Similar posts

Alan Ives #fundie momof9splace.com

The devil is our adversary. He is against us, because he is against God. This is the basis of march music. God has given us wonderful march music, so the devil says, "If that is what God is for, then I'm against it," and the devil puts the accent on a beat opposite from that of march music. Dance music and march music are direct opposites, because their basic beat is the opposite. Now there are other things involved, which we will look at, but the devil is an opponent of everything that God is for. If God is for good, the devil is for evil. If God says go to church and listen to the Bible, the devil says go somewhere else and listen to something else. I think that's obvious to folks who have gone to church for a long enough time.

There's a basic difference. A march has the beat on one and three. ONE, two, THREE, four, ONE, two, THREE, four. Dance music is one, TWO, three, FOUR, one, TWO, three, FOUR. You can hear that old snare drum playing this difference.

The march type music is the soldier's music. We're going to depict something military if we use the march rhythm. If we use the dance rhythm, we're going to depict something that is opposed to marching, something sensual. This is a basic element of music.

We are to prove all things and hold fast that which is good (1 Thess. 5:21). Once we find good music, we need to hang on to it, and we ought to abhor that which is evil. Ephesians 5:10 tells us to prove that which is acceptable to the Lord. I want my music to be acceptable to the Lord. I want Him to be pleased with it.

We are spirit, soul, and body, and God has given us music to bless us spirit, soul, and body. Here's how it fits together: There are only three parts to music, because God made music, and He made music to be a blessing to man. 1 Thessalonians 5:23--"...and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." All that we are is affected by music.

How does this work? The spirit deals with our thoughts, and particularly our thoughts toward God. If you're not saved, your spirit is dead; and you're not thinking about God. It will take someone else to talk to you about the Lord to get you even to think about Him. Jesus said to His disciples, "...the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (Jn. 6:63). In the words of God are life. That's how we get eternal life; we are born again through the incorruptible seed. That has to do with spiritual things.

Bryan Fischer #fundie rightwingwatch.org

On his radio program today, Bryan Fischer recommended that the United States adopt an immigration policy based upon the Bible, meaning that all immigrants must convert to Christianity and completely leave behind their native practices, beliefs, culture, and language. If we "did immigration God's way," Fischer said, that would mean that "those who came to our shores would be expected to adopt our religious values and traditions — that would mean Christianity and not Islam — and they would leave behind their religion and their god." "That would mean leaving behind Islam and Allah," he explained, as well as adopting Judeo-Christian values, which means they they would not be allowed to complain about the sale or consumption of bacon or the inability to obtain Halal foods. "If this were to happen," he concluded, "we would have one god, we would have one law, we would have one culture, and we would have one language"

Let Us Reason #fundie letusreason.org

What does Scripture say about Polygamy?

In Matt. 19:4 we are told by Jesus that God created one “male and [one] female” and joined them in marriage. Mark 10:6-8:"But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 'and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.
The two as one is the pattern on how marriage was to be conducted from the start. NOT three or four as one.

Eve was taken from Adams body and given back to him as his wife (singular) showing God’s approval of what the marriage union is to be like. God always spoke of man's “wife,” as singular, not wives. Notice it also states one father one mother.

It wasn’t until sin made man fall (Gen. 4:23) that polygamy occurs. Cain was cursed, Lamech is a descendent of Cain and the first to practice polygamy. The first time polygamous relationship is found in the Bible is with a thriving rebellious society in sin; when a murderer named “Lamech [a descendant of Cain] took for himself two wives” (Gen.4:19, 23).

The same Godly pattern of one man and one wife is lived by Noah. At the time of the Ark (Gen. 7:7), Noah took his one wife into the ark, all his son’s took one wife; God called Noah’s family righteous and pure. If polygamy were ordained of God, it would have made sense that Noah and his sons would have taken additional wives with them to repopulate the earth faster from the cataclysm.

This was to be a permanent union between man and woman that they might be helpful to one another (Genesis 2:18). Marriage represents a relationship of both spiritual and physical unity.

Hebrews 13:3-4: “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”

We have examples of saints in the Old Testament going off the commandment i.e Solomon, but this is not God approved. Many of the patriarchs took more than one wife. Abraham, by recommendation of Sarah, took her maid. Jacob was tricked through Laban, into taking Leah first, and then Rachel, to whom he had been betrothed. polygamy was not wrong in ancient cultures, but was a departure from the divine institution that God ordained.

In the Bible I count 15 examples of polygamy from the time of Lamech to 931 A.D. 13 of these men had enough power that no one could call into question their practice, they were unaccountable or no one dared approach them. Lamech Genesis 4:19; Abraham Genesis 16; Esau Genesis 26:34; 28:9; Jacob Genesis 29:30; Ashur 1 Chronicles 4:5; Gideon Judges 8:30; Elkanah 1 Samuel 1:2; David 1 Samuel 25:39-44; 2 Samuel 3:2-5; 5:13; 1 Chronicles 14:3; Solomon 1 Kings 11:1-8; Rehoboam 2 Chronicles 11:18-23; Abijah 2 Chronicles 13:21; Jehoram 2 Chronicles 21:14; Joash 2 Chronicles 24:3; Ahab 2 Kings 10; Jehoiachin 2 Kings 24:15; Belshazzar Daniel 5:2; 1 Chronicles 2:8; Hosea in Hosea 3:1,2. Polygamy is mentioned in the Mosaic law and made inclusive on the basis of legislation, and continued to be practiced all down through the period of Jewish history to the Captivity, after which there is no instance of it on record (Gen.29:15-30, Jacob and his wives.)

Was Abraham, David Solomon condemned or approved for practicing polygamy? Well they certainly did not get blessed for it! The fact that every polygamist in the Bible like David and Solomon (1 Chron. 14:3) were punished. This should be evidence that this is not God’s will.

God never condoned polygamy but like divorce he allowed it to occur and did not bring an immediate punishment for this disobedience. Deut. 17:14-17: “I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,' “you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the LORD has said to you, 'You shall not return that way again.' “Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.” This is the command of God, and he has never changed it.

1 Kings 11:3 says Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines violating the principle of monogamy that he was given through the law of Moses. Consider that Solomon at one time was the wisest man in the world. In I Kings 11:4: “For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.” Notice Solomon became a polytheist because he was influenced in polygamy. In his case many wives, became many gods. Scripture has always commanded monogamy (Ps.128:3; Prov. 5:18; 18:22; 19:14; 31:10-29; Eccl. 9:9).

The fact is that God never commanded polygamy or divorce. Scripture says (Bible) He only permitted it because of the hardness of their hearts (Deut. 24:1; Matt. 19:8). Matt. 5:31-32: “Furthermore it has been said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce. But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.” God hates divorce as well as polygamy, since it destroys the family (Mal. 2:16). Whatever the patriarchs or any Christian did wrong does not change the fact the Bible condemns it.

There are some stipulations in the law that are connected to this subject. Matt. 22:24: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.” This is based on the commandment found in Deut. 25:5-6: “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband's brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. “And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. ”

Multiple wives was tolerated but never with God's approval. Jesus told the Jews, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way" (Matthew 19:3-8). The Mosaic law aimed at mitigating, rather than removing, evils that were inseparable from the state of society in that day. Its enactments were directed to the discouragement of polygamy; to prevent the injustice frequently consequent upon the exercise of the rights of a father or a master; to bring divorce under some restriction; and to enforce purity of life during the maintenance of the matrimonial bond.

The Bible says adultery is not a choice, one does not have to acquire another wife to solve his urges. Jesus said if you look upon another woman with desire (married or not) it is adultery, a sin.

Paul insisted that a leader in the church should be “the husband of one wife,” a deacon or elder must have one wife... Titus 1:6.

The New Testament teaches that, “Each man [should] have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2). Monogamous marriage teaches us the type of the relation Christ has between himself and His bride, the church (Eph. 5:31-32). The church is called the bride, collectively as one (singular) each person is not a bride, as in plurality of wives and marriages.

How many wives did Adam have in Gen.2:24? One, God did not take two wives out from his side. Monogamy has always been God's standard for the human race. From the very beginning God set the pattern by creating a monogamous marriage relationship -one man and one woman, Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27; 2:21-25). It cannot be interpreted he became one with “each wife”; then this would mean he would be a husband to each, committing adultery. God certainly could have made two or more wives for Adam, this would have endorse the idea of polygamy, but he made only one.

The Bible clearly and decidedly states that God does not condone or allow the practice of polygamy over and over again.

BLarryBakersman #conspiracy reddit.com

Time itself is moving faster

Is it just me or do seconds seem faster now?

I remember when I was younger we would use things like "one-one thousand, two-one thousand" and "one Mississippi, two Mississippi" to count and it was very close to the time.

Now, it's not even close. Try it yourself. Get anybody you know to count to 30 and have your stopwatch going, every time they will be short 5 seconds or more.

I'm not sure if it's a Mandela Effect but I didn't know where else to talk about this.

It's either this reality is moving faster than it used to, I'm in a different reality where seconds are faster, or time is just moving faster relative to me. I'm only 30 so it hasn't been that long since I counted to 10 on the playground.

What do you guys think? Is time moving faster now?

Sparrow's Song #sexist incels.co

We cannot restore the old patriarchy, it wouldn't fix our faces anyway... We need a Neo-Patriarchy.

Consider a society with nationalized healthcare, facial surgery for anyone who needs it, artificial wombs for anyone who wants them, realistic and affordable waifubots that are superior to foids in every way... This would be a patriarchal society that femasites could not complain about because since we would have no use for them, they would not be "oppressed". We could build a wall and outside of our advanced society, the current, barbaric, matriarchal cuckold society can remain intact as long as it can support itself.

This might sound gay but hear me out... Ectogenesis will be available soon, but CRISPR will still be very expensive. Males, with ectogenesis and stem cell technology, can reproduce asexually, one drop of blood can produce sperm or eggs in a lab. If you want to reproduce asexually but cannot afford to modify your genes with CRISPR, you will have the option of starting a "bromance" family with another straight male who's genetics would combine favorably with yours. This is not traditional by any means, but this is better than cuckolding, telegony, and allowing your bloodline to end with you. I would argue that today's femasites are so selfish and barbaric, that a child raised by two straight males in a "bromance" household would have a better upbringing than a child raised by a single mother who ignores it's cries while passed out in a puddle of chad cum surrounded by empty Smirnoff Ice bottles and Xanax pills. In reality, these children would have FOUR parents as opposed to ONE single mother because not only would the child have two bro dads but it would have two waifubot mothers as well. The bros can sustain a population by fathering two children each, you would have one child made from your sperm and your bro's egg and one child from your egg and you bro's sperm.

