superficiality: Noted ex-atheist and psychologist Dr. Paul Vitz has stated that he had superficial reasons for becoming an atheist such as the desire to be accepted by his Stanford professors who were united in disbelief regarding God.[3]


* Error: Some argue that atheism partly stems from a failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts [4]

* State churches: In regards to the causes of atheism, rates of atheism are much higher in countries with a state sanctioned religion (such as many European countries), and lower in states without a sanctioned religion (such as the United States). Some argue this is because state churches become bloated, corrupt, and/or out of touch with the religious intuitions of the population, while churches independent of the state are leaner and more adaptable. It is important to distinguish "state-sanctioned churches," where participation is voluntary, from "state-mandated churches" (such as Saudi Arabia) with much lower atheism rates because publicly admitted atheism is punishable by death. [5]

* Poor relationship with father: Some argue that a troubled/non-existent relationship with a father may influence one of the causes of atheism.[6] Dr. Paul Vitz wrote a book entitled Faith of the Fatherless in which he points out that after studying the lives of more than a dozen leading atheists he found that a large majority of them had a father who was present but weak, present but abusive, or absent.[7][8] Dr. Vitz also examined the lives of prominent theists who were contemporaneous to their atheist counterparts and from the same culture and in every instance these prominent theists had a good relationship with his father.[9] Dr. Vitz has also stated other common factors he observed in the leading atheists he profiled: they were all intelligent and arrogant.[10]

* Division in religion: According to Francis Bacon, atheism is caused by "divisions in religion, if they be many; for any one main division addeth zeal to both sides, but many divisions introduce atheism." [11]

* Learned times, peace, and prosperity: Francis Bacon argued that atheism was partly caused by "Learned times, specially with peace and prosperity; for troubles and adversities do more bow men’s minds to religion."[12] Jewish columnist Dennis Prager has stated that one of the causes of atheism is the "secular indoctrination of a generation." [13] Prager stated that "From elementary school through graduate school, only one way of looking at the world – the secular – is presented. The typical individual in the Western world receives as secular an indoctrination as the typical European received a religious one in the Middle Ages.[14]

* Negative experiences with theists.
* Scientism: Science has in many ways become a new God. [15]

* Personal tragedy: For example, the death of a loved one (One's mother, father, husband or wife, etc.) can shake someone's religious belief severely, sometimes enough for them to lose it.

spudman #conspiracy cropcirclelanguage.webs.com

The history of the human races origins is complex and I have researched many different sources to come up with the truth. According to Alex Collier from his book Defending Sacred Ground, the human race first arrived in this galaxy (The Milky Way) from another galaxy entirely. The aliens that Collier is in contact with which call themselves the Andromedans, say that some 185 billion human beings live in the 8 galaxies closest to us. Humans first arrived in the Lyra star system of this galaxy many millions of years ago. Later on the Draconian forces arrived and attacked the home system of Lyara. This information can also be independently corroborated/verified by some of the men that worked with the Montauk project and Philadelphia experiment, such as Stewart Swerdlow, Preston B. Nichols, Al Bielek, and others. (Al Bielek has mentioned how he actually worked face to face with a Draconian reptilian in the underground base of Montauk).

The Andromedans speak of the planet Maldek which was the 5th planet from our sun in the far past. The humans that lived there (the Maldekians) destroyed their world in a nuclear war and turned their planet into the Asteroid belt that now exists between Mars and Jupiter. The souls from Maldek are all largely service to self and based upon the negative polarity. It is those souls that were the leaders of the planet Maldek that have become the Rothchilds and ruling human elite of present day Earth.

Margaret Storm in her book The Return of the Dove, mentions these same Maldekians. She calls them the Lagers, and says that some 19 million years ago the Earth people decided to take in the souls from Maldek, since the Maldekians had destroyed their world and were living on some of the Asteroids that still existed. It was hoped that the lager souls upon arriving here on Earth/Terra would forget their old ways and begin to finally start evolving/progressing upward into the light, instead of regressing backward into the darkness. Needless to say, the lagers have helped pull things downward here on earth since their arrival.

The Andromedians in contact with Alex Collier mention that the first humans to arrive on earth was a little over 700 thousand years ago, so obviously there is some differences in information between Collier and Storm. Storm has met with various men who worked with Nikola Tesla, like Otis T. Carr and Arthur H. Mathews. Colliers sources say that the Reptilians actually arrived here on Earth first at about 800 thousand years.

Stewart Swerdlows information might differ a little again, but its more or less in line with what Collier says.

The alien race that was in contact with Billy Meier gave him information that also corroborates a great deal with Colliers info.

Here is a brief summary of what has happened in our Galaxy starting with our own races arrival at about 40 million years ago.

The original human race is called the Elohim and lived in a star system called the Lyra system. They hold the original genetic template for our species in its pure and whole form.

The original home system of Lyra and starting place of the human species was on a planet that was very close to the great central sun in the center of our galaxy. The intelligent reptilian species (which call themselves the Draconians) were first seeded in an area around the great cental black hole. The two existed independently until the Draconians eventually came to the Lyra system and waged war.

At that moment the Elohim were fragmented into many different groups that scattered across the galaxy and evolved in time to become many other races (like the Andromedians, the Pleadians and others) but not all of the original race of Elohim were penitrated by the Draconians. Many worlds could not be harmed and have maintained the original genetics in their pure state even now to this day. Some of the souls on the worlds that fell eventually ended up on earth in our present time. The original souls of the Elohim and Dracos are known as the first wave or generation of intelligent life in this galaxy system. All the souls that were born after the first contact and war are second generation souls. They are younger and tend to have less wisdom as a result.

We are now at a time where the entire galaxy has stagnated as all possibilities have been explored for the original set of variables that were established at the very begining of this galactic creation. A redrawing has begun which will culminate in a new set of primary blueprints being born.

It has all been a day in the life of the creator.

Jason G #fundie theologyweb.com

... the fact of these prophecies aren’t getting through to you. You explain away sound exegesis with opinions. Therefore, it isn’t wise to continue doing honest research and spending considerable effort in trying to convince you about the prophecy regarding Tyre.

Tall Timbers #fundie rr-bb.com

It's interesting that the EU has had such a difficult time throughout it's short history. Regular people are pushing back now at some of the decisions of the Brussels technocrats, decisions that have had a negative impact on their countries and on their individual lives. It is quite normal for people to push back when change comes to quickly.

We know that someday this world will be subdued under a global government ultimately led by the antichrist. The world will be carved up into ten regions for governance. Europe will most assuredly be one of those 10 regions. When that time comes, people won't have a say as to whether or not they want to stay or go. It's nice, right now, that people still do.

Biblical prophecy is without error and will come to pass. There has always been some disagreement among students of the Word regarding how things will unfold. They won't unfold based upon our news exegesis, but in accordance with the Word. I think clarity will come as things come to pass.

It's exciting that we appear to be living towards the very end of this era. While today the EU is probably losing GB and may see other departures, the things that happen tomorrow could turn the world on its head and thrust us to the very end of this era, the era preceding Tribulation. World Wars I and II brought dramatic changes and something could happen tomorrow to instigate a dramatic change. I brought us the League of Nations. II brought us the United Nations. At some point the world will be under the thumb of technocrats' dream: a single global government, sovereign.

singwell-is back but taking it easy #fundie answerbag.com

[This was in reply to: Do you believe in god?"]

Yes, because of Jesus. We can know without doubt that the Gospel records give an accurate summary of his life and teachings (textual criticism/ confirmation from other contemporary documents). He made many claims to be God:
eg
I and the Father are One
He who has seen me has seen the Father
Before Abraham was, I am.
Only God can forgive sins (and Jesus did)
Only God can calm the storm (and he did)
etc
Now if Jesus made these claims there are three possibilities:
1)He was lying- in which case, he was not a good person, not a good teacher
2)He was a lunatic- I might as well follow The Great Poached Egg
3) He was who he said he was :Lord and God.

Morris Dancer #fundie gendertrender.wordpress.com

That’s a little illusory, because the trans movement is itself a fundamentally conservative re-assertion of straight male dominance, in dress-up form.

The only way in which it diverges from traditional heterosexism is that these particular straight men are full-on sexual fetishists, who are publicly very exhibitionistic with their kinks.

I would be happy to align myself with the traditional Right against that aspect of transgenderism, while rejecting transgender politics as a particularly aggressive form of male, heterosexist intrusion into the lives of women, children, lesbians and homosexual men (I use the term “homosexual men” because being one myself, I think we need to rediscover that term – it emphasises that sexual orientation is about sex, not “gender”).

The best way to make sure that homosexual people aren’t carried along by the transgender train wreck is to disassociate ourselves from them as much as possible, and to make it clear to our “dear leaders” in all the “official” LGB bodies that we reject their support of transgender, genderqueer and all its associated misogynistic, anti-homosexual bullshit.

Matt Forney #sexist mattforney.com

I am smarter than nearly all the girls I’ve ever known.

That’s not arrogance talking: it’s the truth. Out of all the girls I’ve known, maybe three were at least as smart as me, and of that three, one is more intelligent than me. All the rest were my intellectual inferiors. I don’t hold it against them; in fact, when I run across girls who tout their “intelligence,” I feel nauseous, like I’m dealing with a pack of overeager Mormon missionaries.

One of the most dangerous delusions of modern America is the idea that girls are desirable because of how smart they are. Indeed, the idea that intelligent girls even exist in significant numbers is ridiculous. Puffed up by you-go-grrl propaganda from the media, their heads filled with lies from the universities, every girl who can spell her own name suddenly thinks she’s Einstein. Worst of all, girls think that being able to spell their own names entitles them to a good man, even when they’re bossy, defiant and lacking in feminine graces.

This is laughable.

The reality is that truly intelligent females are rare, and most girls who consider themselves “smart” are not. More importantly, the idea that men should find female intelligence attractive is as preposterous as expecting them to find hermaphroditism sexy. A girl’s most important aspects will always be her beauty, her charm and her willingness to please, with intelligence so far down the list that it might as well not be on the list.

Yet thanks to white knights artificially pumping up the egos of every girl in America, men are made to feel like freaks for considering a girl’s bust size to be more important than her ability to regurgitate Marxist tripe.

Here are my reasons why female intelligence is a fraud.
1. Few girls are actually intelligent.

This is the most important thing to know: intelligence is largely a masculine attribute. IQ testing has consistently shown that while men and females have the same mean intelligence, men have a wider standard deviation while females cluster around the middle. In layman’s terms, this means that there are more intelligent men than there are intelligent girls. At the same time, it also means that there are more unintelligent men then unintelligent girls, which is why the short bus tends to be a sausage fest. The “dumb bimbo” stereotype is a fiction invented by ugly girls.

Turns out that “boys go to Jupiter to get more stupider, girls go to college to get more knowledge” was at least half true.

This is why it’s a waste of time for smart men to cast about for a girl who is their intellectual equal: she simply doesn’t exist. You have a better chance of talking Zooey Deschanel and Ellen Page into a threesome than finding a girl who can match you in knowledge, life experience and all-around brains. You do find the occasional woman who can hold her own with men, but these exceptions don’t disprove the rule, any more than the existence of Kim Peek disproves the fact that most autistics are hand-flapping retards.