To make our society fair for femoids, we would not have only sons, daughters would be born in even number to sons. However, all sex between humans would be illegal, men are only allowed to fuck waifubots and foids are only allowed to fuck chadbots. The punishment for having sex with another human is exile, violators would be forcefully removed and left on the other side of the wall to join the roasties, cucks, and chads. Sex between humans is an act of violence towards the genes of other humans who are not having sex, the root of all evil humans do to other humans is sexual reproduction and sexual competition, therefore sex between two humans is seen as the most severe form of barbarism and forbidden in our advanced and merciful society. We would even allow people to leave without violating the sex rule if they wish, they would be educated about how our society works versus how the chad harem/cuckold society on the other side of the wall works and would be free to choose which society they want to live in at 14.

Even without the wall or separate societies, we should be pushing for bromance households, waifubots, and artificial wombs. We are not trying to "oppress" femoids or "make them obsolete", we are simply trying become sexually and reproductively independent from them. Sub8 males and LGBT people deserve dignified options for reproduction and family starting. If the foids say "asexual reproduction is misogynistic", we can say "you've made yourselves independent from men and in charge of your own reproduction, we deserve to be independent from femasites and in charge of our own reproduction"... If the conservacucks say "a family is only for a man and a woman and should only be started through natural means", we can say "silly bigot, don't force your outdated cultural norms on us, times have changed, it's the 21st century"... If the foids and cucks say "it's not natural to have sex with a robot", we can say "being robosexual isn't a choice, I was born this way, robosexuals are people too and deserve as much rights as anyone else, stop trying to oppress us, bigots"...

TL;DR:
We cannot go back to the old patriarchy, the masses will never accept it because they are too cucked. Even if we could, the arranged marriage foids wouldn't be attracted to us and would lust after chads anyway. The only way to win is to be more progressive than the progressives, we need to be sexually and reproductively independent from femoids. The so called "progressives" have no reason to oppose this, it doesn't negatively affect foids in anyway and it helps LGBT people. The current ideal family unit in The West is a single mother roastie and her neglected bastards or a landwhale cumslut and her soon to be divorced raped cuck hubby hanging from the ceiling in the other room by an electrical cord while the bastard child plays fortnite on mommy's phone aka chad summoning device. The future ideal happy family will be two bromosexuals on NEETbux taking bong hits on the couch and playing vidya while their waifubots do all the housework and get their genetically superior, asexually created children ready for school.

Truth For The World #fundie truthfortheworld.org

Polygamy is a common practice in Africa and among Muslim believing people. It is the practice of a man having two or more wives. It has been practiced almost as long as man has been on earth. Since polygamy has been here a long time, many people think it is alright. Is that true? No! Sin has been with man longer than polygamy. Is sin alright? No! Just because something has been here a long time does not make it right. For a thing to be right it has to be accepted by God.

What is God’s attitude toward polygamy? God is the one who brought marriage into the world. He made the first man, Adam (Genesis 1:26). He saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone. He then made a “wife” for Adam. Notice God did not make “wives” for Adam. If He had wanted Adam to have more than one wife, He would have made him more than one. One was enough. God knows best.

Man in his different cultures has brought many ideas about marriage into the world. Some of man’s ideas agree with God’s plan. Some of man’s ideas do not agree with God’s plan. This is true with polygamy. Polygamy is a “man-made” idea. It is not in agreement with God’s plan for marriage. Anything that does not agree with what God has done or said is sin. God’s plan is one man and woman (wife) for life (Genesis 2).

There are many examples of polygamy in the Bible. The first person to be a polygamist was Lamech (Genesis 4:19-24). He lived six generations after Adam. He was a murderer. Nothing good is said about him.

Abraham was also a polygamist (Genesis 16:1-5). His wife, Sarai, was unable to have children. She gave her slave, Hagar, to be Abraham’s wife. Hagar had children for Abraham. Sarah then became jealous of Hagar. This marriage was then full of troubles.

Another polygamist was Esau. He was the firstborn of Isaac and Rebekah. Esau married two Hittite women (Genesis 26:33-34). They caused much grief to Isaac and Rebekah. Polygamist marriages affect more than just the man and his wives.

Gideon was a great and brave leader. He had 70 sons from many wives (Judges 8:30-31). What kind of a father could he be to 70 sons? Not the kind that God wants us to be.

King Solomon had 700 wives, princesses, and 300 concubines. His wives turned his heart away from God (1 Kings 11:3). His downfall as a king was a result of his practice of polygamy.

Nowhere in the Bible can we find polygamy doing any good. Everything that is said about it shows it causes troubles. That has not changed. Today polygamy still causes many marriage problems for those who practice it.

Let us see some Bible principles that teach against the practice of polygamy. Genesis 2:23-24 says that a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife. God did not say that man was to be joined to his “wives.” He said that man was to be joined to his wife. That is one and only one!

Paul compares the husband and wife to Christ and the church: For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church... (Ephesians 5:23). In Ephesians 1:22-23 we are told that the church is the body of Christ. There is only one body (Ephesians 4:4) so there is only one church. A man can have as many wives as Christ has churches. Christ has only one church so a man can have only one wife. Nowhere does the Bible speak of a man (one) being over wives (many) and that being right with God.

Matthew 19:3-9 speaks about divorce. Jesus Christ shows that God never wanted man (or woman) to divorce. The same is true with polygamy. God does not want a man to have more than one wife. Jesus said that a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. Jesus spoke of one man and one woman marrying. He said that marriage is made up of one man and one woman. The two make one flesh. When a man has more than one wife he is sinning. God hates sin.

In 1 Timothy 3:2 we are told that an elder must be the husband of one wife. Why not two or more? If it is a good practice, then why should not a church leader be a polygamist? The reason is that God does not want that kind of a marriage. Those who practice polygamy are sinning in God’s eyes. They cannot be church leaders nor church members.

Let us notice some problems with polygamy in the Bible. First, it causes strife and jealousy. We see it in the lives of those who practice it today. Joseph was sold into Egyptian slavery by his brothers because of jealousy from a polygamist marriage. Second, no man can be a proper husband by being a polygamist. Third, he can’t be a proper father as God intended. If a man has many children how can he be a father who brings them up chastening and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4)? Fourth, polygamy causes a man to go away from God rather than closer to God. We should do nothing that causes us to go away from God.

What must a polygamist do if he wants to become a Christian? First, he must realize that he is a lost sinner. He then must believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God (Mark 16:16). Following his belief in Christ, he must repent (Acts 2:38). That means he must get rid of all sin in his life. In his marriage, he must get rid of all his “wives” but the first one. After repenting, he must confess his faith in Christ as the Son of God (Romans 10:10). He is now ready for baptism. This baptism is a burial in water (Romans 6:3-4). It is for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). This is what everyone has to do to become a Christian. Have you done these things? If not, you are not a Christian. If we can help you to become a Christian, please write and let us know.

Matt Barber #fundie barbwire.com

The Magical Land of Progressitopia

There once was a land, a magical land, with a chicken in every pot. And in this land, which was called Progressitopia, there were two peoples. There were those who saw the world as it was, and there were those who saw the world as they oh-so-very-much wished it could be. The former were called the Trads, and the latter, the Progs. It was the Progs who held dominion over this great land, and so it was they who wrote, or re-wrote, her history.

Now, in this kingdom we must remember that Christianity, or “Christianism” as it would later be called (long since forbidden), along with similar such mythological and dogmatic phantasms, remained the foremost, if not the sole, thorn in the Progs’ collectivist butt. Any and all thought or practice that might, in any way, undermine full realization of, and strict adherence to, progressive thinking was, therefore, strictly verboten.

In fact, the Trads, the traditionalist remnant, had proven singularly responsible for the famines, Civil War II and Progressitopia’s endlessly spiraling state of affairs, both foreign and domestic – a state that, notwithstanding all predictions to the contrary, somehow became significantly and enigmatically worse subsequent to the onset of progressive governance.

There was, however, one exception to this rule: Islam. Shadowing the glorious dawn of progressive reign came, from o’er the sea, a mighty and fearsome caliphate. The Muslim faith spread like wildfire. Recruitment efforts were buoyed, and appreciably so, in that, while yet a loving and peaceful religion, any skeptic or “infidel” who failed to convert was either immediately raped and enslaved or summarily beheaded, stoned, shot or blown limb-from-limb.

Whereas Progressitopians, with their one-child-only abortion mandate, stopped reproducing altogether, adherents to the religion of peace rutted like rabbits. Every corner of the globe became thickly populated by devotees of the most praised Prophet Muhammad – peace be upon him.

As global violence and jihad spiked, it seemed for a time that Progressitopia and the Islamic caliphate would be one another’s undoing.

And then something extraordinary happened.

The King of Progressitopia, a brave and handsome man most wise, with visor of gold and scepter of 3-iron in hand, bowed before the great caliph and presented a series of official mea culpas on behalf of his land. He prayed Allah’s forgiveness for incurring his wrath – just desserts for centuries of Progressitopian Imperialism.

And so these two seemingly incompatible kingdoms, with wholly polarized worldviews, agreed to forge an incongruous socio-political partnership – an “Islamo-Progressive Alliance.” The alliance was built upon the maxim: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” The common enemy, of course, had formed its own unholy alliance: the “Zio-Christian Axis of Evil.”

And so it soon came to pass that independent Islamic settlements cropped-up throughout Progressitopia. The Michganistan Territory became, for all intents and purposes, Mecca to the Western Hemisphere.

Presently, the Islamo-Progressive Alliance found itself enjoying a comparatively peaceful seven-year truce. Apart from a weekly handful of suicide bombings, mass shootings and random beheadings, carried out chiefly against Progressitopia’s women and children, things were simply capital.

But then, trouble in paradise – economic turmoil. Toward the middle of the new millennium’s third decade, Progressitopia’s national debt ballooned to over 60 trillion. For many years, Trad economists and “debt alarmists” had warned that Progressitopia’s skyrocketing debt and deficits were unsustainable. These anti-progressive thinkers openly questioned the progressive strategy of taxing and spending one’s way to prosperity.

They felt, irrationally so, that such approach represented, as one provocative naysayer phrased it, “an epically stupid and patently impossible self-contradiction. No more can one spend his way out of debt than can he cheat his way out of adultery.”

Another fundamentalist cynic offered a less hurtful, yet no less sensationalist analogy: “When a bridge’s infrastructure becomes unsustainable,” he alleged, “it will ultimately collapse if its integrity is compromised to the degree that it can no longer support some burgeoning mass. So too it goes, apparently, as relates integrity to politicians, governments and national debt.”

Right-wing propaganda aside, Progressitopia’s economy did, nonetheless, unexpectedly collapse for reasons ultimately deemed inconclusive.