What’s really awful about this situation is that the mainstream media, invested in hiding the truth, blame men for not being able to find the right girl. “You’re looking in the wrong places.” “Intelligent, classy girls don’t hang out at bars.” “Maybe you just attract the wrong kinds of people.” They can’t simply admit that females are the passive sex, built for raising babies and not much else, because doing so might hurt girls’ self-esteem… and we can’t very well have that, now can we?
2. Girls are intellectually inferior.

Several months ago, I was on Twitter killing time when some teenage girl started sending rude and insulting Tweets at me because she was offfeeennnded at my article on why most girls shouldn’t bother going to college. I initially ignored her, but when she continued to harass me, touting her “4.0 GPA” and how smart she was, I clicked through to her profile and did a little research. Turns out that this oh-so-intelligent young lady was spending $58,000 a year to major in acting. Furthermore, while she was not unattractive—she had a good bone structure, a cute face and huge… tracts of land—she was at least twenty pounds overweight, so several of my followers started calling her fat. What was her response?

She started sending pictures of herself to me in an attempt to prove she wasn’t fat.

This girl wasn’t stupid; she was clearly four or five points above the mean female IQ. But not only did she massively overrate her intelligence, she was unwilling to accept that maybe, just maybe, she had made some poor choices in life.

That is the modern “intelligent” girl; an intellectual vacuum. Her life one great big fraud from beginning to end. Despite her vaunted “smarts” and her belief that she can “do anything,” she doesn’t major in math, engineering, computer programming or any discipline that requires actual work. No, she picks a soft major like English, education or ethnic studies, where there are no standards and you can pass any nonsense in for a grade so long as you sound authoritative. She rationalizes her choices by saying that she wants to “help the children” or she’s “interested in learning,” despite the fact that all American education does is teach people to memorize Marxist nonsense and repeat it back word for word.

Claiming that girls are intelligent because they earn the majority of degrees is like saying that parrots are intelligent because the majority of them can mimic human speech.

When she graduates, assuming she isn’t spat right back into the service industry, she’ll go to work as a government bureaucrat, HR commissar, paralegal or other profession that contributes nothing to society. She’ll complain about the pay gap even as she takes every day off she can because her “head hurts” or she “needs some time off with the girls.” She’ll whine about the lack of girls in management roles even as she plans to quit her job when she has kids… but not until she’s in her thirties, of course.

After all, she wants to “have fun” first and “get it out of [her] system” before she settles down.

But it’s in her choice of hobbies that the modern “smart” girl truly exposes her vacuity. She doesn’t spend her free time reading science textbooks or perfecting her chess game: she TiVoes Teen Mom and obsesses over Lena Dunham’s cleavage. If she reads books at all, she limits herself to trashy mainstream thrillers like The Hunger Games or textual pornography like Twilight. Her weekends are spent pumping chumps for peach daiquiris at the dive bar and getting pumped by every stud who stirs her loins. Even so-called “nerd girls” are phonies, as their “nerdiness” extends to playing video games once in a blue moon or re-Tweeting charlatans like Neil deGrasse Tyson.

The only thing separating her from a ghetto baby momma is the ability to form complete sentences.

Face it: the vast majority of girls are as hollow as a drum. The three or four surplus IQ points that college-educated girls have are wasted on them, because all they’re used for is rationalizing a life of mindless consumption and sluttiness. If the modern West is a cesspool, girls are its most devoted coprophages, gulping down runny diarrhea by the bucketload with forced smiles on their faces.
3. Girls know that their “intelligence” is a lie.

As loudly as they brag about their “strength” and “independence,” girls know inside that their credentials are worthless in the eyes of men. Go back to that chubby acting major who started insulting me on Twitter. Me pointing out that her degree was worthless didn’t faze her, nor did my reminding her that she was wasting sixty grand a year for it. It was calling her fat—insulting her looks—that wounded her most deeply.

And she was so insecure that she resorted to begging for validation from me, a man she considered a “misogynist.”

The vagina is the perfect representation of the nature of females. An empty vessel, a hole, a void with no identity of its own. Without a man to fill her with his essence, she is as useless as a crabapple rotting on the sidewalk. Only by taking that essence deep inside her can she mature and become the woman she was meant to be. And filled with the wrong essence, she becomes an intellectual Typhoid Mary, mindlessly infecting others with her diseases of the mind.

That’s the problem with girls today: they’re so full of bullshit that their eyeballs are brown.

That bullshit is pumped into their skulls by men. Every advance in “women’s rights” occurs only because men allow it to occur. Women’s suffrage was only passed into law in the U.S. because leftist Protestants in the Republican Party wanted to ensure an electoral majority for Prohibition and other “social purity” policies. Sexual liberation only happened in the sixties because cowardly draft-dodging hippies, knowing they could not compete with real men for the affections of feminine women, encouraged girls to slut it up so they could get laid. The mass entry of girls into college and the workforce was instigated by corporate capitalists in order to drive down wages and smash workers’ rights.

If at any point, men had collectively told girls no, they would have quieted down and gone back to the kitchen like they were told.

So it is with the myth of female intelligence. Girls believe they are smart, worldly and cultured because men lie and white knight for them. The gelded father telling his little princess that she can be whatever she wants to be, the slack-wristed orbiter who writes sweet nothings on her Facebook posts, the hipster nancyboy who claims he wants an “equal”: they are the enemy. Without them, the Katerinas of America would gladly kneel to their Petruchios. Because these genetic discards cannot compete with legitimate men, they encourage degeneracy in the vain hope of getting their dicks wet.

Spraying the hollyhocks with lye is the only way they can propagate their diseased seed.

As men, it is our responsibility to bring girls back to their proper place. To lead them into their natural roles as wives and mothers. We men do not choose or reward girls for their clown college degrees, their meaningless cubicle jobs, or their supposed “intelligence.” We reward them for their willingness to please us and make us happy, and in doing so make themselves happy. No amount of phony education or career “success” will scratch that deep itch in a girl’s soul: the desire to serve a man.

Not a “guy,” not a “male”: a man.

Inside every Strong, Independent Woman™ is a suppliant girl yearning to break free. I say we give that girl a hand.

Martin #fundie premier.org.uk

(=A rant against a Progresisve Christian Website=)

That you are not a Christian is illustrated by this post.

From PATHetic thEOS

1. "We embrace the many variations of the view expressed by many great Christian thinkers that “We take the Bible too seriously, to read it all literally.”

Really, this sounds like an excuse to make up your own opinion as to what is good and bad rather than accept what the Bible says.

2. "We don’t think that God wrote the Bible. We think it was written by fallible human beings who were inspired by (not dictated to by) the Holy Spirit. Hence, we don’t consider it to be infallible or inerrant."

Then why bother with the Bible at all? After all, you are so much more clever than those who wrote it and know so much more. You even know more than Jesus who clearly did regard the Bible as infallible.

3. "While we’re aware of the many inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible; and while we’re abhorred by, and reject, the various instances of horrible theology that appear here and there within the texts (e.g., passages that posit God as wrathful, vindictive, and condoning of slavery, and even “ordering” rape and genocide, etc.), they don’t cause us to reject the Bible, rather, they endear us to the Bible. Not because we agree with those passages, but because we recognize that they are fully human – they’re authentic, they’re down to earth, and they flat out convey the desperate and very real frustration, lament, and anger that are part of the human condition. The fact that such passages were allowed to be written into our holy scriptures are evidence of a mature people who realize that it’s best not to hide our dirty laundry or to deny our very real human feelings and passions. If the Bible were all about PR propaganda, they would have edited out those passages. We view those passages as exceptions to the over-arching message of the Bible of promoting unconditional love and the full inclusion and acceptance of all of God’s children. Indeed, while we wish those passages weren’t there, they actually help us to grant authority to the Bible in that we can see that was written by fellow humans who are struggling with real life and death matters of injustice, oppression. And since they make space for our need to vent and rage – we honor the Bible all the more for it honors our shadow sides – and that honoring is what allows for the possibility of our shadows being transformed and integrated in healthy ways."

So in other words, as above, you take out the bits you like and reject those you don't like. You seem to think that all mankind is God's children, reading the Bible should have taught you that this is not so. Would you consider Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot God's children? And BTW there are no " inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible".

4. "We read the Bible prayerfully. We agree with our conservative brothers and sisters that the Holy Spirit helps us to interpret what we need to read as we read."

To read the Bible in this way you first have to be a Christian, you have to be willing to listen to God. Your previous points have demonstrated that this is not the case so you cannot claim to receive the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

5. "We seek to apply full attention to Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience (and that includes the insights of contemporary science)."

Remember, much of contemporary science is just the opinions of fallible men. It is not without reason that it is spoken of as the best current understanding, tomorrow it might be different. And when it becomes different, you will have to change your theology. What you really mean is that you place your opinion as the authority and accept anything in Scripture that matches up to that.

6. "We realize that there is no “objective, one, right way” to interpret a passage – and we recognize that there is no reading of any text – including the Bible – that doesn’t involve interpretation. We also realize that each person interprets the text via their own personal experiences, education, upbringing, socio-political context, and more."

In other words you can make the Bible mean whatever you want.

...

7. "We do our best to read the biblical texts in their original languages (Hebrew and koine Greek) – and consult scholars and others to assist us. We also tend to look at several English translations – and by no means limiting ourselves to the King James version – which, while the best English version in conveying the beautiful poetry of the original languages, is based upon inferior manuscripts."

That's pretty pointless when you are clearly manipulating the text to mean what you want it to mean. Indeed, why bother with the Bible at all?

8. "We consider the best available Biblical scholarship from those who study it academically and professionally (and they’re generally fellow Christians and/or Jews)."

And by best, it seems, you mean those who agree with you.

9. "We seek to read passages in context – within their chapter, within their book, within their genre, and within the over-arching thrust of the Bible."

Doesn't this conflict with your need to be the master, or is it that you manipulate the context to fit what you want it to mean.

10. "We seek to read the passages with consideration of the historical socio-political contexts, frequently of oppression, which they were written in."

This, of course, manipulates 9, above. What you mean is that you use all sorts of unproven ideas to modify what the text says so it suits you.

11. "We employ a hermeneutic of compassion, love, and justice. (Which Jesus utilized). A hermeneutic is “an interpretive lens” and intentional filter. The hermeneutic of love seeks to see the forest for the trees and that allows the spirit of the law to trump the letter of the law (which Jesus modeled[sic])."

And what hermeneutic was Jesus using when He said:

And then will I declare to them, I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.
(Matthew 7:23 [ESV])

And this is just a way of modifying the meaning to fit your prejudices.

12. "We also tend to employ a “canon within the canon” lens whereby we give greater weight and priority to certain texts over others. A canon is an officially established collection of books that are revered by a given community – for Protestants, that refers to the 66 books of the Bible. In my case, I give greatest weight to Mark, Luke, Matthew, John (in that order), certain letters that Paul actually wrote (as opposed to the Pastoral Epistles which he didn’t), the Prophets, and the Psalms. I interpret the other books of the Bible according to how they jibe and are in sync with these primary texts. Many progressive Christians refer to themselves as “Matthew 25 Christians” (referring to the test for who Jesus says is in or isn’t in the Kingdom by what they do or don’t do), “Sermon on the Mount Christians” (stressing their seeking to prioritize those teachings as central); or as “Red Letter Christians” (indicating that they give greatest weight to the words attributed to Jesus)."

So in other words, you place the books that say things you don't like low down on the list. What a dishonest way of reading the Bible.

13. "We also seek to allow “scripture to interpret scripture.” Here’s an example regarding how to interpret “the sin of Sodom”:
The Bible interprets itself regarding the story of Sodom in Ezekiel 16:49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. And Jesus himself supports the view that the sin of Sodom was their lack of hospitality and hesed (loving-kindness) in Matthew 10:9 “Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your belts— no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep. Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.”

And the result of Sodom's sin was that they were sliding down that slippery slope we see in Romans 1:18-32.

14. "We follow Jesus’ example in being willing to reject certain passages & theologies in the Bible and to affirm other ones. (He did it a lot)"

Really, would you like to give us an example?

15. "We do as much of the above as we can with fellow Christians in community with others. We avoid doing it solely as a solo endeavor. (We also tend to be open to doing this in community with Jews and Muslims, as fellow “people of the Book” whose insights are often invaluable)"

So you don't seek the opinions of those who love God, but rather look for people who agree with you, even unbelievers.

16. "We repeat these steps frequently as new information and scholarship comes in. Knowing that we will always find something that we hadn’t noticed before each time that we do this."

And always ensuring that we look for those in agreement with us.

Sun Goddess #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Aryan Women Were Originally Androgynous Neanderthals. Big Revelation about NWO/Khazars etc.

Men were a later creation, stemming from mixing Yeti blood with Aryan/vampire blood.


You are all brainwashed shills, the world has always been run by global pagan cults, and Christianity and Statism were always the same thing.

Jesus is an androgynous archetype.

Romans+Jews killing Jesus, means killing androgyny and becoming men (romans) and women (jews), hence "Romeo and Juliet".

You are all being manipulated by the mystery schools, they want you to find out and expose them, because that's part of the game.

Because you all take life too SIRIUSly, you can never even fathom that to be true, because as will be proven, at least 2-3 drama queens will claim this is disinfo to take away your soul.

If you all could learn to not act like weirdos, the world could unite, without NWO neo-liberal BS, and we could all live in peace.

That will happen, but not because of any of you, why?

Because you crave and love the drama, and love being able to scapegoat superior people for your problems.

We have studied human minds since we invented you vile devils, and don't be fooled by our soft-talking front men, we are far tougher and smarter than all of you.

Vampires are a variation of an aquatic species that mixed with neanderthal, mythologized as Nommo,Dagon etc.

Modern civilization starts with the clovis comet from Orion, hitting North America 13,000 years ago.

The inhabitants at the time, native Siberians, later spread out and became Turks(yes Khazars, etc.), Native Americans, Siberians, Huns/Asians etc.

All the shit you guys wanna know, is already known.

No one owes you anything, and if you weren't all so in love with war and drama, you could know everything.

Who of you will lead other GLPers, say enough is enough, and start advocating for unity by choice, not division by force?

unknown #fundie christiannewswire.com

Best and Worst Developments Affecting the Family in 2008

Worldwide the most encouraging pro-family trends are:

1. Sarah Palin, Pro-life Woman Is Vice Presidential Nominee

2. Vatican Panel Issues Instructions on Bioethics

3. Lithuania Bill Would Protect Minors From Homosexual Agitation

4. Honduran Family-Perspective Law

5. Proposition 8 Passes In California

6. Greater Awareness of Demographic Winter

7. UN Study Links Abstinence and Delayed Rates of AIDS/HIV in Africa

8. British Psychiatrists' Group Says Abortion Can Cause Mental Problems

9. Family Advocate Becomes Senior Advisor to Canadian Prime Minister

10. Anti-Human Trafficking Law Passed

And the most troubling trends for the family are:

1. The Election of Barack Obama

2. Mexican Supreme Court Backs Mexico City Abortion Law

3. Luxembourg and Washington State Legalize Assisted Suicide

4. German Persecution of Home-Schooling Families

5. OAS Passes "Sexual-Orientation" Resolution

6. Brazilian President Calls Opposition to Homosexuality A "Perverse Disease"

7. UNFPA Nigeria meeting Pushes Abortion In The Guise of Women's Health

8. In France, Most Births Out-of-Wedlock

9. Australian Prof. Proposes Baby Tax

10. Queen's Representative In Canada Celebrates Androgyny

E W. Jackson #conspiracy rightwingwatch.org

Religious Right preacher E.W. Jackson dedicated a good portion of his radio program yesterday to laying out his theory that men wearing earrings is the result of a liberal effort to emasculate black men.

Jackson asserted that in the 1980s, an “androgyny movement” emerged that sought to convince people that “the coolest thing was to be neither male nor female.” One of the ramifications of this effort, he claimed, is that there is now a “fad,” especially among black men, that “has come into vogue of men wearing these great big ol’ diamond earrings in both ears.” Jackson argued that this is a trend that is “emasculating men” and “denying men their masculinity.”

“I’m not saying that men who wear that kind of stuff are homosexual,” Jackson declared. “I just think that they don’t realize that they’ve gotten caught up in a movement and they don’t understand what the movement is really trying to achieve.”

Jackson asserted that the “androgyny movement” and modern efforts to combat “toxic masculinity” were started by racist white liberals in order to emasculate and feminize black men.

“I really believe that white liberals in particular are much more comfortable with effeminate black men,” he said. “I really believe that and I think that does go back to the myth of the hyper-animalistic sexual black male. Because I really believe that the real racism in America today is to be found in the precincts of white liberals because they really have decided they know what it means to be black better than black people know and if you meet their criteria, then you are okay. And if you do not, they’re going to do everything they can to destroy you. I’m a personal living witness of that. So I think they really don’t like black people unless they fit the mold that they have created for them, which, to me, is no different than slavery and Jim Crow.”

“I really believe that that stuff is primarily directed to black men that liberals want to emasculate because they don’t want them thinking for themselves, they don’t want them standing up for themselves, they don’t want them being themselves,” Jackson said. “They want them to fit the mold that the liberal ideology has prescribed for them. Now, folks, by any definition you want to create, that’s racist.”

CH #sexist heartiste.wordpress.com

[Seriously I kinda wonder why this guy was a PUA in the first place]

Other effects of low T on a nation’s men:

leftist politics
vocal fry
uptalk
esssra klein
manboobs
john scalzi
beta orbiting
grinding incel
male feminists
experimental homosexuality
bad taste in, well, everything
androgyny in look and attitude
cuckoldry and miscegenation
marathon running
carbface
interracial adoption
anti-trumpism
open borders
antifa
vidgya gaming-induced deep vein thrombosis
protruding nipples (very disrespectful)
anal play and anal play accessories
math class is hard
intersectionality
shia lapoofter
fake news
NPR
tranny “rights”
butt-kicking babes
equalism
haven monahan (and other fake rape fantasies)
patton oswalt
talmudic sophistry
barack obama
hypocrisy
disloyalty
snark
censorship
literal bending over backwards for invading hordes of higher fertility ingrates
social justice posturing
“toxic masculinity” (the irony)

As you can see, chronically low T on both the individual and societal level is almost entirely downside. Bullying decreases. Maybe you could call that an upside. I wouldn’t.

Sara Crawley and Rebecca Willman #fundie journals.sagepub.com

[Bolding is mine; I filed this under FSTDT rather than SSTDT because even with the radical feminist ideas, it doesn't seem to hate any particular sex]

Heteronormativity made me lesbian: Femme, butch and the production of sexual embodiment projects

Queer theory argues that ruling heteronormative discourses are productive of sexualities. How then does heteronormativity produce lesbians? We theorize femme and butch as sexual embodiment projects—processual, relational responses to patriarchal heteronormativity incessantly textually threaded throughout our lives. Drawing on radical feminisms updated with Foucault and Dorothy Smith, we offer autoethnographic accounts of our sexual embodiments of butch and femme, arguing not that rape experiences, but the constant threat of rape in everyday life can produce lesbian desire and embodiment. Ultimately, we understand sexual embodiment as not based on a fixed ontological ground but always in the relational, everyday doings of people and, hence, malleable within the social context, discursive moment, and individual intersections of one’s life within relations of power (gender, race, class, religiosity, nationality, and so on).

Lady Checkmate #fundie disqus.com

Lady Checkmate's headline: "A Short Primer on the Bible and Homosexual Practice By Michael Brown"

Here's a brief primer, along with some helpful resources.

1) Every single reference to homosexual practice in the Bible is categorically negative.

2) There is not one positive reference to homosexual practice in the Bible nor one positive example of a homosexual relationship.

3) There is not one single archaeological or textual or linguistic discovery that has been made in the last 50 or 100 years that would alter our understanding of the Bible and homosexuality.

4) When Moses condemned homosexual practice, it was not for Israel alone (in contrast, say, with the food laws). Instead, it was unlawful for the Israelites because it was unlawful for all.

5) Although Jesus did not need to clarify his stance on homosexual practice, since it was clearly forbidden by first-century Judaism, he addressed it in at least three different ways, reaffirming marriage as the union of one man and one woman for life.

6) Paul stated plainly that male and female homosexual acts were contrary to God's design in creation.

7) Paul also stated that those who practice homosexuality would not enter the kingdom of God. He also stated that, just as there were former adulterers and fornicators and drunkards, all of whom had been forgiven and cleansed by the blood of Jesus, there were also former practitioners of homosexuality.

8) Though the Bible does not directly speak to the question of "sexual orientation" (a relatively new concept), it does tell us that the entire human race is fallen and flawed, in need of a Redeemer. And while the Scriptures do not state that anyone is "born gay," the Scriptures do tell us that all human beings must be "born again."

9) Ancient Jewish traditions that may have been known in Jesus' day claim that one reason God destroyed the world in Noah's day was because of homosexual marriage.

10) The ancient Greek world in which Paul lived was familiar with long-term homosexual relationships, homosexual "marriages" and even entertained questions about homosexual desires being innate.

11) Jesus died for homosexual and heterosexual alike, offering forgiveness, redemption and new life to all.

12) Jesus did not practice affirmational inclusion—meaning, He did not meet sinners where they were and affirm them in their sin. Rather, He practiced transformational inclusion—meaning, He met sinners where they were and transformed them.

CAN YOU BE GAY AND CHRISTIAN?
https://youtu.be/5l_GY6mXgQg

TESTIMONIES FROM EX-GAYS
https://youtu.be/VKSFPdyH8x4

Don't forget to RECOMMEND. Lets get the Truth out so that Light may shine bright in this dark place and Jesus Christ may be glorified. Even if the discussion is closed, please still RECOMMEND. May God bless you and keep you.

Connie Cline #fundie christiannews.net

[Obama] is a muslim. Like I said if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck. He doesn't even want his birth certificate known. That should tell you something about him. He's trying to cover up so much, but the Bible says Be sure your sins will find you out. God is not mocked. God is in control. Not allah. I will be glad when 2016 comes when we can vote him out, unless he gets impeached first. That surely would be a blessing to the United States of America.

Gunner Q #sexist dalrock.wordpress.com

Nope, totally helpless is good. Men say “I love you”, women say “I need you”.

“Take some deep breaths and walk around for a while, then please try to explain why you are so upset by women using tools around the home.”