Now, as heretofore told, and as go the history books, Christianism had, from time immemorial, been the very bane of free-thinking humanity’s existence. This hateful mythology had been largely to blame, in concert with its sister-faith, Judaism, and its insufferable cousin, conservatism, an equally curious mental disorder, for all of the world’s wars, slavery, racism, sexism, disease, capitalism, global warming and, most onerously perhaps, gluten sensitivity.

Moreover, both Christianism and conservatism were ultimately determined to have been the catalyst for the systemic phobia outbreak that inexplicably began around the turn of the century. First there was homophobia, an irrational, chronic and debilitating fear of the square-hole-round-peg people, or, as this flamboyant troupe, so enamored with acronymic wordplay, preferred to be called: the “SHRP community.” Since SHRPs displayed impeccable fashion sense and a flair for the fabulous, Neanderthalic Trads were, most naturally, terrified by them.

Then came Islamophobia, the irrational fear of having one’s head lopped off, followed by transphobia, the fear of naked men in ladies’ locker rooms, polyphobia, the fear of communal rompathons, as well as an all-inclusive litany of other phobias relating to myriad sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions.

Next, there emerged the great progressiphobia pandemic of ’27. This involved an equally absurd, though no less universal, fear of progressive thought, practice or people. This, for a time, threatened to halt Progressitopia’s progressing progress altogether.

Finally, there occurred a worldwide outbreak of phobia-phobia. This was, of course, a condition delineated by the once again irrational denial that any of the aforementioned phobias had “any basis in reality whatsoever,” but, rather, were “simply ham-fisted pejoratives intended to marginalize one’s political opposition.”

But, alas, we must for now part ways. My gluten-free frittata grows cold.

KnightsTemplar.TV #fundie godlikeproductions.com

Sexual Union of Souls and The Occult Forces of Sex

Sex is the fountain of all life.

However, let me warn you that this magnificent fountain is not something we humans should profane with our animal needs or wants by treating the most beautiful act of sex similar to that of a dirty dog. But in our current world, many men and women seem to be doing just that by making this most beautiful fountain a possible poisoned Karmic well of death for the unsuspecting souls who treat this divine act like that of an animal.

The facts are that most people are completely ignorant to this “force” when it comes to the spiritual realm, their astral souls and their animal bodies in the material world. The reason being is that most humans are not educated on these facts as the live their lives based on mostly pure materialism as they operate primarily from the seat of their animal selves rather than for their divine selves which would be their souls. These same people think of sex as purely a pleasure act where they feel good temporarily or reach a form of ecstasy, but they do not think beyond the joy we feel and or orgasm that it brings. This is a serious mistake that I have made myself more than once and have lived through the resulting very bad Karma from these ill fated and ignorantly chosen sexual unions.

When you have sex, you need to realize that the other persons soul becomes one with yours and some serious soul work may need to take place to release their astral connection to your astral self.

Think of these unseen forces that are like vampires that instead of feeding on your blood, feed on your energy which is your “life force.” It is almost akin to an exorcism that takes place when you are free from the other’s Astral influence. Some people can do this in days, weeks or months with the proper work and some people who don’t understand this will take a year or more to get over one relationship. If you have multiple sexual relationships then you are creating multiple unions that will end up creating multiple vampires confusing you and making you a bit mad in the head. Hence, think about porn stars, prostitutes and strippers who always seem to have serious mental issues that never leave them and often plague them till death. Most of these people are going crazy not from the porn or the act of sex, but the many sexual unions with dark souls that never leave them. The same can be said about the girl or guy who sleeps with everyone in your school or town. They are always a bit weird and most of them end up dying or going absolutely crazy later in life.

This is really why many people take break ups with their partners or marriages so bad.

Here is an excerpt from the Occult Science in Medicine to help put this in perspective for you:

Popular medicine deals only with external effects and physical causes, occult science goes deeper, seeking for fundamental causes and final effects, which are of far greater importance than the passing manifestations taking place in the physical form. Thus, for instance, a promiscuous sexual intercourse not only causes venereal diseases; but as during that act a commingling of the inner natures takes place to a certain extent, a man cohabiting with a depraved woman takes on some of her characteristics and joins to a certain extent her future Karma and destiny to his own. The basis of the existence of human beings is what, for want of a better expression, has been called the Will (Spirit or Life), and as one body may colour or poison another, likewise a colouring, and perhaps poisoning, takes place by a blending of spirit during sexual intercourse; this “spiritual substance” being the essence of each human being.

“If a woman leaves her husband, she is then not free from him, nor he from her; for a marital union having once been established, remains a union for all eternity.” (” De Homunculis.”)

The important thing to understand when it comes to yourself is that your body is comprised of two entities. One would be that of your material or animal body and the other would be your astral soul which is your divine self. When you are born, these two separate entities go out into the physical world and are always somewhat at war with one another with each trying to control your thoughts or actions in order to gain the upper hand in your daily affairs.

Think of it like you have an angel on one shoulder and a little devil on the other.

The devil would your animal self that encourages you to have as much sex as you please with whomever you please and the angle would be your good side that hopes to find a soul mate to marry and start a family with whom you can make love with because you care deeply for this person.

Here is a quotation from H. P. Blavatsky to help explain this a bit further:

“The ‘harvest of life’ consists of the finest spiritual thoughts, of the memory of the noblest and most unselfish deeds of the personality, and the constant presence during its bliss after death of all those it loved with divine spiritual devotion. Remember the teaching: The human soul, lower Manas, is the only and direct mediator between the personality and the divine Ego. That which goes to make up on this earth the personality, miscalled individuality by the majority, is the sum of all its mental, physical, and spiritual characteristics, which, being impressed on the human soul, produces the man. Now, of all these characteristics, it is the purified thoughts alone which can be impressed on the higher immortal Ego. This is done by the human soul merging again, in its essence, into its parent source, commingling with its divine Ego during life, and reuniting itself entirely with it after the death of the physical man.”

Philo said that “God separated Adam into his two sexual component parts, one male, the other female—Eve—taken from his side. The longing for reunion which love inspired in the divided halves of the originally dual being, is the source of the sexual pleasure, which is the beginning of all transgressions.”

This is where many of our problems had started when our astral souls had left the heavenly spirit world to inhabit the animal, plant and mineral world that we now know as the planet earth. This is where our species of animal, man kind or Home erectus has been in a perpetually lost as many of us are trying to find their way home or search for our souls mates. Our soul mates are our other astral halves thus resulting in a perfect union of souls. We are all Adam’s or Eve’s looking for our other halves so we can then truly be scientifically soul complete, but the wrong choice of a mate may just end up in a destructive union that causes negative consequences and or an outcome for both parties involved. I am sure you may have had this experience yourself or have seen this first hand in your lifetime.

The male element represents the energy, action, warmth, and productive principle in nature. The female represents, the maternal which is passive and procreative, the union of the two is the subjective man’s universal soul. The whole reason we humans have sex is for this union and not purely for the pleasure of the act, but for the reproduction of “souls”which just happens to use our animal bodies which I sometimes refer to as space suits for this propagation process. To put it simply, we humans are used by astral soul entities who wish to propagate our physical bodies to further their Karmic development.

Here is an excerpt from Harry Houdini in his book , The Esoteric that will help those of you out there understand the difference between the soul and animal body;

“The human body is subject to a double law of nature, male and female, and when the student will throw aside this outer material body, as his hypothesis,and learns to comprehend the difference between the objective and subjective man; the animal and the soul body, the outer and the inner being: to polarize either with the astral-magno or astral-force, he can have the might power of nature, and become the grandest of magicians. But the student must not rest here but press on. The student of soul-light finds the union of sex in its dual being is the universal form of God ; unselfish love the “universal force, and wisdom the guiding hand; marriage of the soul with spirit the universal result.

The bottom line is that regardless if you are heterosexual or homosexual, the Occult Forces of Sex And The Sexual Union of Souls is not something that should be taken lightly or you should carelessly toy with. You need to understand that you have now entered into “soul union” with this other person’s soul because when we mate with another human, we are also mating with their soul.

If you care and love them from your heart,this is where you will find the divine spark that culminates from this union as you unite as one with them and the magic can be very powerful. The reason is because this union of souls holds a special energy in a regenenerating as well as a generating force with the former producing this union of souls which is astral and also physical because we can all see, touch and feel the experience in the material world. The consequences of this act could turn out very bad if you simply cannot control these energies or Karma that may be a result of what you think is just “casual sex.”

u/TalkTactic #fundie #dunning-kruger #psycho archive.is

Loki - They are changing him from an Alpha Male to a Beta. Stop it.

Loki seems to be slowly getting more and more depowered as time progresses through the Marvel timeline. But what is sadly the most devastating blow to the character seems to be that the writers who help to craft Loki’s personality seem to slowly be stripping away his alpha male characteristics and replacing them with beta male ones.

You have to admit that in the first Thor movie Loki put it all on the line when he tried to betray Thor and take his place as the leader of Asgard. He was a Man on a mission, and was willing to take huge risk’s and chances to get what he wanted. But now, it seems that Loki just wants to have power and status.

What changed? Well I believe that it is his knowledge that he wasn’t a blood heir to Odin, and that changed his frame and mindset of how he viewed himself. It changed who he believed he was. Instead of having a singular mission, a cause that he thought was worth fighting for. He felt that he was the only one who saw how reckless Thor was and how foolish it would be to make a Man like that king of the realms. So he did what he thought he had to to protect Asgard. But after learning he was the son of a frost giant king that changed everything for Loki.

Now because he feels what was once his rightful succession to leadership has now been replaced with just trying to be authentically an heir of power. Now Loki just wants power and is directionless.

This has changed Loki from an alpha male that was willing to sacrifice society for his own benefit to a beta that will bend to the winds of change as long as there is some scrap of leverage and power involved.

Hopefully there is some evil redemption for Loki.

See our discussion about Alpha vs Beta / Thor vs Loki at our following link to our YouTube video. https://youtu.be/dXyBZVXrvHA?list=PL_R0PYzy4FL3_QwQla1v4kmPKGXCgRR8t

Comments:

u/[deleted]

Loki was portrayed way less masculine than he originally was in older Marvel comics. Tom Hiddleston gave a somehow "classical" or "theatrical", glamourous interpretation of his moods. In the comics, he's a born destroyer, he's also ripped and his muscles fill each panel with envy and rage. In the movies he's certainly a lot less virile than he actually was meant to be, so I think he was "Beta" from the start

u/TalkTactic

You are right, Loki is a born destroyer in the comics.

You are right, Loki is ripped and his muscles fill each panel with envy and rage.

I never thought about Hiddleston's performance as glamorous, but after reading your comment I can see your point.I think the most important thing here is that in the comics Loki is a born destroyer whose ripped muscles filled every panel with envy and rage. There were no ripped muscles of envy and rage in the movies for Loki, and that is just a disservice to mankind - nuff said

----

u/EvieWn

His primary motivation in the very first movie was an attempt to step out of Thor's shadow, implying that he's been following in Thor's footsteps his entire life. He's always been a beta, he tried being an alpha for a while and got himself thrown into the void, imprisoned, and his mother killed in the attempt, I think he's just trying to find a beta role that doesn't involve getting stepped on by Odin any longer.

u/TalkTactic

EvieWn you have some great insights about the movies. I think the implication that he has been following in Thor's footsteps his entire life is accurate.

"He's always been a beta, he tried being an alpha for a while and got himself thrown into the void," You might be right EvieWn, Loki may have always been a beta. So first I'd like to say that I don't think that men fit neatly into the dichotomy of Alpha and Beta. For the sake of discussion lets entertain that men do fall into one of those two camps, Loki very well may always have been a beta.

I think that many men in real life would identify themselves as beta and like Loki attempt to be "Alpha" and fail. But I believe that if men had to fit in the category of Alpha or beta then there would be some men that are naturally Alpha and some men that would be self-made Alphas. In one of our Talk Tactic videos we discuss three kinds of Alphas.

1. The Alpha who sacrifices society for himself.
2. The Alpha who sacrifices himself for society.
3. The Alpha who sacrifices himself for himself. you can watch that video at the following link if you like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdoUa7ZI2Hc&index=9&list=PL_R0PYzy4FL1GbXfj-UOqOFe9ze-qmjLz

Back to Loki, I want to say that Loki would very much fall into the category of 1 or 2 in the first Thor movie.Here are my reasons why I think Loki was Alpha in the first movie.

1. Loki sees that Odin is putting Thor; a reckless, arrogant person on the throne of Asgard. A person ready to war.
2. Loki sees that as a threat.
3. Loki chooses to foil Thor from getting on the throne.
4. Loki understands that he is risking it all but if he is successful he will benefit Asgard and himself.
5. Loki has a chance to align himself with his Odin and Thor after learning about their lies, but instead, Loki chooses to go his own way which means falling into the abyss into the void. If you read the James Campbell hero with a thousand faces, this sets up Loki as being ready to be reborn when he emerges from the void.

I think you may be right though, it is quite possible that Loki has always been beta.

We also did a video discussing how some authors define what an Alpha is. You can watch it at the following link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6p9H4NImU4&list=PL_R0PYzy4FL1GbXfj-UOqOFe9ze-qmjLz&index=2

----

u/dangerphone

You know, they made Loki a woman in the comics for a few years. How does that fit into your alpha-beta dichotomy?

u/TalkTactic

Hello dangerphone thanks for that really great comment. Yes I realize that in the comics Loki did and would use and possess a female form. Also I believe that in some of the most recent comics there was a very ambiguous nature to how he identified his gender and sexuality. Just for clarification this is Michael Angelo responding to you because I don’t know how John feels about this. I see a contrast between the Alpha and Beta male in principle, but I think for the majority of men characteristics of Alpha and Beta attributes are embedded on a sort of spectrum. Each individual is different and what characteristics exist and the extent to which they are used in every individual’s personality is different. But typically if you are going to use the dichotomy of Alpha and Beta to divide men into two camps, the majority would fall into the Beta category. But back to your question, I think it is interesting that Loki who we identified as being the beta would also have been a woman for a time in the comics. Even now in his most recent adaptions his gender identity continues to be ambiguous and questionable. In a way Beta males take on feminine traits and characteristics and may also believe that feminine nature and qualities are superior to masculine ones. This would be in my view unhealthy because people should realize that masculine and feminine are both necessary and important and have been one of the key reasons for the success of humans on earth. But if Loki is a beta male than it would seem that his willingness to adapt his gender to acquire something he desires to compensate for something in his personality that he requires validation for, seems to be exactly the kind of difference we were describing between Thor and Loki in the video. How do you see things? I’d really be interested to hear your take.

u/dangerphone

Oh I was joking because alpha-beta theories are the domain of women-hating neck beards and alt-right children. I dislike everything about your theory and find it as deplorable and misguided as creationism. Sorry to get your hopes up for any sort of discussion.

u/TalkTactic

At Talk Tactic our mission is to encourage men who identify themselves as nice guys and to help them on their journey of reaching their vision of the good Man they want to become. Hopefully in that process of improving their lives they also improve the lives of those people closest to them which includes the most important women in their lives. Every person should seek to pursue liberty and happiness. It's unfortunate you chose to be vulgar and hurl insults.

u/dangerphone

I don’t believe I used a vulgar word but I understand if you read between the lines and got your feelings hurt. Loki becoming a woman, the power of Thor falling to Jane Foster, and many more characters exhibiting a greater diversity in gender, sexual orientation, and racial and ethnic identity shows that the comics industry is moving in the same way of the mainstream culture, towards a discarding of conservative and heteronormative values for values that foster the liberty and happiness for all. You seem to think liberty and happiness is earned by placing oneself at the top of a hierarchy, and so you will always be either be self-satisfied or insecure.

I do feel sorry for you, and do hope that one day you will look back on young self and shake your head ruefully. Because if you think if yourself liberated, you really have not found the edge of the cage.

[The argument continues in this fashion but the rest is too lengthy to post here.]

Man For Young Girl To Become My Wife #fundie blog.360.yahoo.com

My primary goal is to find one wife. I do not need more than one wife. I will be very happy and content with just one wife. However, I have interviewed many that would like to be one of two or more wives. I have given this serious thought and should I end up with a wife that would like to be one of two or more wives, I have no problem with it whatsoever. There are pros and cons to having multiple wives and I have considered all that have occurred to me. After I find my first wife, I will not seek out another wife. It will be my first wife's responsibility to present prospective wives to me, whom I will interview and decide if I will or will not accept them as a wife. I will be just a picky about them as I am with my first wife. In fact, I'll probably be more picky.

Yes, I hear all you arrogant ignorant Christians out there claiming it is ungodly to have more than one wife. Yes, God prefers a one man one women relationship but God Himself, under certain circumstances, not only allows a man to have multiple wives, but demands it, and nowhere in Scripture can it be found that God comes against multiple wives. King David, the man after God's own heart had multiple wives. King Solomon, the man God blessed with the greatest wisdom of all men had numerous wives. We find in the New Testament that God recognizes multiple wives in the consideration for the qualifications for Elder or Deacon. God says to qualify to become an Elder or Deacon, you must be a one woman type man, the husband of one wife. An Elder or Deacon is to be focused on God's work, not his wives, one wife it too distracting already LOL (laughing Out Loud).

But in America it is illegal to have more than one wife. Well, I can easily prevail in a debate regarding that matter, but that is not my task here. Just suffice it to say, you cannot legally marry more than one wife where the state is the authority giving you permission to marry. I will not be asking the state's permission, for I am not under the authority of any man made government.

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.

StAliaHarkonnen #fundie reddit.com

Do women understand that no one likes their personality and that attention and compliments they get about anything is just because of their cunts?

Of course they do. On some level they know they are vapid, they just get to suppress it and rationalize they aren't. As long as men keep on validating them the illusion persists.

That's why they are so upset about men seeing them as objects. I mean, it wouldn't even occur to any man to think his whole humanity is in question because some girl wants his dick, to think like that you need to be seriously doubting it yourself.

Women live on whiteknighs and beta orbiters, Chads reap the rewards. Cause they can excuse being used for their cunt in their fwb relationship as long as so many guys just love her sense of humor and intelligence.

Lol, no one does. You all know it. If you were male no one would give you time of day. You'd never have anything relevant to say. You'd never make anyone laugh. No one would ever call you interesting or stand talking to you for more than few seconds. You'd have no friends. Your posts would get no likes. Other men would hate you, including all your beta orbiters who are really just friends and only caring and loving because of what a great person you are - no, they'd kick you out of the group for being annoying. No one would ever ask you questions or find your anecdotes fascinating. No one would find your quirks cute.

If all of you turned into men you'd be a group below incels cause you wouldn't even be able to stand each other. Even your adoring dad would see you as a disappointment. Suddenly those suicidal tendencies would have much higher success rate. And still no one would give a shit.

Anonymous Conservative #fundie anonymousconservative.com

The LGBTs want to take our rights:
"The Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ rights organization in the country, on Friday announced it is officially supporting stricter gun laws in the wake of the mass shooting at an Orlando gay nightclub last weekend.
The HRC’s Board of Directors made the decision Thursday evening during a special meeting, and agreed to support limiting access to assault weapons, expanding background checks, and limiting the ability of those on terror watch lists or with a history of domestic violence to obtain guns."

Rabbits don’t want conflict, and the powers that be don’t want a shit storm. Gun owners may, as a result of this type of action, genuinely create both – and they don’t even have to violate any laws to do so.
Most estimates are that there are around 8 million gays in the United States, though many question if that may just be an exaggeration designed to create an impression conducive to their goals. Personally I suspect it is closer to 3 million. Nevertheless, if these gays want to try and attack the rights of gun owners, all gun owners need to point out is that if they begin to feel hostile to gays, and begin to see gays as too emotional and illogical, they might begin to not believe the testimony of gays in trials.
If that happened, it would in effect jury-nullify all hate crimes laws, and possibly affect any trial involving a crime committed against a gay. Personally now, I am quite confident that nothing a gay says could be believed, if they cannot come to terms with the fact that Islamic fundamentalism, and not a gun, was the cause of the Orlando shooting. I can’t help but realize how that realization of their illogicality would contaminate any testimony from any gay in a trial setting. I would even question whether any physical evidence was manufactured by an overly emotional gay, unable to deal with simple reality as it exists.
To us, such an image of the future would be meaningless. But to an individual with an amygdala unable to confront even the slightest hardship, and terrified of the slightest threat, this realization would be horrifying.
There are about 102 million gun owners out there (32% of all Americans), and all a defense attorney would need to do is find one to put on the jury of a man who beat a gay guy, stabbed a transgender, or murdered a transvestite. Did a transgender man use the girls locker room when a pee wee swim team was changing, and get beaten to a pulp? Don’t think the beater is going to get convicted on the word of the gay. If gays think guns should be banned, then the gay’s testimony is meaningless, and I would assume any evidence had been fabricated in an overemotional meltdown.
I have to confront the fact that if gays are this unable to perceive simple reality, I could probably never vote to convict in any such case. I suspect if I had been on the trial of the Orlando shooter tomorrow, I am not sure I would have been able to vote guilty, given the stories of a second shooter, the gay holding the door shut, and the fact that the shooter himself appears to have been gay. It would all have been too convoluted, I suspect. I would probably have let him walk out the door of the courtroom a free man, and I would have felt it was the only moral outcome, given my convictions regarding the gay’s inability to perceive simple realties such as Islamic radicalism, and the fact guns reduce crime when the law abiding have them.
The potential consequences against gays would admittedly be dangerous. Millions of people who want to commit crime might begin targeting gays specifically, knowing that they would be unlikely to be convicted, given how all it would take is one of the 102 million gun owners to land on their jury – and the lawyers of the perpetrator would undoubtedly be looking for gun owners to put on the jury. Gang members, who need to kill somebody as an initiation might seek out gays as victims, thinking they would be a free kill, and sadly there would be nothing I could do about that. Those prone to engage in violence against gays specifically because of homophobia might be emboldened, and gay attacks could increase precipitously, and obviously all of those gay attackers going free without any consequence would be unfortunate.
However gays do not seem to consider our safety when contemplating their actions. They are all too happy to try and make us and our families less safe by preventing us from getting the guns we want to protect them. So the idea that gays would be less safe due to our realization that gays are too emotional and cannot be trusted, would not be of concern to me. I would have to vote my conscience – every time – and I suspect most other gun owners would as well. One thing we do well is vote.
If this idea were to spread widely, this development would have two effects. One, gays will be presented with an idea that advocating for gun control will bring real consequences they cannot control – something they are not designed to cope with. This is an open conflict stimulus which they are not designed to function in the presence of.
Two, the powers that be will realize they are bringing about a situation where the integrity of government will begin to be degraded. Once a group is, from a practical perspective, unable to appeal to the justice system for justice, it will not be long before the entire system’s foundation is in question. I suspect most politicians, rather than see this come to pass, would rather let everything cool off.
Perhaps this is the only path forward for the nation however – one step closer to Apocalypse.
If you as a gun owner feel this piece represents how you feel about this issue, please feel free to cut and paste this to your fellow gun owners, and publish it wherever you like – attributed or not, I couldn’t care less.