You want my personal motivation? Buckle up. I live in a society where women are so safe and provided for, they have zero need for unsexy men like me. Guess what? If Barbie doesn’t need me then she doesn’t want me. She marries Welfare and rides the carousel until the Wall hits and leaves her a burned-out waste of a human soul, while I starve for sex and get treated by society like a drone.

I lose. She loses. My country burns.

Does it bother you that I want to spook women into good behavior? To push their faces in the facts of how much that fish needs a bicycle? To sabotage their ability to survive without a man around? I want to do it because it works. The Democrats have been scaring women into obedience for decades with great success. Even Christ did no less when He repeatedly warned us of Hell. Women are creatures of fear. Fear motivates women in healthy directions. Taking away her fear is like taking away a man’s courage. The result is loathsome, unmotivated androgyny.

I live in Androgyny, USA. The men are allowed little chance to strive & succeed, or even trade friendly punches, eventually slouching into parodies of masculinity such as lumbersexuals. The women fear nothing and therefore stop exerting themselves, inflating like pool toys, their minds devolving to a level of stimulus-response that would shame a worm. How did we get here? Safety first! Barbie must always be safe!

Either we frighten women into marrying early and young, ripping away every “I don’t need no man” crutch possible, and in the process giving men the chance to be heroes, or the West will continue its decline into a matriarchal slum of men checked out on video games and women checked out on social media. Neither wanting to live in this Brave New World of safe spaces.

That’s why I don’t want Barbie to feel safe, to be competent in my absence. She is a woman and therefore, the price of respecting a Beta like me is living in a constant state of mild fear to which I am the answer. So be it. I will be her hero and she will be my cheerleader with benefits. I can rent domestic servants. I can’t rent admiration and respect.

That is Christ’s own attitude, right there. He doesn’t want us because we’re useful. He wants us because we’re grateful.

Thank you, that needed saying.

Dr. Gail Riplinger #fundie jesusisprecious.org

Greek Grammars and Lexicons Don't Teach Greek—They Teach Unbelief!

Young Bible school students are given an assignment to translate a portion of a book of the Bible. A floodgate of lexical definitions and textual variants soon pours into their souls. Each student's translation is bound to be different as, “Every man did that which was right in his own eye” (Judges 17:6). By changing the Bible the young men have just destroyed their weapon of defence, the Word of God, which is the Sword of the Spirit. They have lost the most important thing in the world, even more important than their lives. THEY HAVE LOST CONFIDENCE IN THE HOLY BIBLE [emphasis added].

Had a fellow student handed them drugs or pornography, the sword of the Spirit, their Bibles, would have helped them keep it at bay. But if the Devil can take away their swords, they are defenseless from any attack. The gullible young men may travel through life and never use drugs, steal, or kill anyone, but once he begins questioning the Bible, he has succumbed to the very same sin that tempted Adam and Eve, led to the downfall of the entire human race, and turned the garden of Eden into the garden of weedin.' The professor may just as well have shown the students pornography and proclaimed, “The 'original' Eve actually looked like this. Your wife's version is inferior.” Lexicons have the exact same destructive effect and are, in effect, 'Christian' pornography.

Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth, the Bible students, so led, will continue to collect software and book$ “to make one wise” and “be as gods, knowing,” more than God has directly said in His Word. They have now joined the serpent's side with the battle cry, “Yea, hath God said...?” The AIDS disease was originally called GRID (Gay Related Immune Disorder). Another GRID (Greek Related Immune Disorder) contaminates students, lowering their immunity to heresy.

If a doctor told a student he had cancer cells, even though the young man could not foresee their future destructive power, he would be unwise not to have removed them. Removing such cankered professors and textbooks from arms reach of impressionable young men seems to be God's safest plan. “And their word will eat as doeth a canker...” (2 Tim. 2:17).

National Union Of Students #moonbat pinknews.co.uk

The National Union of Students’ LGBT Campaign has passed a motion calling for the abolition of representatives for gay men – because they “don’t face oppression” in the LGBT community.

The NUS LGBT+ Campaign discussed the issue at its annual conference, which took place in Sheffield this week.

At the event, delegates passed a motion that blames “cis gay men” for “misogyny, transphobia, racism and biphobia”. It says: “Misogyny, transphobia, racism and biphobia are often present in LGBT+ societies. This is unfortunately more likely to occur when the society is dominated by white cis gay men.”

The motion continues to call on LGBT societies at universities – many of whom have dedicated reps for lesbians, trans people, bi people and gay men – to abolish the role for gay men.

It continues: “The reps system exists to ensure that societies committees can always have a reserved place for groups which disproportionately face oppression within the LGBT+ community. “Gay men do not face oppression as gay men within the LGBT+ community and do not need a reserved place on society committees.”

It goes on to “encourage LGBT+ Societies that have a gay men’s rep to drop the position”.

The motion was passed – despite other resolutions at the same conference highlighting that men who have sex with men are disproportionately at risk of HIV, and disproportionately at risk of violence.

DotDot #fundie atheism.about.com

[Austin Cline, About.com's atheism guide, suggested that if the Gideons are allowed to distribute Bibles in public schools, other groups should distribute their literature--including the Communist Manifesto.]

Communist Manifesto schools do distribute this stuff.most of the schools do push socialist agendas to children. public schools are indoctrination centers. they have been doing this for many many years. They don’t give A child A chance to choose for them self if they want to believe in evolution or creationism. it’s required that they have to sit in A class room and listen to this stuff. But they are not given A choice to go to A creationist class. There is no choice. Just like A socialist you believe in what I tell you or you wont graduate. it’s not fair school are just big socialist camp grounds. No choice for you, we chose what you will believe in. its sickening!!

E. Stephen Burnett #fundie christandpopculture.com

“It has been encouraging how well the media and the bulk of the fans have embraced [the ending],” Konietzko wrote. “We did it for all our queer friends, family, and colleagues.” Added DeMartino, “I’ve already read some heartwarming and incredible posts about how this moment means so much for the LGBT community.”

So it would appear all fans have no choice but to consider as canon the relationship most fans call “Korrasami.” That also applies to Christian fans of Korra who should want to respect its creators’ intentions. This is good and fair hermeneutics, i.e., respecting a story-maker’s intentions the same way we should respect the intentions of the Bible’s Author. However, it is not homophobic — as Konietzko seems to imply — to discuss how the Korrasami finale makes no sense in the context of the Avatar story-world, how it hijacks Korra’s story in service of social causes to the detriment of its own creative storytelling, or how these attempts make it difficult to simply enjoy Korra as art.
Korrasami Is a Leaky Ship

Elsewhere I’ve referred to “The Harkness Law” or “The Gobber Principle”; that is, most stories’ emotional cores are based on “traditional” relationships, with other relationships relegated to side references, comic relief, or obvious political/social agenda add-ons. However, Korra didn’t contain even the slightest hint that its story-world included “non-traditional” relationships — even as comic relief or as side references.

All Avatar stories have, as their emotional core, relationships between friends, siblings, parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, boyfriends and girlfriends, and husbands and wives. Not one same-sex couple was in sight, meaning the Korrasami addition makes no sense.

Imagine if, at the end of the Star Wars trilogy, the camera pulled back to show the story was all a simulation or just Anakin’s bad dream. Or imagine that Breaking Bad‘s finale took a turn and — hey presto! — there’s suddenly a zombie epidemic! Korra may as well have added King Arthur, dinosaurs, or an alien invasion at the last second.

Commentator “SirMontague” at IGN.com crafted a lengthy critique of the lazy, so-subtle-it-arguably-doesn’t-even-exist story twist. “Everything Korra and Asami did together was normal behavior for two close friends excluding the final 15 seconds of the finale,” he wrote. “It just comes across as a sudden decision that isn’t really developed at all through the series.”
Korrasami Jukes the Story for a Social Cause
But the worst result of the Korrasami twist is that suddenly, most fans are forced to ignore Korra’s story and instead, talk about a social cause — regardless of one’s view on it.

“Korrasami ruined Korra and not in the way most would think,” fan Andrew Kocurek wrote on the show’s Facebook page. “That’s all fans ever talk about now when referring to Korra. All the fan pages are filled with this. Nothing about ANYTHING else related to the story. No Varrick and Zhu Li, no Mako or Bolin, it’s all Korra and Asami. It’s so freaking annoying.”

This is simply a version of the “Jesus Juke,” which ignores the obvious original intent of an anecdote, joke, or work of art, and instead, turns it into an opportunity to teach a high-falutin’ Moral Lesson. Some Christian filmmakers constantly juke their own work. They ask people not to enjoy the film for its potentially God-exalting creative storytelling, but rather, to support the film to promote a special cause. Such stories are usually boring and are hardly enjoyable upon repeat viewings. Indeed, creators who market their cause over their story are often covering for audience disinterest or creative deficiency.

But Korra already had high audience interest and amazing creativity. And even if the show’s creators had chosen to add in a human exploration of sexual or social causes, they could have worked it in earlier in the story — right alongside other additions to the Avatar world such as automobiles and radio.

Instead they chose a last-second absurd “cause juke.” And at first that makes me not want to enjoy Korra again. You can enjoy a great story over and over but a cause-juked story is barely interesting the first time. All of the Korrasami talk made me feel, not like a kid on Saturday morning enjoying the best of animated storytelling, but rather, like a kid in an uptight Sunday school class. This notion makes Korra feel, at best, like an evangelical film in which any story is used as a means to the real end of promoting a social cause. And the creators, along with fans, seem to proclaim in sing-song voices, “All right, children, now that we’ve had our fun, it’s time for us all to Learn a Valuable Moral Lesson.”

But perhaps my initial reaction won’t last. Gloating Korrasami shippers quoted good-naturedly (or as a plain taunt) the phrase “Korrasami is canon; you gotta deal with it!” So I have dealt with it, by concluding that the creators’ attempted social cause juke is mechanical, silly, and unnecessary. That’s why someday I will re-view Korra and enjoy it solely as great storytelling. After all, great stories will outlast even their own creators’ attempt to bend them to serve alternative goals.

TakeitEasyFam #sexist fstdt.com

Many things. Decline in marriage rate is a symptom of the situation, not the cause.

Not everyone here would agree with me, but here's my list:

death of religion
women's rights movement
end of gender segregation
birth control
fake up
social media
tinder/OLD
rise of androgyny in both men and women
rise of cucks
social acceptance of being a player or a slut
welfare state
pornography
city living

Can expand on any of the points above if needed

Henry Makow #fundie henrymakow.com

It takes vision to see what is in front of your eyes.

"Slovenly" "Drab" Unkempt" "Slatternly" "Blowzy" --many adjectives describe most women who wear jeans.

Since I noticed this trend, I am appalled by its pervasiveness. At least half of the women I see are wearing jeans.

Occasionally they are with husbands also clad in blue denim, emphasizing the unisex character of this proletarian garb. Occasionally there is an eldest daughter also wearing blue jeans, already promised to the cult of androgyny.

But usually these women are alone and don't look happy. Often they look angry or lost. Usually they are talking on a cell phone or listening to their ipod.

Men, if you're tempted by such a woman, her jeans are a signal that you may have to deal with "GID" --"gender identity disorder." Her jeans are saying: "I don't want to be a woman. I don't want to look good for men. I fear and distrust men. I want male prerogatives. I want to look like a man. I want to be a man."

Feminism which espoused "women's rights" actually has driven femininity underground, torn the sexes asunder, and stripped woman of recognition for being wives and mothers, roles essential to their own fulfillment, to men, and to children and society.

Herepton #fundie evcforum.net

'[The Theory of Evolution stems from science.']

Only Darwinists believe this. The evidence says the Emperor has no clothes. The textual evidence of the Bible says Darwinian macroevolution beliefs are a penalty from God for denying Him Creator status. The penalty is corroborated by the fact that the ***reason for being*** evidence/intermediacy is entirely missing; IC is a scientific fact; fossil record shows zero signs of species transitioning. These are death blows in the eyes of any non-prejudicial observer. The fact that Darwinism thrives despite its nudity is explained by the penalty.

Ann Barnhardt #fundie barnhardt.biz

Pope Francis and Obama are eerily, eerily similar, both in their personages, their regimes and in their regimes’ tactics. If you have noticed that too, you’re spot on. They are both stupid, babbling fools, completely incoherent when not reading off a script prepared by others. Both are Marxists. Both are media darling fronts for a thuggish regime, and it turns out that the powers behind Francis may have engaged in electioneering and quid pro quos before the Conclave of ARSH 2013. Both sic their bureaucratic henchmen on their enemies. Both are in bed with the sodomites (i.e. Ricca and Barros). Both despise and are hellbent on destroying the respective institutions which they rule, presumably “in service to mankind in order to bring about utopia.”

[...]

First, I penned a piece back in February of ARSH 2012 based on a Fulton Sheen exegesis of satan’s three temptations of Christ in the desert from his book “Life of Christ”, and how these three temptations mapped exactly to Marxism, and the Obama regime specifically. Well, I went back and re-read the piece not long ago, and was shaken to the core to realize that Pope Francis Bergoglio maps to the three temptations of satan every bit as much as Obama, and in some cases, even more directly. But the fact that the two men and their respective regimes are so similar and, apparently “simpatico” with each other (i.e. their coordination on the Cuban detente), is a HUGE indicator. Briefly, here are the three points:

1. Temptation number one from satan was telling Jesus to turn stones into bread. This is the Marxist ploy of winning the mob by giving them free stuff, and equating material abundance with salvation. Given what has happened economically over the last 50 years, and in particular the political mindset today of the government magically providing abundance for the people by blowing an enormous, unsustainable debt bubble that is going to destroy everything, can we not see the parallel?

[...]

2. The second temptation of Christ by satan was to win the mob via pride, vanity and egomania. In the case of Christ, the temptation was to perform an actual public demonstration of His divinity so that no one would have any choice but know that He was God. In the case of Marxists, it is to con people into believing that they will work miracles, and that they are “god”.

[...]

A few days ago Francis announced in a Papal Bull, in what can only be described as the thinly-veiled threat of a complete thug, that he is creating “Missionaries of Mercy” – clerics that will be sent out to “pardon even those sins reserved to the Holy See”. (There no longer are any sins whose pardon is reserved only to the Holy See, but in another analogue to the Obama regime, these people are mostly morons – bold and aggressive, but morons.)

[...]

What this is is a direct analogue to the Obama regime’s use of so-called Executive Orders and Executive Actions to end-run the other two non-compliant branches of government. In the Church, the Synod, and really the entire college of Bishops, would be analogous to the Congress and state legislatures, and the Supreme Court is analogous to the Apostolic Signatura, which Francis removed Cardinal Raymond Burke from last year. Cardinal Burke was the analogue of the Chief Justice of the Vatican Supreme Court.

And so, like the Obama regime, the Francis regime has preached decentralization of power, but has, in fact, done NOTHING but concentrate and coalesce power around himself and his regime.

Typical. Marxists.

Last fall’s Synod Against the Family showed the Francis regime two things. First, there would be “refuseniks” to the diabolical Bergoglio-Kasper plan, and second, who those “refuseniks” are. So, in order to deal with these “enemies of the revolution”, Francis is simply going to send these “Missionaries of Mercy” out into the bishoprics of the ACTUAL, BELIEVING CATHOLIC BISHOPS, and make no mistake, their marching orders will be hold “marriage tribunals in the confessional” that would ratify all manner of adultery and concubinage. And you know what? I doubt there is a single bishop on the planet who would tell these so-called “Missionaries of Mercy” to stay away. Because that is the only real option because the confessional certainly cannot be miked to ensure compliance with the teaching of Jesus Christ and His Church.

So yeah. Francis and his puppet masters observed their fellow Marxist thug Obama’s success in using unilateral, illegal tyrannical edicts and siccing bureaucrats onto the supine underlings, and are simply copying the play in their quest to destroy the Sacrament of Marriage and thus “force” priests to desecrate the Eucharist within the Mass itself.

CH #sexist heartiste.wordpress.com

The topic of this post could easily bloom into an oceanic algae field of effortful analysis, but I intend to keep this particular foray succinct.

Libchicks HATE HATE HATE Meaty Intruder Trump because he is iconic maleness.

It’s Trump’s unapologetic masculinity — and by association the happy masculinity of his supporters — that gets under the speckled hides of the Femcunt Fuggernaut.

The general direction of Western Civ over the last decades has been away from masculinity and toward androgyny. Femininity is under attack as well, but so far has avoided the kind of vitriolic (((propaganda))) that’s been leveled against all forms and expressions and attitudes of masculinity.

Trump is a direct rebuke to the anti-masculinity and anti-male agenda. Precisely, the anti-White male agenda. He is the distillation in one man of everything that drives bitterbitches crazy with hatelust.

He speaks his mind.
He never grovels for approval.
He refuses to regurgitate the symbolic catchwords of feminist and antiracism cant.
He loves women with sexually explicit vigor and remorseless objectification.
He has a child with a much younger, beautiful model wife.
He has multiple children by former wives he has continually traded up for fresher pussy.
He uses his wealth, charm, and power to seduce women.
He tacitly reminds women that they are complicit in his seduction, welcoming his advances when they are young and not in the employ of hillary clinton’s shadow orgs.
He holds a mirror up to women’s rapacious, animalistic sexual natures.
He is a chad who loves being a chad.
He is a doer instead of a talker.
He builds, rather than blathers.
He is a Gizmo, not a Paperwork and Lawyering drone.
He has Game.
He mocks liars, gossips, and degenerates.
He fights, and shames cowards.
He has ridiculed feminist beliefs and representatives and come away unscathed, even stronger than before.
He reminds women that their own men — their very own beta male bootlickers — may think the same things as Trump and pursue the same pleasures if they had Trump’s stones and Trump’s options.

Iconic Maleness embodied by Trump is the hot branding phallus that penetrates the hunchbacked ids of bitter women and the manginas who are fated to settle for them. Trump and his Trumpericans spotlight and magnify the romantic failures and futility of the Nasty Women and the Girly Boys. It’s no wonder they hate him; he’s a Big Beautiful TruthWall looming high above the muck and blocking their desperate ego-soothing escape into self-deluding fantasy.

PolishMisanthrope #fundie incels.co

We are the Übermenschen

Over a century ago, Friedrich Nietzsche (if you look at his pictures, you can tell he was a fellow sub-5) speculated in his book Thus Spoke Zarathustra about the future of humanity. More precisely, he set a goal for humankind, or, if we interpret this in a certain way, predicted its future. He wrote that one day we shall achieve an ascendence to a higher plane of existence after the death of God, whereas the Übermensch, ascended humanity would become the final dictators of morality and ethical values. That's a quick explaination of this ideal.

And here we come to a realization. Incels have accepted the Blackpill, which by its predeterminism leads to the logical conclusion of God's absence. God is dead. We've killed him. We now have a new kind of God: ourselves. We're the Ubermenschen. We, as humans, dictate the world. We have total control over ethics and morality. We have achieved a higher plane of existence.

But I want to propose a theory, an expansion of the Übermensch ideal. Since we have already overcome to human need to justify the lack of justice in this cruel world, defeating God, we can now break through the next lines of defence, the other aspects of human nature. You already know what I'm talking about: mating mechanisms, partner selection, instincts, and so on. While it never began, we can give a chance for future incel generations to come a hope, a chance for happiness and fulfillment.

While thinking about the philosophy and history of inceldom and related sciences, I've traced a point where the sexual revolution and thus the rise of inceldom began forming. The loss of masculiny, it is. While it reached its peak during the 50s, things started going downhill since then. New chemicals, xenoestrogens began deteriorating the physical aspects of our manliness, while the scars from the horrors of both the World Wars attacked at the psychological front. You can see that the current divisions, especially visible in high schools, especially geek vs chad manifested in this period, men became less attractive, more cowardly and lazy, which can be seen by the draft dodging of the Vietnam War. Femoids as advanced biological organisms saw this and triggered their defence protocols, leading to the sexual revolution, and you know the rest of the story.

I speculate that maybe as soon as decades from now, up to some centuries, we will achieve the ascendence of a totally new level, defeating our own humanity. Because unregulated evolution is a flawed process, the only way to achieve full potential of ourselves and prevent our extinction is to scraw the ancient damages to our species. The bright minds of this world are constantly progressing the work on genetic modification, best evidenced by CRISPR. Meanwhile, while unfavorably for today's generation, but creating prospects for the future, humanity is moving towards androgyny, even though hypergamy is on overdrive to prevent it (once again proof we can win with nature).

With careful steering, we can destroy femininity and masculinity, allowing the human race to reach what can be called transcendence, or at least until we think up even more improvements. Within centuries natural reproduction will be totally replaced by sythetic one, while genetic engineering will drive out our subconcious processes as we know it. Both sexes will be merged into one. In the distant future humans, if they still can be called by that name, will not fear about sex and reproduction, instead being able to focus on self-betterment and advancing our species. They will send our perfection into the stars.

I believe this is a plausible scenario. While the NEET Army will have to change a little bit, if we add the contents of the blackpill to our destiny we'll defy the universe as it is. Do you guys agree?

Jordan Arseneault #fundie visualaids.org

A few months ago Jordan Arseneault allowed Visual AIDS to repost his piece, Silence = Sex, about a man's experience of trying to hook up with HIV. It remains one of out most viewed post.

Arseneault, working with poster/VIRUS, has now turned that writing into a poster that is hitting the streets in Canada, and across the World Wide Web. The poster, a textual and visual play off of The Silence Equals Death project work, provides the following 21st century update:

Silence = Sex
The criminalization of HIV+ people perpetuates stigma and prevents HIV prevention. HIV+ people are often caught in a “Catch 22,” wherein disclosure is required by law, but often leads to immediate rejection. Inform yourself : overcome stigma and get laid!

FoJC_Forever #fundie christiannews.net

Not only do the Scriptures teach that homosexuality is Sin and that identical genders cannot Marry one another, if a person will ask God, He will confirm it.

False religion is simply a textual religion. Christianity isn't a mere religion. Christianity is centered on a risen Savior who is seated at the Right Hand of the Father, while the Holy Spirit is on the earth saving and changing those who will and have received the Truth. Christianity is Reality. God is not just an idea. Those who know God also hear His voice.

Follow Jesus, find Truth.

Herepton #fundie evcforum.net

[The Theory of Evolution stems from science.]