Scarlets79 #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

Where's my spare sexual organ?

I don't understand why I have only one sexual organ. What if it stopped working? Then I wouldn't be able to breed, it's such a crucial organ. So why has evolution not given a man two penises as this would increase survival and procreation chances, thanks.
We have two eyes, if one goes at least you have the other one. Women have two breasts, we have two ears, two legs, two arms... why not two sexual organs?

Jared Taylor #racist #wingnut amren.com

Is It Time for Secession?

Are the United States ripe for partition? Francis Herbert Buckley, a lawyer and academic who has taught at McGill and is now at George Mason School of Law, thinks they are. “In all the ways that matter, save for the naked force of the law, we are already divided into two nations just as much as in 1861,” he writes. “The contempt for opponents, the Twitter mobs, online shaming and no-platforming, the growing tolerance of violence — it all suggests we would be happier in separate countries.”

It’s a great step forward that a separatist can find a respectable publisher — even if it claims to sell “books for smart conservatives.” American Secession reports that there is a lot of support for separation and offers good reasons for it but, alas, only hints at the most compelling reason.

Prof. Buckley makes much of a 2018 poll that found fully 39 percent of Americans — including 42 percent of Democrats — wanted to secede. Presumably there would have been fewer secessionist Democrats under President Obama. Another 2018 poll found that 31 percent of Americans thought there would be a civil war within the next five years. I don’t take these numbers very seriously; wild talk is cheap. But I think Prof. Buckley is right to underline a recent Gallup finding that only 44 percent of Americans would be wiling to fight for their country. Surely, he is correct to say that far fewer would fight to stop an American state from seceding.

Many people think that 700,000 dead Civil War soldiers settled the question of secession, but Prof. Buckley disagrees. He argues that the Framers clearly thought the states had the right to secede. James Madison believed any attempt to keep states in by force would be wrong and “would look more like a declaration of war.” Virginia joined the United States with the express proviso that it had the right to bolt. New England states that didn’t like the War of 1812 didn’t debate the legality of secession; only whether to do it.

Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison thought the slave-holding states should be expelled if they didn’t have the grace to leave, and wanted to hold a national Disunion Convention to expel then. On July 4, 1854, he told an Independence Day crowd that because the Constitution implicitly recognized slavery, it was “a covenant with death and an agreement with hell.” He then burned a copy, saying “So perish all compromises with tyranny!”

James Buchanan, who was president when the Southern states began to leave, believed they should not be forced to stay:

The fact is that our union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it cannot live in the affections of the people, it must one day parish.

Before South Carolina hotheads fired on Fort Sumter, even Abraham Lincoln wavered: “Would the marching of an army into South Carolina . . . without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion? I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion.”

Prof. Buckley reminds us that even now, there is one way to leave that everyone would agree is legal. The Founders believed the federal government would never give up power voluntarily — they were right — and that’s why they wrote Article V of the Constitution. It lets the states bypass the federal government to amend or even abolish the Constitution. If 34 state legislatures agree, there will be a constitutional convention at which anything goes. If 38 states then ratify the changes, that’s the new constitution — which could recognize secession or even sanction a partition. “Secession cannot be unconstitutional,” writes Prof. Buckley, “when there’s a constitutional way of making it happen, through a constitutional convention.”

I don’t think any of that would be necessary, because the federal government wouldn’t today invade a seceding state. As I wrote nine years ago, Americans don’t have the stomach to slaughter fellow Americans just to keep their corpses within the union. If a state wanted to make a serious go of it — especially for “progressive” reasons — the coast is clear, and as Prof. Buckley notes, these days, it is lefties who promote secession.

One of the best-known breakaway movements is in California, and Mr. Trump’s 2016 victory gave it a boost. The state already has legal marijuana despite federal drug laws and it loves illegal immigrants. The “Calexit” movement is run by people who think: “California loses billions of dollars every day [in federal taxes] supporting states whose people hate us and our culture. Let’s keep our taxes in California and invest in our people first.” Prof. Buckley notes that this sounds like “California first” or even “make California great again” and almost implies an anti-conservative immigration policy. The point is, many Californians hate Donald Trump and want out.

Vermont is so full of goofy liberals it has Bernie Sanders for a senator; it has also long been a nest of secessionists.

The Cascadia movement would make an independent country out of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia and would, as Prof. Buckley puts it “unite people with the same kinds of ideas about the environment, Starbucks and yoga.” If the President gets a second term, Prof. Buckley can imagine Democrats calling for resistance in the streets.

They already have. The manager of a Red Hen restaurant proudly refused service to White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, and a woman jostled and screamed at White House counselor Kellyanne Conway. Black congresswoman Maxine Waters then urged Democrats to mob and humiliate any Trump cabinet members they saw in public.

This is all part of the nastiness Prof. Buckley says is a sign of irreconcilable differences. Examples he cites are a 2017 article in Foreign Policy — not normally a crackpot magazine — claiming that “for the first time in America’s history, a Nazi sympathizer occupied the Oval Office.” Prof. Buckley also remembers that when Michelle Obama said that “when they [our opponents] go low we go high,” Attorney General Eric Holder corrected her: “No, no, when they go low, we kick them.” When Republican Senator Rand Paul was attacked and suffered six broken ribs and lung damage, MSNBC host Kasie Hunt laughingly said it was one of her “favorite stories.” Reporters routinely write vile stories about Republicans that would have got them fired in more civil times, but the point of today’s journalism is, in Prof. Buckley’s words, to let readers “feast on their hatreds.”

The last go at secession didn’t end well, and perhaps because he was born in Canada, Prof. Buckley understands something about it most Americans don’t: The further we get from the Civil War, the more we are supposed to revile the Confederates. The people who were actually trying to kill each other became friends. President Grant invited Robert E. Lee for a visit to the White House, and on the 50th anniversary of Pickett’s charge, veterans from both sides met on Cemetery Ridge and embraced each other. There was a popular television series, The Grey Ghost, in which Confederates were the heroes, and, as Prof. Buckley writes, “From their defeat, white southerners were permitted to retain some measure of dignity in the memory of their battlefield heroes.” Not anymore. Anything Confederate or even Southern is worse than leprosy, and “if millions of people in one section of the country are told they’re presumptively evil, and that the presumption really can’t be rebutted, they’re going to wonder if they belong somewhere else.”

But as Prof. Buckley recognizes, there is an even more testy divide: “Now the divisions are broader than North versus South. It’s liberals versus conservative and especially progressives versus Trump supporters.” “In our politics,” he adds, “we are already two nations.” One likely split would be to hive off the two coasts and leave the middle, making three countries.

That would make smaller countries, but Prof. Buckley says they would be better countries. He makes much of the fact that the people who claim to be the happiest in the world live in small countries (he ignores the fact that they live in white countries). They have governments that are close to the people and if they are homogenous, they have a sense of community. One disadvantage of big countries is that they spend more than they need to on weapons. America, China, and Russia don’t need anything like all the firepower they have, but their leaders like being able to swagger around the globe. Prof. Buckley thinks their citizens may not care. In the United States, it is the 700 to 1,000 defense-industry lobbyists — about two per congressman — who keep the defense budget fat.

The military-industrial complex is a good example of the dangers of size. Prof. Buckley argues that big countries have a lot of corruption because their governments spend huge sums people love to divert. He makes an interesting point: The kinds of political corruption that are actually illegal — bribery, extortion, mail fraud, vote-buying — are the least of our problems. Campaign contributions and lobbying are far worse, and are perfectly legal. After they leave office, about half of all congressmen become lobbyists, and make much more than they ever did as “public servants.” While they’re in office, they vote on bills with an eye to pleasing their future paymasters.

Prof. Buckley does note one clear advantage of size: free trade. Imagine, he writes, what it was like under the Articles of Confederation, with states taxing goods from other states. However, this problem could be solved through a common market of the kind that has enriched Europe.

Prof. Buckley recognizes that outright secession is unlikely, despite its advantages, so he proposes a middle ground: home rule. States would make all their own laws but leave foreign policy to the feds. All the hot issues — same-sex marriage, gun rights, abortion, public prayer, drug laws — would be thrashed out locally. If Americans were free to move to whatever state suited them, everyone could find a place to be happy.

This, is of course, was what the Founders wanted, and until the 20th century, and the federal government touched most people only when they went to the post office. Now, as Prof. Buckley points out, the feds want to run our lives for us. They are helped by a Supreme Court that has become the final arbiter of tough problems and forces the same solutions on every state. Federalism was supposed to be a compromise to get the best of both small and large government, but a ruthlessly centralizing United States is destroying all the advantages of smallness.