Only Darwinists believe this. The evidence says the Emperor has no clothes. The textual evidence of the Bible says Darwinian macroevolution beliefs are a penalty from God for denying Him Creator status. The penalty is corroborated by the fact that the ***reason for being*** evidence/intermediacy is entirely missing; IC is a scientific fact; fossil record shows zero signs of species transitioning. These are death blows in the eyes of any non-prejudicial observer. The fact that Darwinism thrives despite its nudity is explained by the penalty.

D4rk Kn1ght #conspiracy abovetopsecret.com

muslims don't want intergration.... they avoid it at all costs...

They live in ghettos because they choose to live in ghettos.

Here in the UK we have vast areas of inner cities that are police and white / black no go areas ... and thats in the day light.

The Police have to ask for permission to raid some areas of the UK from 'community leaders' aka the source of the trouble.... and if they dare arrest some one of the islamic bent that the others don't agree on... well theres hell to pay in minutes.

Look, its really simple, and i have been saying it for years.

You want an enemy within, then you let asians settle in your country in large numbers and then let them have free reign over the areas they live...

Bradford, leeds, Sheffield, wolverhampton, slough, oxford, all of London, manchester, wigan, birmingham, coventry... the list is long of the cities where the threat from these people is swelling .... and as for the fact that in 'protest' they blew up our trains and buses... well, it may of been our fault really, because we gave the enemy a free invite into our country.

Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, italy, Spain, denmark, belgium.... what have they all got in common? They all have had people killed in their borders by a muslim against a non-muslim because of a percieved insult to mohammed or allah.. Spain, UK, well we got the first of the suicide bombers in europe.... gee are these islamists such nice intergrationists that they spread themselves around so much??...

And my last rant.......... Why, if their so nice, can i not build a church inside an islamic country? and if i try why will they try to kill me.... thought they were nice peaceful people..... thats what the leftist apologists keep on telling us all........

Rev. Guy BonGiovanni #fundie vindy.com

It would be naive to suggest what appears on the surface as textual contradictions and historical errors, as well as suspected moral dilemmas, do not exist in the Bible. But, it is as intellectually dishonest to conclude that the Bible is not the word of God as it would be to suggest electricity does not exist because we cannot explain it.

2ndamenduseur #fundie cseblogs.com

Dear Welder’s Wife,

I couldn’t help but notice in your long exegesis about Noah’s sons that you referred to certain people getting their information as to what to write, as they wrote portions of scripture, from other people or circumstances, or things they saw. It seems that in your zeal to explain what you think the Bible means you have drifted into reliance on human reasoning instead of reliance on the Word of God. For example, Luke did not write the book of Acts based on things he saw or heard because of time spent with Paul. He wrote what God told Him to write. I admonish you to submit your thinking to the authority of God as given here:

“The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.” Psalms 68:11

ManleyBeasley #fundie puritanboard.com

Good question. I would say that God always has the right to take or give life. His will in the given situation is reflective of His never changing, sovereign right over His creation. It's not possible for God to be guilty of murder because He always has the rights over His creation's lives.

To answer what you asked about exegesis I would say that any verses proclaiming His sovereignty are stating this. God always does what He (the perfectly wise, just and holy God) wants. Calvin said that the universe is the "theater of the glory of God" and so God's actions in the universe are the displaying of his nature.

*My point was that God's infinite and immutable nature make accusations of arbitration nonsensical. If God's own nature defines right, wrong, and justice, and is unchanging then assigning a term like "arbitrary" to Him seems blasphemous. Their (Non-christian's) use of the word arbitrary seems to indicate that they see God as a peer who happens to be a bigger and stronger bully not the perfectly wise and holy God.

FoJC_Forever #fundie christiannews.net

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

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

Follow Jesus, find Truth.

Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett #crackpot #fundie #conspiracy galileowaswrong.com

Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right is one of the most unique and penetrating books you will ever read. Now complete in Volumes I, II, and III, authors Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett take you on a tour of science and history the likes of which you would have never believed possible unless it were told to you in detailed and graphic form. Has modern science led us down the primrose path and convinced us of something that they cannot prove and that is in actuality false? Were the Fathers, the Medievals, our popes and cardinals of the 17th century correct in believing that the Earth, based on a face value reading of Scripture, was standing still in the center of the universe? Come with an open mind and allow these two authors to show you facts and figures that have been hidden from the public for a very long time. This is a page turner that you will find hard to put down, once you get riveted by the astounding material these authors have assembled for you. Prepare yourself, however. Your world will be rocked, literally and figuratively. Not only will you see from Volume I how modern science has documented for us in bold fashion that the Earth is motionless in space and occupies the center of the universe (yet have done an equally remarkable job in keeping these important facts out of our educational system), you will now see in Volume II how deeply the popes of the 17th century were involved in condemning heliocentrism, guiding the process step-by-step and finally castigating it as “formally heretical.” You will also see how effusive is the data in Scripture that teaches a geocentric universe in the most detailed exegesis of Holy Writ ever presented to the public on this topic. Lastly, Volume II offers detailed and comprehensive documentation of the consensus of the Church Fathers and Medieval theologians on geocentrism. It also covers all the statements and teachings of modern popes and councils, such as Gregory XVI, Benedict XIV, Pius VII, Leo XIII, Benedict XV, The Council of Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II, and a special section on John Paul II in his rexamination of the Galileo case. These are facts and analyses that every Catholic should avail himself. The most important thing you will receive from this astounding study is a very close relationship with God. For once you see that God, his Church, and Holy Scripture have given us the unadulterated truth, proven by modern science itself, you will have no choice but to put yourself completely in His trust and care for everything else in your life.

WorldGoneCrazy #fundie christiannews.net

"Every church has a different opinion on the issue"

Well, see, that is the problem. Truth and morality are not defined by individual churches but by God. The authentic Church has not "evolved" on this issue for nearly 2000 years. So what changed?

Not Jesus Christ.
Not Scripture.

Not the laws of hermeneutics.
Not orthodoxy.
Not orthopraxy.
Not the Sanctity of Marriage.
Not creeds.
Not Church documents and statements of faith (until the last few years, of course).
Not the epistles.
Not objective truth.
Not objective morality.
Not moral law.
Not even natural law.
...
And, finally, not man's desire for selfish sin and to gain autonomy from his Creator.

So, what's changed? Nothing! Except of course, some "churches" who think they can keep their collection plates full by following man instead of God.

watchman_2 #fundie factnet.org

Fact No. 1 - God's existence can be proven. Life exists; therefore, God exists.

There are only two possibilities for life, evolution or God. Evolution, having been proven false, leaves the only other possibility for life -- God.

Fact No. 2 - Evolutionism is every bit a religion as any other religion. In fact, you were participating in the debate as evolutionism was proven to be a cult.

Fact No. 3 - Evolutionism is not based upon science. The theory takes underlying scientific discoveries and combines poor exegesis to postulate that all life originated from bacterium, which, itself, originated from a bolt of lightning into the primordial soup of chemicals. Yet, there is no observeable evidence to support such postulation nor can scientists duplicate the process in any means.

Fact No. 4 - Science has proven evolution false. The process of genus/species change has been labeled 'natural selection'. It has been proven that extinction would be impossible if 'natural selection' were true since all precursor species, including the bacterium, would also have to be extinct as well.

Fact No. 5 - Evolutionism is driven by the socialist left. Scientists know that evolution is an unproven theory. Yet, evolutionists refuse to acknowledge that it would be proper to teach the theory of evolution along side creation in public schools. Such a position is not scientific, but is driven by the leftists' hatred of Christianity and the religious right.

John #fundie patheos.com

The mental gymnastics here are truly stunning, particularly when all you have to do is examine the rest of the Bible for confirmation. Exegesis makes it all very clear. And you don't ever have to read a bunch of pagan homosexual heresy along the way. Let me help: "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them" Leviticus 20:13. Seems pretty clear to me. Although I'm sure there's pro homosexual literature out there that attempts to rationalize this away as well with pseudo intellectual pagan historical revisionism...or maybe just arguments about how eating non-kosher foods was also punishable by death so being gay is no worse than that...or that Sodom wasn't destroyed by God for sexual immorality (specifically the gay sexual immorality described in the Biblical account), it was just the result of an unfortunate natural disaster.

EndTimes #fundie cseblogs.com

God has promised to preserve His Holy Word unto all generations which would include ours. God is not the author of confusion, thus the entire textual criticism arguments are against that simple truth. Most dangerous is the current emphasis on studying the “original” languages from current lexicons which have unfortunately been corrupted. What a shame to spend so much time trying to find the “truth” of the Bible in an earthly corrupt lexicon, when God has already provided a pure text in English for all to read, study and memorize already.

Micheal Noire #fundie gaiaonline.com


Judy Garland. Manga. Bondage Gear and Handcuffs.

These are the three sources of homo-eroticism in America. My question to you is, are homosexuals capable of demonstrating an actual analog of their own, where romantic encounters exist, that aren't hyperbolic hollywood quasi drag queens lisping (too many examples to name but collectively refered to as Camp), that aren't direct parallels to Asian hyperfeminized androgynous cartoon fantasies, and aren't a highway to hell through PVC, bondage leathers, and police cosplay?

Put another way, do gays in America have a morally sound fact behind their fiction for paired relationships? Because, as every ED topic generally requires a claim, I claim they do not. I claim that the man behind the curtain has nothing going on but an excuse to get off. I claim that the romance between same sex couples in America is driven by kink, hollywood posers, and asian cartoons about asian androgyny and frankly, pedophilic relationships which have only recently started to get outlawed.

I am claiming that all you who support American homo-eroticism can produce is vile or imitated culture, rather than romance or something culturally admirable. I do not believe you have the capacity to prove me wrong.

the Truth is stranger than fiction... #fundie youtube.com

(=Talking about a theologian who doesn't believe in Flat Earth=)

+Anime Guru I have watched the presentation by Michael Heiser being referenced here in it's entirety, and the only thing being "exposed" here is tigerdan's own blatant distortion of both Heiser, and Skiba's well-argued derivations from it. Essentially, Heiser himself openly admits that the cosmological view of the ancient Hebrews, including the authors of the NT, was that of an enclosed, geocentric system. Heiser is honest enough to prove at length through the text, but then concludes by offering a contrived argument as to why now as modern "scientifically enlightened" Christians, we should understand their simplistic literalism as merely the way God chose to communicate through their limited, primitive understanding at the time. In essence, that even though they believed quite solidly in a Flat Earth, we today should understand that this is only to be taken symbolically, even if they did not. The glaring problem with this type of argument of course is that there is nothing to prevent it from being applied to every other point of Biblical literalism, and so you might as well go ahead and embrace theistic Evolution and every other form of textual deconstruction, because you've just rendered the Bible as nothing more than allegorical myth. Do you now believe in Evolution too tigerdan....??

Amos Moses #fundie christiannews.net

Amos Moses:
God has appointed Himself the judge of who in HIS creation is and is not ...... and HE has told the WORLD what that is ..... and it is WRITTEN DOWN ...... and it is SCRIPTURE ..... and you have no excuse ...........

Throatwobbler Mangrove:
And you have one interpretation of scripture, and everyone else has an interpretation that is slightly different. No one knows which one is exactly right. Once again, this comes down to you believing your opinion is superior to everyone else’s.

Amos Moses:
no, no, no ..... there is GODS interpretation ..... and we have NONE ..... anything outside of that is ERROR ....... and all you have is ERROR ................. as you do not even have scripture ........ you have given up your ability and right to judge who is and who is not ......

Throatwobbler Mangrove:
Do you not know what interpretation means?

Amos Moses:
do you know it does not matter what YOUR INTERPRETATION is ........ FYI ..... the only "interpretation" that has any weight is GODS ..... and when we allow the scriptures to speak FOR ITSELF ...... then that is Gods interpretation ..... that is exegesis ..... what you advocate is isegesis .... we do not bring our theology to the text and then try to justify it ..... we obtain it FROM THE TEXT ......... because the text is what we have ... NOT what we add ...... and we are FORBIDDEN from adding to the text ..............

Throatwobbler Mangrove:
Um...no, that's not what it means.
You know what the KJV is? It’s a translation, yes, but that also makes it an INTERPRETATION.
We have no choice when we read it, or read ANYTHING, but to interpret it. It just means use our brain to understand it.

Amos Moses:
right ... so when your kids decide they get to decide what you meant when you told them certain things ..... you are good with that .... because what YOU meant is garbage and what THEY "interpret" is right ............ do you even consider what you are saying and its application ..... FYI ..... God is not inclusive ..... He is EXCLUSIVE .....

Throatwobbler Mangrove:
"You just can't look at the moon too long."
You can read that sentence and interpret it two different ways. You can take it to mean that you should not look at the moon too long, or that you are being urged to look at the moon as long as you want to. Neither interpretation is wrong. What is the meaning meant? Only the person who posed the question knows.
And that's how it is with the Bible. Different Christians have different understandings on certain subject based on the words of the Bible. You may be correct that only one meaning is the correct one, but how can you possibly be arrogant enough to claim to know which one it is?

Amos Moses:
nope ..... wrong ... when you told your kids what you told them .... you did not mean what you said so that they could decide later what you meant ..... you meant what you said when you said it ..... and they do not get to decide later that you meant something different ...... unless you are an idiot ................

Throatwobbler Mangrove (this comment now deleted):
But this isn't about what you meant. The whole thing you are missing is HOW YOUR MESSAGE gets interpreted. It might get MISinterpreted along the way. You might be very clear on what you mean, and I'm sure you are. But language isn't always as precise as we want it to be and things get misunderstood. This isn't about changing the meaning. It's about getting the message clearly across. And you fail on that one every time.

Amos Moses:
nope .... The whole thing you are missing is .... I DO NOT CARE ....... my message is the SCRIPTURE ..... and the "interpretation" is what God said it is ..... and what He said is written down ..... and we do not get to add to it nor do we get to subtract from it ..... we do not get to use weasel words to get around it ..... we do not get to soften it so others can accept it ...... and it is not up to the SOPHISTRY of "our interpretation" .... and while you and i may have some difficulty in understanding it ..... GOD DOES NOT have any such difficulty ..... and our "interpretation" is not an excuse for saying it says something different than what He said ........
and when you tell your kids they have to home in the house by a certain time in the evening .... that does not mean "by interpretation" that at 5 minutes after that time ..... they are free to leave and go about their business in the middle of the night ........ again .... unless you are an idiot ........
scripture is not an invitation and it is not a plea and it is not open to what we want to believe it says ..... it is an ULTIMATUM .....

Throatwobbler Mangrove:
You exhaust the patience of even the most patient person, but I'll say this one more time. You do NOT understand what "interpret" means. It does mean to add, subtract or change. It does NOT. What it means is, and I'm using direct definitions from the dictionary now:
- to give or provide the meaning of; explain; explicate; elucidate:
- to interpret the hidden meaning of a parable.
- to construe or understand in a particular way:
- to interpret a reply as favorable.
- to bring out the meaning of (a dramatic work, music, etc.) by performance or execution.
- to perform or render (a song, role in a play, etc.) according to one's own understanding or sensitivity:
- to translate orally.
Notice NOTHING in all the many possible definitions involves changing anything. It is strictly about understanding, and nothing more.
As for God, you're saying God's perfect and nothing needs to be clarified. Maybe not from God's perspective, but it's US who are required to understand it correctly and sometimes words alone are not enough to do that and there can be some confusion or things getting lost in translation. That's nobody's fault, and it's not something anyone can do anything about, but nobody can say in situations like this that they are 100% right or wrong because it is not possible to know.

Amos Moses:
nope ... YOU do not understand what it means TO SCRIPTURE ..... and YOUR INTERPRETATION ....... means NOTHING ....

Throatwobbler Mangrove:
At this point it appears you are not even INTERESTED in having a coherent argument.
This has nothing to do with scripture. No one is arguing scripture.
This has to do with how we come to UNDERSTAND something and how it is spoken to us, and how it is possible to come to several different conclusions.
Once again, consider this example.
"You can't look at the sun too long."
That means two things. It means you should not look at the sun too long. It also means it's not possible to look at the sun long enough. They have opposite meanings, but the words do not change and can be INTERPRETED either way. So a person isn't wrong to believe it means that you shouldn't look at the sun too long, and the other person isn't wrong to believe there's no limit to how long you can look at the sun. There is confusion inherent in the original statement which has not been clarified.
That's EXACTLY how it is with SOME scripture.
And if you don't understand that, there's no hope for you to continue discussing it.

Fadel Soliman #fundie dailymail.co.uk

An Islamic cleric who defends domestic violence is among a string of extremist speakers touring British universities unchallenged, the Mail Investigations Unit can reveal.

Egyptian cleric Fadel Soliman spoke at five such events last year, using them to refer Muslim students to an online lecture series in which he speaks in favour of hitting women and outlines the Islamic case for sex slavery and polygamy.

Mr Soliman told students at Sheffield University that watching his lectures could be ‘a turning point’ in their lives.

In his extraordinary videos, he advises physical punishment for wives who have displeased their husbands, saying ‘the hitting must be done with a small stick’.

"The true implication of the spanking is to sound an alarm that the husband has passed to a new stage of serious displeasure."
Egyptian cleric Fadel Soliman

Explaining why it is necessary, he says that when a husband is unhappy with the behaviour of his wife, ‘after passing through two stages of non-physical interaction, the next stage must involve something physical, in order to escalate the intensity of the warning’.

The preacher is one of several extremists being permitted to espouse their views unchallenged at Britain’s universities – in a possible breach of the Government’s counter-extremism strategy, Prevent. Since September, universities and colleges are legally required to have policies to stop extremists radicalising students on campus. This includes an obligation to ‘ensure those espousing extremist views do not go unchallenged’.

The Mail revealed yesterday how CAGE – the notorious organisation which called Islamic State killer Jihadi John ‘a beautiful young man’ – has participated in at least 13 university events since September, calling on students to sabotage Prevent.

Another group, MEND, an Islamist organisation whose director has condoned the killing of British troops, appeared in at least ten events on campuses across the country last term.

And a speaker from an organisation which mocked last year’s Charlie Hebdo terror attack in Paris spoke at a student event despite having being refused permission, using the platform to tell students the State was ‘fundamentally racist’ and they should oppose Prevent.

Home Secretary Theresa May said the revelations show universities need to do more to stop ‘damaging, extremist rhetoric’ going unchallenged on campuses.
Up to 19 universities where the Mail identified extremist-linked speakers or events could now face an inquiry by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, it is understood.

Lord Carlile, one of Britain’s top legal experts, said last night that universities that allowed Mr Soliman to speak unchallenged had ‘failed in their duty of care’. He said: ‘This is a person who has given at least tacit approval to what sounds like criminal behaviour. Universities really should not be permitting people like this on to their campuses.

Mr Soliman is thought to have spoken at Nottingham, Leicester, Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield universities. He urged young Muslims to watch his disturbing 30-part video series endorsing violent and extreme practices.

In one, he suggests it is acceptable for a man to hit his wife, if she repeatedly ‘goes out and refuses to say where she’s going’. He says: ‘The hitting must be done with a small stick’ and ‘should not be painful’, adding: ‘The true implication of the spanking is to sound an alarm that the husband has passed to a new stage of serious displeasure.’

In another video he says it is forbidden for men and women to ‘engage in frivolous talk’, that ‘men and women should lower their gaze and avoid unnecessary eye contact, especially with lust’. He says Muslims should avoid interacting with members of the opposite sex, even at work, and women should not wear perfume as it ‘arouses men’. In other videos, he outlines the Islamic case for sex slavery and polygamy.

At an event at the University of Sheffield on December 3, Mr Soliman urged 120 Muslim students: ‘Put these videos on your Facebook pages, share it with people.’ He was also allowed to speak at the University of Manchester last month, despite concerns being raised by university staff. At the event, the cleric said: ‘They told me not to say anything controversial.’

Mr Soliman denies he supports domestic violence. He said: ‘I have provided the Mail with a detailed response to the allegations which are published in this article and informed them in detail why I am not guilty of the things which they allege against me. Once the paper is published, I will respond to the allegations on my own website.’

He has a strong following among young female students. The Sheffield event – which was not formally segregated but at which men and women sat on opposite sides of the hall – had an audience of more than 100 students, mostly female.

Beforehand, groups of young women could be heard discussing how much they ‘love’ Mr Soliman – even making swooning gestures and fanning themselves. One woman in her early 20s, who travelled from London, told others how excited she was to see the cleric in person.

"It’s within their interest to fuel Islamophobia. It’s within their interest to sell more weapons. It’s within their interest to make the Middle East unstable."
Speaker Sahar Al Faifi

Vance Bicknell #fundie amazon.com

(A review of James Earl Jones reads the Bible)

James Earl Jones should stick with Darth Vader

I was excited to get this CD set, since I know James Earl Jones has a great set of pipes, and I have listened so much to Alexander Scourby's reading of the Bible that I was ready for a new reading. I was disappointed the first time I listened. Jones does not use inflection while he reads; the result is that the words sound lifeless. As a Christian believer, that abhors me.

But more than his lifeless reading, I am apalled at Jones' changing of the text. He is reading the King James Version, but he changes the words at will. For example, the text will read "Christ Jesus" and Jones will read "Jesus Christ." I counted 21 errors in his reading of the Book of Ephesians alone. If you believe, as I do, in the divine inspiration of the Word of God, you will not be able to stand how Jones imposes his own changes to the text without any textual or scriptural justification. Jones should stick with Darth Vader.

Anna Wilson #fundie aeon.co

In his essay ‘Uncritical Reading’ (2004), the Yale English professor Michael Warner writes about the way that universities break students of disreputable reading habits. When students first enter the classroom, he writes:

They identify with characters. They fall in love with authors… they shop around among taste-publics, venturing into social worlds of fanhood and geekdom… Their attention wanders; they skim; they skip around. They mark pages with pink and yellow highlighters. They get caught up in suspense. They laugh; they cry. They get aroused (and stay quiet about it in class). They lose themselves in books, distracting themselves from everything else, especially homework like the reading I assign.

The kind of reading that Warner describes his students bringing in from outside the classroom – excessive, feelings-y, full-body reading – is often associated with reading for pleasure, gobbling up genre fiction such as horror and romance on a lunch break or in the bath; getting the shivers, getting aroused, weeping, the glow from a happy ending. These aren’t pleasures of the classroom. They aren’t for serious literature.

As the literary critic Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick put it in her essay ‘Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading’ (2002), students are taught instead to master what Paul Ricoeur termed ‘the hermeneutics of suspicion’. ‘Hermeneutics’ (from the Ancient Greek for ‘translating’) denotes a method or system of interpretation, a way of finding out something. Students are taught to take an objective, almost hostile attitude to a text, to pick it to pieces and investigate it like a crime. They must not love it too much.