Home rule would be much better than what we have now. American Secession is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far enough. Prof. Buckley does note that “diversity” is not an advantage for a country, but I don’t remember a single occurrence of the word “race.” Prof. Buckley admits that at one time the country was coherent — British and Protestant — “but if we were ever that, we’re certainly not that today.” He goes on: “Our constitution has been justly admired, but it was made for a citizenry very different from the angry Americans of today.” And on: “The constitution was designed for another country, one in which people agreed on fundamental principles, and that’s not today’s America.”

What happened to yesterday’s America? Prof. Buckley gives us a hint with one of his diagnoses of why the country is splitting apart politically: “With their identity politics, the Democrats have become the intersectional party of racial and sexual minorities, of immigrants and feminists.” This is certainly true, but Prof. Buckley fails to note that the most bitter and enduring fault line is race. Instead, he trots out nonsense: “Other countries have their common cultures or religions. What America has is an idea that constitutes our identity as Americans, and that idea is liberalism in the classical sense.” The Founders would have been astounded to be told that they were starting a country with an identity that was nothing but an idea.

Prof. Buckley also argues that no secession movement would repeal civil rights laws or follow racial contours. That might be true for goofy-liberal secessionists in California or Vermont, but a split along current political-party lines, would be implicitly racial. As the partition was worked out, the racial divide might even become explicit.

It is strange that conservatives are so unwilling to recognize the importance of race while liberals, in their perverse way, are often obsessed with it. Still, this book is progress. Anyone who recognizes that people are better off separate — for whatever reason — is preparing the way for the kind of racial separation that many whites yearn for.

Ann Barnhardt #fundie barnhardt.biz

I saw a story about a twelve year old boy who recently murdered himself. This boy behaved in extremely effeminate and flamboyant way, and was, by all appearances, an enthusiastic aspirant to the sodomite lifestyle. He was teased a bit at school. And I say “a bit” because by the sounds of it the majority of people not only tolerated his deviant behavior (yes, DEVIANT), but enthusiastically encouraged him in it.

This kid was TWELVE.

I would just like to say, just so it is on the record when years from now people are sifting through the rubble and ash of this godforsaken culture, that this boy’s parents, teachers, and so-called “friends” – but most especially his parents – have his blood all over their hands. They failed him so profoundly that he murdered himself. In what sense?

THEY DID NOT CORRECT AND PUNISH HIS DEVIANT BEHAVIOR. In fact, they apparently bent over backwards to encourage their son to be an aspiring sodomite. Who drove this boy to CHEERLEADING PRACTICE? Who paid for CHEERLEADING lessons? Who said, “yes” to his request to be a CHEERLEADER in the first place? And don’t tell me that male cheerleaders in college are macho and that this kid was analogous to them. Bull. Those guys are POWERLIFTERS who figure out that they can hang out and get their hands literally ALL OVER hot-bodied, scantily clad chickie-poos whilst showing off to the other dudes that they can do repeated 100 pound one-armed overhead presses. This kid was monstrously, monstrously effeminate. Not a libidinous heterosexual powerlifter, so don’t even try that.

Who indulged his hobby of fashion design? Who took him to the fabric store and encouraged a hobby that TODAY is utterly saturated and defined by SODOMITES? Who paid for the cable teevee that this YOUNG BOY sat in front of for the last twelve years, watching all of the satanic, sodomite-glorifying agitporn and allowing those seeds to be sown in his mind?

Do you realize, or for most of you REMEMBER, when fathers and mothers actually did their jobs and corrected and punished deviant, perverted behavior in their children instead of wallowing in it as they derived a twisted self-satisfaction in watching their own offspring psychologically and spiritually self-destruct?

Are any of you still able to comprehend the fact that schoolyard teasing for deviant, self-destructive behavior is actually a GOOD THING that keeps people from becoming self-destructive aberrosexuals? – but that’s redundant because aberrosexuality is by definition self-destructive. You know why? Because it is SIN.

Do we or do we not believe that sodomy IS A SIN, in fact, one of the sins that cry out to heaven for God’s vengeance? DO YOU BELIEVE THAT OR NOT? If you do, then to say that a parent should not only NOT aggressively correct and punish such wicked (yes, WICKED) behavior, but encourage and ratify all of the egregious signs of a child or young adult falling into the sodomite psychosis, which can only lead to misery, despair, and eventually hell, is self-contradicting nonsense.

That boy would be alive today had his parents DONE THEIR JOB and refused to indulge and facilitate their son’s obvious and profound bewitchment by the sodomite culture which they pumped to him via the family cable feed. He would be alive today if at the first instance of him vying for attention by acting camp and feminine he had been given a good hard smack and sent to his room, with the stern, crystal clear warning that any further repetition of such wickedness would be punished swiftly and severely.

Barring supernatural intervention, prepare to see the percentage of the population that is sexually deviant skyrocket parabolically, because as the musloid culture proves beyond a shadow of a doubt with its sky-high rates of man-on-man and man-on-boy perversion, deviant sexuality CAN be inculcated with great “success”, and that is precisely the objective of both the education system and the media. And the populace has been brainwashed into believing that happily sacrificing their own children to satan on the altar of aberrosexuality is the pinnacle of virtue and nobility. Having an aberrosexual child is now a badge of honor, and when they murder themselves they are made saints, when the truth is probably exactly the opposite, not that anyone genuinely cares or is bothered by the thought of that young man being lost for all eternity to hell.

Martin #fundie premier.org.uk

Martin: Why should courts have the ability to make such legal decisions? That is the job of the executive, not the judiciary.

glenbo: Neither should be illegal as both abortion and same-sex marriage is nobody's business and should be nobody's decision other than those who are at the center of them.

Martin: So you're saying that rape and murder should be legal. €Of course the problem with same-sex 'marriage is that it isn't marriage, it's just a fraud perpetrated on those involved. Since marriage requires a man and a woman to consummate it, your same-gender 'marriage can never be consummated.

glenbo: Not at all. Please don't put words in my mouth. That is manipulative. A woman's pregnancy decisions should only be made by the one who is at the center of it. "Of course the problem with same-sex 'marriage' is that it isn't marriage" Two people of the same gender getting legally married causes NO problems. "it's just a fraud perpetrated on those involved." Marriage is a legal contract. A legal contract entered into by two consenting adults is not fraudulent. "Since marriage requires a man and a woman to consummate it, your same-gender 'marriage can never be consummated." There is no mandate in any marriage law in any state that requires "consummation."

Martin: You said that abortion should be legal. The baby is at the centre of the pregnancy, more so than the woman. Marriage is the joining of two people into one, the contract is of minor importance. Two persons of the same gender cannot be so joined. They had to remove consummation from marital law in the UK because it was impossible to fulfill in same gender 'marriage'. Non consummation was a cause for anulment.

glenbo: Wrong. The mother is, and she is the only one best suited to make decisions, not total strangers who will ignore the child once born. "Marriage is the joining of two people into one," "One" what??? "Two persons of the same gender cannot be so joined." Yes they can legally. And there is no mandate in any marriage law that stipulates any kind of "joining" whatever that means. Marriage is a legal union. It applies to all genders. And what gay people do with their private lives is non of your business. It is not your decision to make if gay couples can wed. Sexual copulation is NOT a mandate in marriage law. You seem to be fixated on sexual behavior. That's just way too creepy.

Martin: No, the baby is at the centre. There is no decision to be made except for those relating to a safe delivery of a healthy baby. One married couple. The law has no say. Marriage is the joining of a man and woman. It would be nice if those who are 'gay', whatever that means, would keep their private lives to themselves and not force it on the rest of us. You know, it's a bit strange how you haven't worked it out that marriage is about sex, two persons of opposite gender joining together in sex. And what do your 'gay' people do but simulate sex?

glenbo: To assert gay couples getting married somehow "forces" something on you is absurd. Gay couples seeking marriage is none of your business. You fixate on sex and not on two people being in love and wanting to protect each other and their children. That's just plain creepy.

Martin: Homosexuality is nothing to do with love. So you cannot claim that they want to marry because of love. It is lust, plain and simple. Of course, what they are doing would be none of my business if they didn't insist on trying to make the rest of us accept it. Ask those making wedding cakes.

Craig Biddle #fundie theobjectivestandard.com

Since capitalism is the only social system in which the courts uphold the principles of objective law—since it is the only social system in which the government protects individual rights (including property rights)—since it is the only social system in which people can act fully according to their own judgment and thus live fully as human beings—capitalism is the only moral social system.

But, one might ask, what about the poor, the disabled, and the helpless? How do they fare under laissez-faire? To answer this question, we must bear in mind that very few people are genuinely helpless or unable to support themselves; the great majority of people are capable of acting as their life requires. And if a person chooses to live and is capable of supporting himself, he has a moral responsibility to do so; if he refuses to support himself and, instead, steals, begs, or seeks handouts, he is acting parasitically and immorally.

With this in mind, let us consider the position of the poor, the disabled, and the helpless in a truly capitalist system. But we must take them one at a time, for they are not necessarily one and the same. As to the poor: Capitalism leaves each individual free to think, work, and make as much money as he is willing and able to earn. No other social system on earth does this. In a capitalist society, if a poor person wants to work his way out of poverty—as countless poor people have done—he is fully free to do so. Of course, if he doesn’t want to, he doesn’t have to; the choice is his to make, and no one can force him one way or the other.

Some people are not concerned with being wealthy, but this does not make them immoral. While an artist or a gardener might be financially poor, he is not by that fact less moral than a CEO or an athlete who is financially rich. A person’s monetary wealth does not determine his moral status. His choices and actions do: Are they rational or irrational—life-promoting or life-retarding, selfish or selfless, honest or dishonest? Morally speaking, that is what matters. If having more money is honestly important to a person, he should act accordingly by, for instance, seeking a higher-paying job, investing his money more wisely, or starting a business of his own. And capitalism not only leaves everyone—including the poor—completely free to do so; it also provides an ever-increasing flow of educational possibilities and moneymaking opportunities.

As to the disabled: Capitalism leaves them free to compensate for their disabilities by means of any remaining abilities they might have. Again, no other social system on earth does this. In a capitalist society, if a person lacks ability in some respect but still has abilities in other respects, he is fully free to use his existing abilities to support and further his life—as many disabled people do. For instance: A deaf person might choose to pursue a career in genetics, architecture, or accounting. A blind person might choose to pursue a career in music, radio, or psychology. A paraplegic might choose to pursue a career in law, education, or writing. And today—with the technology made possible by freer markets—even a quadriplegic can learn to support himself; he might pursue a career in finance, economics, or computer programming.

When disabled people are fully free to act on their judgment, there is usually something they can do to compensate for their shortcomings. And capitalism not only leaves them completely free to do so; it also makes available an ever-increasing flow of enabling technology.

Now, as to the helpless: It is crucial here to acknowledge that very few people actually fall into this extremely unfortunate category. At this point, we are talking only about people who are severely retarded, have a totally debilitating disease, or are injured to the extent that they are unable to support themselves by any means. What happens to such people in a laissez-faire society? Capitalism leaves each individual free to offer them as much charity as he is able and willing to offer. Once again, no other social system on earth does this. In a capitalist society, if a person has the means and the desire to assist the helpless—as many people do—he is fully free to do so. Of course, if he doesn’t have the means, he can’t offer them assistance. And whether he has the means or not, if he doesn’t want to, he doesn’t have to; the choice is his to make, and no one can force him one way or the other.

But, one might wonder, what if everyone’s rights are respected, yet no one wants to help the helpless.

As always, to address this concern we must observe the relevant facts. What the helpless need but cannot produce is life-serving values; that’s what makes them helpless. Such values can be produced only by able people; hence the term able. But able people can produce values only if they are free to act on the very thing that makes them able: their judgment. The basic social condition that makes human life possible is freedom—freedom from the initiation of physical force—the freedom of each individual to act on the judgment of his own mind.

Thus, respect for individual rights is as much in the best interest of the helpless as it is in the best interest of the able—if not more so. Think about it: If the able are not free, they cannot live (as human beings); and if the able cannot live, what happens to the helpless? Clearly, if the helpless are to be helped, they (and everyone who cares about them) must respect individual rights—including the rights of the able.

Observe further that while in reality there are very few genuinely helpless people, when individual rights are respected there are plenty of people who are willing and able to help them. Look around: Do you ever see people working with the mentally retarded? Ask your friends: Would they ever donate money to help a poor child with leukemia? Ask yourself: Would you ever offer assistance to a victim of a devastating accident? Consider this: Even in the semi-free, mixed economy of the United States today—in which producers are heavily and immorally taxed—the amount of money voluntarily donated to charity is enormous; in 1999 alone, tax-strapped Americans gave over $190 billion to charity.But, one might suppose, isn’t that because people are partly altruistic and not fully selfish? Why would a true egoist ever want to help the helpless?

To be sure, a truly selfish person would not offer “help” to bums who are in fact not “helpless” but rather choose to be parasites. Only a fool or an altruist would do that. But to answer the question of why an egoist would ever want to help people who genuinely cannot support themselves, we need only consider the alternatives—of which there are two: A person can either help the helpless or not help them. So here is the question every egoist has to answer for himself. Which environment do I think is in my best interest: one in which genuinely helpless people suffer and die in the streets, or one in which I voluntarily contribute some small fraction of my time, effort, or money to give them a hand?

I certainly know which environment is in my best interest, and I imagine you know which is in yours. But this is something every individual has to decide for himself—and no one has a moral right to force him one way or the other. Fortunately, the decision does not require advanced mathematics; it merely requires genuine self-interest, reverence for human life, and basic logic.

Rational egoism, true egoism, does not say: “Be indifferent to other human beings” or “Don’t help people.” It says: “If one wants to live as a human being and achieve genuine happiness, one must observe reality; one must think; one must not accept contradictions; one must pursue one’s life-serving values; one must not surrender greater values for the sake of lesser ones; one must be honest; one must have integrity”; and so on. If a person thinks that helping certain other people is in his best interest, he should act accordingly. And capitalism not only leaves everyone completely free to do so; it also enables people to create enormous amounts of surplus wealth with which to do it.

When people are free to produce as much wealth as they are able and willing to produce—and free to do with their wealth whatever they choose to do with it—many people become very rich. Add to this the fact that truly self-interested people care about human life—they, after all, are the ones who recognize that it is the standard of moral value—and thus do not want other human beings to suffer and die needlessly, and we have a clear answer to the question, “What if no one wants to help the helpless?” The concern is simply unwarranted. The fact is that many people—including presumably the people who ask the question—do want to help the helpless. And in a truly capitalist society, no one would be allowed to stop them.

A Kid Seeking Guidance #racist stormfront.org

A lot of doubt has been cast on me in regards to my claims of being Asian. Many of you have told me that this is not the way an Asian speaks, this is not their modus operandi, Asians are not this pro-White, Asians do not always refer to the accomplishments made by Whites, etc.

So I would like to clarify why I am not White, yet can accept Whites as superior to Asians.

First of all, I am an honest person. I am more honest towards myself than I am to anyone else. So of course I will admit my faults, disadvantages, impairements, etc., whether it hurts my feelings or not. I like to assess the situation and recognize my weaknesses to calculate a strategy taking my faults into account; thus increasing my overall chances of success.

Secondly, it is the truth. The truth is the truth, whether it hurts you or not. If the truth did not hurt, no one would have any reason to lie. People lie because they want to avoid the truth. People shine lights to avoid the darkness. People use heat to avoid the cold. People use lies because they do not like the truth. The truth is never liked by anyone, yet it does not make a truth anymore less of a truth. The truth is the truth no matter what.

80,000 years ago, homo sapiens split into two populations; blacks and everyone who left Africa. 45,000 years ago, everyone who left Africa split into Australoids and Eurasians. 35,000 years ago, Eurasians split into Europeans and Asians.

Now tell me, if our races were evolving separately for 35,000 years, wouldn't it make sense to assume that they evolved entirely different traits? And when two compare two homologous traits, that one would be superior to the other?

Mutations occur in approximately 1 out of 10,000 base pairs during mitosis. Your gametes divide hundreds of times before they become sperm cells, and assuming a life span of 25-30 years for Paleolithic Proto-Eurasians, that is a lot of mutations proliferated to our divergent populations during that time.

Now between Asians and Whites, one is obviously superior, and you have a 50/50 chance of being born into the superior race. So obviously a lot of people will also be born into the inferior race. I am one of those people. Big deal.

Whites have undeniably proven themselves to be superior. East Asians within a duration of 4,500 years invented a hang glider, paper, horse spurrs, the crossbow, the first firearm, firecrackers, gunpowder, underwater explosives, the rocket, the toothbrush, the compass, and the printed currency, amongst many others. Now that seems impressive when you compare them to the achievements of the Mesopotamians, Mayans, or any other Arabic, Mesoamerican, Southeast Asian, or Anatolian civilization. However, European Whites, within a period of a mere 400 years invented cars, airplanes, machine guns, silicon electroconducting microchips, quantum physics, space travel, the steam engine, the Bessmer conversion method, the computer, TVs, GPS, space shuttles, nuclear fission, the microscope, the telescope, radar, and polyestherines, amongst many others. Now that is truly an impressive feat of display, and I tremble in awestruck revere when reading about the godlike achievements of the White race.

I consider only European Whites (Meds, Nordics, Slavs and Alpines/Dinarics) and Northeast Asians (Northern Chinese, Manchurians, Koreans, Japanese, Mongolians, Tibetians, and Oroquens) to be fully evolved modern humans. And I consider European Whites as intrinsically superior to Northeast Asians in almost every aspect except for cold adaptation.

I vehemenently oppose the destruction of the White race. I wish for Whites to be preserved for many generations to come. I want there to be beautiful White men and women in the future, who compose classical masterpieces such as Brahms, create majestic works of art, invent Promethean earth-shattering innovations such as Tesla did, and build society to progress.

I am with you White Nationalists 100%. Since I am an American, my primary alleigance is to White people, who created this nation. I may be biologically an Asian, but I am loyal to America before anything. I want to preserve the White race, and if there should ever be a upcoming conflict of races, you have my wholehearted support. White power!

Marc #fundie patheos.com

I’d first love to correct several blatant misreadings of Scripture, not for the sake of the Wannabe Gay Marriage Debate, but for the sake of Scripture, which deserves better.

1. “Jesus never uttered a word about same-sex relationships.”

True. Nor did he utter a word about rape. Or genocide. Or running a crystal meth lab. Or suicide. Or pedophilia. To assume a man’s approval of everything he doesn’t mention is silliness to the highest degree.

2. “The original language of the N.T. actually refers to male prostitution, molestation, or promiscuity, not committed same-sex relationships.”

Well, I guess we can just look at the New Testament for this one:

“Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

Now it’s true that Paul wasn’t speaking of the committed homosexual relationships we speak of today, primarily because the idea of a homosexual relationship would have made no sense to the Apostle. That a man is defined as a homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual is a modern concept. For the Ancient World, homosexuality was an act performed, not a life lived, and certainly not the summative feature of your being. The idea of two men proclaiming “We are homosexuals, and we are in a committed relationship,” would have been utterly foreign to Paul.

Unfortunately, Paul’s claims cannot be dismissed on that basis, as the Apostle makes abundantly clear that homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law. Not homosexuality, but homosexual acts: “Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

To explain what he’s talking about, we must understand his premise: Humans are meant to be happy. Good actions will ultimately make human beings happy, bad actions won’t. If an action is seen to be detrimental to the human person — that is, if it ultimately leads to unhappiness — then that action can be defined as contrary to our nature, and thus sinful.

This is what Paul refers to when he speaks of an act being “unnatural.” He does not use the modern sense of the word, which seems to define the “natural” as “that which has been observed to take place in the Jungle.” He uses the word “natural” in the philosophical sense, that which is aligned with human nature — that which makes humans happy.

(And to be clear, this idea takes for granted that many of the acts we spend our lives pretending make us happy do not. We might say that binge eating makes us happy, but ultimately it won’t — it brings pleasure, but it is detrimental to the human person. A man who sleeps around and must satisfy his every urge might say that he is “happy” with his life, but in reality he has made his “happiness” dependent upon having his urges satisfied. He is not happy in and of himself. So to the claim that drugs make us happy. They do not. They bring us pleasure, and they make our happiness dependent on them — again, we are not happy in and of ourselves.)

So when Paul says that men and women committed “unnatural” homosexual acts and “received in their own persons the due penalty for their error,” his claim is quite simple. The punishment for a wrong act is not God all up and smiting you from the sky. The punishment is naturally received within the human person. The homosexual act works against a human being’s natural end of happiness, and thus the human suffers for it. It’d be interesting to know if Paul was aware of what we are aware of today, that those performing homosexual acts are at greater risk for unhappiness, a risk that has not been directly associated with intolerance or hatred.

If what I say is true, that Paul is claiming that the homosexual act itself is contrary to the natural law, it does not seem reasonable claim to make, that he would have spoken differently were that act contained in a committed relationship.

But our graphic-maker covers his tracks on this one, by saying:

3. “Paul may have spoken against homosexuality, but he also said that women should be silent and never assume authority over a man.”