The hermeneutics of suspicion is built on centuries of philosophical and pedagogical ideologies that separate body and mind, then rank the mind above the body. As feminist critics have pointed out, these are sexist ideologies, because they associate the mind, in all its rational dimensions, with men, and the body with women, effeminacy and femininity. Indeed, universities were largely closed to women until the 20th century, in part because male academics claimed that women were incapable of distancing their emotions from their thinking. Generations of women had to prove themselves in the academy by being more rational, more clinical, more careful about how they showed emotion to male colleagues; only in the 1970s did feminist critics in Paris such as Luce Irigaray and Hélène Cixous – whose work influenced Sedgwick and Warner – begin to question the assumption that bodies and feelings had no place in literary criticism.

Growing up, I loved books. I loved them so much that I went to graduate school to study them, and I didn’t read a novel for five years. One of the terrible secrets about attending graduate school in literature is that it can ruin your ability to read for pleasure; pick up a book, and a nasty voice whispers that you should be reading something serious – or reading something seriously. So in the classroom, I learned to put away my body. Outside of the academy, however, specifically through fanfiction, I was learning to read with it.

I discovered fanfiction in 2001, when I was 16, unhappy at school, and frequently mistaken for a boy in women’s bathrooms. I’d joined a number of web mailing listservs, desperate to make friends, and I remember vividly the first time one of the fanfiction writers I followed posted a story she’d written about a character from The Lord of the Rings. I was staggered. It was like nothing I’d ever read before. Suddenly, I had a word for a genre that I had known intimately for years.

I’d always fantasised about stepping into books and having adventures with my favourite characters. Now I wrote them down and shared them. Strangers left positive comments on each chapter. I discovered that I could write. Later, I learned that there was a name for this kind of story: ‘Mary Sue’. The name comes from the short satire ‘A Trekkie’s Tale’ (1973), written by the mathematician Paula Smith and first published in a Star Trek fanzine to parody the flood of (in her opinion) terrible fanfiction stories in which all-American teenagers with names such as Mary Sue stride into the world of the Starship: Enterprise and win Captain Kirk’s fickle heart. Smith’s parody is embarrassingly similar to my first story, and thousands like it online, written by young women experimenting with fanfiction. But as I read more widely, I discovered a rich vein of sophisticated and brilliantly written fanfiction, offering insights into characters I knew and loved.

While bingeing on Harry Potter fanfiction, I was taking courses at high school, then university, in classical and medieval literature. I learned Latin, and read Virgil, Cicero and St Augustine in the original language. I wrote cold, sober, critical essays, but stayed up late into the night with fanfiction, my guilty pleasure, seemingly as far removed from the study of literature as it was possible to be. I moved to Canada to go to graduate school. By then I knew that fantasising about meeting Geoffrey Chaucer, or imagining what Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine might do if she met Sir Lancelot, was not the way serious readers did it. But I struggled with cognitive dissonance, since it was obvious to me that fanfiction had made me good at reading.

CH #sexist heartiste.wordpress.com

LMA (@lovelymiss) nicely encapsulates the outline of the Globohomo Androgyny Agenda to turn Western White men into soibois and their women into manjaws, until they meet as a twisted union of de-souled bugfreaks in a dispiriting, passionless, anhedonic, asexual androgynous slop easily amused by their consumerist baubles and stupefied by Narrative pabulum.

Both male & females are under attack & it is done on purpose.

> Convince men that masculinity is bad. That they should cower & become more feminine. “Toxic masculinity” becomes a thing. We see more beta type males running around.

> Contrary to what blue haired harpies & the [chaimstream] media want people to believe, women do not like beta males. It’s biological. Women seek strength because biologically stronger males have better genes & can provide better. It’s primal & it’s almost instinctual.

> Once the men are sort of transformed to the opposite of what masculine is supposed to be, they flood countries with men who (even though they’re probably borderline mentally retarded) are more masculine than the ones we have in the west

> Tell women that whoreishness is where it’s at. Don’t settle down & have families. Sleep with as many (usually this comes with a non-white sidenote) men as possible.

You are able to ruin both men & women- and the final result is the ruining of a people & their civilization.

The Androgyny Strain is weaponized and purified to afflict both sexes. Its lethality is a combination of emasculated males and masculinized females, for only if each sex is in open revolt against their biological nature can our overlords expect to keep them pacified and unable to mount a real resistance that eschews degenerate pussyhats. I remind readers that the feministism cuntscripts exert almost as much energy deriding feminine beauty and demeanor as they do masculine vigor.

What the West needs is Tonic Masculinity. By Zeus’s chest hair, the Chateau will do its part Making America Virile Again. And in doing so, make America’s women feminine again.

[Serious question: within Weidmann's worldview, what threat is femininity to said overlords? Your anxiety over androgynization is fundamentally about "feminization," just drop the pretense and go full robowomb MGTOW already]

Roy Den Hollander #sexist #psycho avoiceformen.com

[From "Why Can’t the Men’s Movement Get its Act Together?"; article since deleted but saved here]

Some say the Men’s Movement is ineffective because the Feminists are so successful at turning men into androgynies that there are probably only a couple of hundred men left in America. If true, it’s not easy for such a small group to change the course of 300 million.

Some, however, argue ego. Men are too aggressive and opinionated—they just can’t cooperate. Yet, practically all the great social changes in history, for good or ill, occurred because men worked together.

Others claim an absence of organization with too many groups going in too many different directions. But there are hundreds of Feminist organizations spread across the land doing lots of different activities and focused on different goals, although a uniting factor may be their inherent fear and hatred of men.

The lack of success by the Men’s Movement isn’t for want of talent or will. It has skillful public speakers and writers trying to educate, elucidate and enlighten; competent litigators trying to put the blindfold back across the eyes of Justice; effective lobbyists exercising their First Amendment right of association; and gutsy demonstrators willing to fight for their rights no matter how many names the “morality pundits” call them.

So why can’t the Men’s Movement effectively fight the Feminists? In this capitalistic society—it’s money, the primary source of power in America. The federal government gives Feminist organizations hundreds of millions of dollars a year while foundations, corporations, and individuals chip in millions more.

[…]

The future prospect of the Men’s Movement raising enough money to exercise some influence in America is unlikely. But there is one remaining source of power in which men still have a near monopoly—firearms. At some point, the men in this country will take the Declaration of Independence literally:

“[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right,
it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for
their future security.”

savagesusie #fundie freerepublic.com

Notice the androgyny in the manikins [at Macy's]-—Marxists want to make men and women interchangeable——so they can destroy the family unit—it is radical egalitarianism-—the State will raise the children.

Note all the push for little girls to be boys to be girls—or whatever. Confusion is forced on children so they can never be rational. They are taught truth is a lie. They are being fed moral relativism where there is no Right and Wrong except what the State tells them. They will be easily led and manipulated because they will be unable to recognize Truth.

Read Brave New World and 1984 to get a glimpse of the ugly, drab world, these Marxists and Macy’s are trying to foist on the population. This is brainwashing and conditioning into the Brave New World.

Eyal Karim #fundie timesofisrael.com

IDF taps chief rabbi who once seemed to permit wartime rape

Eyal Karim later retracted remarks; has also said women's enlistment is 'entirely forbidden,' opposes female singing at army events

Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot on Monday nominated a rabbi who once appeared to condone rape during wartime to take over as the IDF’s chief chaplain. Rabbi Col. Eyal Karim has also maintained that it is “entirely forbidden” for women to serve in the military for reasons of modesty and has opposed female singing at army events.

Karim was embroiled in controversy in 2012 for his response to a question posed to him (Hebrew link) on the religious website Kipa, asking in the light of certain biblical passages if IDF soldiers, for example, were permitted to commit rape during wartime despite the general understanding that such an act is widely considered repugnant.

In his response, Karim implied that such practices, among several others that were normally prohibited — including the consumption of nonkosher food — were permitted during battle.

“Although intercourse with a female gentile is very grave, it was permitted during wartime (under the conditions it stipulated) out of consideration for the soldiers’ difficulties,” he wrote. “And since our concern is the success of the collective in the war, the Torah permitted [soldiers] to satisfy the evil urge under the conditions it stipulated for the sake of the collective’s success.”

When the quote surfaced in 2012 and caused a media firestorm, he published a clarification stating that his comments were in no way meant to be applied in the modern era, but rather pertained to a theoretical discussion of the biblical permission for a Jewish soldier to kidnap an enemy woman and wed her.

“Obviously, in our times, when the world has advanced to a level of morality in which one does not marry captives, one must not perform this act, which is also entirely against the army’s values and orders,” he wrote.

The IDF on Monday responded to allegations against Karim, saying the colonel “wishes to clarify that his words were only uttered in response to a theoretical hermeneutical question, certainly not to a practical halachic question.

“Rabbi Karim never wrote, said, or even thought that an IDF soldier is permitted to sexually harm a woman during wartime,” the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit added in a statement.

On the matter of women’s enlistment, Karim wrote in 2002 that it was explicitly forbidden.

“In a situation such as the one during the War of Independence, in which there was a real pikuah nefesh [matter of life or death] of the Jewish people, women also participated in the defense of the nation and country, even though the situation was not so modest,” he wrote. “But in our era we do not live with a real threat to our survival.

“And because of the liable damage to the modesty of the girl and the nation, the great rabbis and the Chief Rabbinate have ruled that the enlistment of girls to the IDF is entirely forbidden.”

In 2011, Karim also wrote that women should not sing at army events. If women do perform, soldiers who object to attending the events on religious grounds should be allowed to skip, he added.

Several Israeli lawmakers decried Karim’s appointment.

Meretz party leader Zehava Galon said that Karim is not “suitable to be the rabbinic authority of the army, in which tens of thousands of women serve, and is not suitable to represent Jewish morality in any form.” She also condemned “his frightening, racist, and inflammatory statement” regarding wartime rape.

Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid urged Karim to disavow his remarks about women’s enlistment, saying that without a public statement to that effect “he cannot be the military chief rabbi.”

“Regarding the reports that he said that beautiful gentile women can be raped during wartime, it appears this is not his opinion,” Lapid continued. “But if he thinks this, not only may he not be the chief military rabbi, he can’t even be a rabbi.”

In addition to Karim, Eisenkot nominated another 12 colonels for promotion to brigadier general, pending the approval of Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman.

Don Boys #fundie amazon.com

Keep in mind that God cannot make mistakes and since the Bible is the very Word of God, it cannot contain mistakes. When Bible haters take a hatchet to the Bible, it is usually a matter of their bad interpretation rather than proof of no inspiration. They simply do not read it correctly or seek the correct meaning with a legitimate hermeneutic.

One must also remember that while the whole Bible is the Word of God, it is not all true. For example, when quoting Satan, Eve or friends of Job one must ask; "Is the Bible writer reporting a statement?" Not all statements in the Bible are true: however, all of it is the revealed Word of God and is totally reliable. If atheists don't understand that simple truth then they should not be writing books and characterizing themselves as 'scholars' and 'brights', as opposed to us 'dims'. Today's atheists are the modern Visigoths, who, like the originals who invaded Rome in 410 A.D., are violent, angry barbarians.