I would simply note the difference in quality with which these different words of Paul were made. In the former, which we have just discussed, Paul appears to be pointing out an act that is inherently detrimental to the human person. This is not something subject to change-over-time or an evolution of understanding or modern reinterpretation. In the latter, the author is referencing two different passages. The first is from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians:

“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

What Paul is saying is clear: Wives submit to your husbands, husbands offer up your life and die for your wives, as Christ did for the Church. I understand that this rings harsh and alien in the secular ear — that authority within a marriage is not a 50/50 split, but the meeting of two distinct, gender-specific, and equally difficult duties — but I cannot apologize for it, other than to say that the secular world is wrong about marriage.

As to women remaining silent:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

This passage is subject to change over time, as it is contained within Paul’s instruction on public worship which similarly — though not in substance — changed over time. This might be a problem to the Literalist Christian, but not to the Catholic, who with Pope Benedict can assert that the Paul’s passage must “be relativized.” Again, this is not the case with Paul’s assertion that homosexual acts are inherently detrimental to the human person.

4. “The Bible defines marriage as One Man Many Women, One Man Many Wives and Concubines, A Rapist and His Victim, and a Conquering Solider and a Female Prisoner of War.”

This is a prime example of the secular mind putting way more faith and trust in the Bible than the Christian is ever called to. The Bible is a library of history, storytelling, poetry, letters, and biographies: Something appearing in the Bible does not indicate that God endorses that practice. The only practices endorsed by God are — wait for it — those which we are told are endorsed by God.

More importantly, we need to look at the context. The Old Testament is fulfilled by the New. From Matthew 19:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.”

Jesus says that it is for the very reason of maleness and femaleness that “the two will become one flesh.” He then says that the marriage rites established by Moses — which include divorce, polygamy, concubinage, etc. — were not condoned by God, but allowed for a time because of the hardness of their hearts, a time that Christ announces is over. Welcome to now. To ignore this and imply that because all sorts of immoral craziness happens in the Old Testament gay marriage should be considered a-ok, well, it’s a stretch.

Alright, those are the main ones. Now allow me to mention the real problem.

No one is claiming that because homosexuality is sinful, homosexual marriage shouldn’t exist. If marriage was an institution designated for the sinless there wouldn’t be marriages at all, for we have all sinned and fallen short. This graphic exemplifies a terrifying insistence within this “debate” — to argue on the most idiotic level possible. Ignoring the question of whether marriage is a definite Thing with a raison d’etre or a blank for us to fill, we waste our time with Scripture we don’t bother to understand, brushing the world and our intellects with varying shades of stupid.

Myfakereality #racist imdb.com

all i know is that 80% of the black people ive met are all the same. bad speech skills, no intiative to actually learn something, always causing some stuff, involved in gangs/illegal activity ect.
And I can also tell you there's a steriotype for alot of white people as well.
is that racist? no its common *beep* sense.
imagine this: youre walking down a street late at night and you have to choose one of two allys to go through: one has 2 white females in it, the other has two black males. which one would you honestly choose?

We will never live in a world where there is no common sense to help us. People develop this naturally from THINGS THAT THEY WITNESS. therefore, there will always be racism, prejudice, sexism, ect.
And if you say that you have never had a racist/predjudice thought, you are lying.
So if any african americans read my post and get pissed, prove me wrong. Id love it.
I'm not racist, im really not. Ive dated a black person. im just annoyed how it seems like black people TRY to come off thug. and TRY to act all hard. It just really frusterates me because I know they could do better. but like i said, this is only like 80% of african americans ive met, so im not even being prejudice when im saying this.

David Chase Taylor #conspiracy sites.google.com

Unbeknownst to most of humanity, Earth has a second Moon which is covered mostly by water. Modern terms such as “Blue Moon” (i.e., the “Betrayer Moon”), “New Moon” and “North Star” (i.e., Pole Star) originally pertained to this second Moon which was new, blue, and directly north above the North Pole (i.e., Greenland). The notion that Earth has a second moon fits perfectly into the Counter-Earth theory proposed by philosopher Philolaus (c. 470-385 BC) who theorized that all objects in the universe revolve around an unseen "Central Fire", distinct from the Sun which also revolves around it. Because Earth’s second moon is mostly covered in water, it appears on fire when struck by the rays of the sun, especially after the sun is setting on the horizon. While Earth’s second Moon has no official name in the underworld, the Holy Bible, the allegorical and metaphorical history of the Roman Empire, refers to it as “Lucifer” as depicted in Isaiah 14:12 which states in part, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!”. Consequently, Lucifer is defined by Strong’s Concordance as the “morning star”, the “light-bearer”, the “shining one,” and the “King of “Babylon”, the former capital of the Roman Empire. The notion that Lucifer and the Moon are indeed one is corroborated by Wikipedia which states that “As an adjective, the Latin word Lucifer meant ‘light-bringing’ and was applied to the moon”. “A Latin Dictionary” (1879) refers to Lucifer as “pars Lunae”, meaning “part of the Moon”, as well as the “fabled son of Aurora”, a direct reference to the Aurora Borealis (i.e., the Northern Lights). Aside from its Biblical connotations, veiled references to Earth’s second Moon are found throughout Etruscan, Greek, Hindu, Old Norse, Proto-Indo-European and Roman religion and mythology, as well in popular culture. Despite overwhelming evidence, the notion that Earth has a second Moon is sheer “lunacy”, a lunar-derived word which is defined as “insanity” or “madness”.

Second Moon in Popular Culture
Aside from the names and terms “Luck”, “Lucky” and “Lucy”, all titular tributes to “Lucifer”, numerous references to Earth’s second Moon are found within popular culture, including but are not limited to: “From the Earth to the Moon” (1865), a novel by Jules Verne which makes a reference to the “discovery” of second Moon by Frédéric Petit in 1846; “I Love Lucy” (1951-1957), a television show that is a titular tribute to Lucifer, the sky-walking second Moon of Earth; “The Wonderful Flight to the Mushroom Planet” (1954), a novel by Eleanor Cameron which is set on a tiny, habitable second moon called Basidium in an invisible orbit 50,000 miles (80,000 km) from Earth; “Stowaway to the Mushroom Planet” (1956), a novel by Eleanor Cameron which is set on a tiny, habitable second moon called Basidium in an invisible orbit 50,000 miles (80,000 km) from Earth; “Tom Swift on the Phantom Satellite” (1956), a novel by Tom Swift, Jr. which features a new moon entering Earth’s orbit at 50,000 miles (80,000 km) altitude; “Tom Swift and the Asteroid Pirates” (1963), a novel by Tom Swift, Jr. which features a second moon entitled “Nestria” or “Little Luna” which was originally an asteroid that moved into Earth’s orbit at 50,000 miles (80,000 km) altitude; “Dhalgren” (1975), a novel by Samuel R. Delany which features an Earth which mysteriously acquires a second moon entitled “George”. The cover of Delany’s book features a moon-like planet glowing like the sun; “Star Wars” (1977-2015), a saga which features the planet Tatooine that has two moons. The term “Tatooine” (T+T+N) is coincidentally consonantly the same as “Titan” (T+T+N), the water-based moon of Saturn which appears to be scientific cover for Earth’s second Moon. The scene featuring Luke Skywalker along with two moons in “A New Hope” (1977) remains one of the most famous scenes of the entire Star Wars saga. Luke Skywalker, which is the main character of the saga, is a titular tribute to Lucifer the sky-walking morning star; “The Silmarillion” (1977), a book by J. R. R. Tolkien which features Eärendil the Mariner, a fictional character of Middle-earth (i.e., Greenland), who was a great seafarer who, on his brow, carried the morning star (i.e., Lucifer) across the sky. “Eärendil” means 'Lover of the Sea”, an apparent reference to the oceans of Earth’s second Moon; and “1Q84” (2011), a novel by Haruki Murakami which features two visible moons, one of which is irregularly shaped and green in color.

Second Moon in Mythology
Because virtually all of the world’s respective religions are Greco-Roman in origin (e.g., Catholicism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, etc.), references to Earth’s second moon are found within most of their respective mythologies. As evidenced, all of the following gods and goddesses affiliated with the “Dawn” exhibit one of more characteristic pertaining to beauty, brightness, color, flying, light or water of some kind (e.g., dew, ocean, sea, spring, etc.). Since a beautiful colored moon or star covered in water is not visibly flying through the skies of the underworld, it must be deduced that the plethora of religious and mythological references are in fact in respect to an unseen object within Earth’s orbit. Consequently, said object must be responsible for the Aurora Borealis (i.e., the Northern Lights), a beautiful colored flying light which appears to be the refection of light off of water. Lastly, the term “dawn” (D+N) acronymically and/or consonantly equates to “Den” or “Day North” as the letter “W” is silent and routinely added only for accent. The term “Den” is a reference to Greenland, the third and final den (home) of the Roman Empire, while the term “Day North” is a reference to the 24/7 daylight found in the north. The never-ending daylight is possible due to Earth’s second moon which refracts the suns light one it has passed gone over the horizon.

Aurora Borealis
The radiance or light of Earth’s second Moon is known as the Aurora Borealis (i.e., the Northern Lights), an array of dancing lights in the sky as if the sun were rising or setting from an unusual direction. This phenomenon is only witnessed in northern regions of the world (e.g., Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, U.S. states which border Canada, etc.). To date, a feasible and believable scientific explanation for the phenomenon has not yet been rendered. Like the Moon of the underworld, Earth’s second Moon moves in tandem with the sun. Consequently, when the sun and the second Moon are aligned, the sun’s light is refracted off the watery surface of the Moon, producing the beautiful Aurora Borealis across the northern face of the Earth. The Northern Lights only occurs after the sun is near or has passed the northern horizon. In other words, it occurs during the evening and at night in Greenland. Coincidentally, an “aureola” or “aureole” is the radiance of luminous cloud which surrounds a figure in paintings and personages. The aureola appears to be indicative of the clouds which surround Earth’s water-covered moon while the halo is in respect to the light which it gives off.

Earth’s Halo
The Northern Lights of Earth’s second Moon are known as the Aurora Borealis which is often symbolized by a halo for it encircles the crest or the “Christ” of the Earth. This is why Jesus is often depicted with a halo around his head for he is symbolic of Greenland which is draped in the light of Earth’s second moon. Consequently, when Jesus is depicted on the Roman Cross, the term “INRI” appears above his head. The letters “INRI” acronymically equate to North Rome”, the location of said halo. The term "Halo" (H+L) acronymically equates to "Forever Lion", a reference to the "Line of Man" (i.e., the 13 Bloodlines of Rome) which live in Greenland. Because the Greco-Romans originated from Greece, a man with a halo is slaying a dragon in the flag of the Greek Sipahis (1431-1619), the flag of Athanasios Diakos (1821-1832), and the war flag of the Hellenic Army. The dragon or “drag on” is symbolic of the never-ending war that the Roman Empire has waged on the underworld since the discovery of Greenland.

The Firmament
According to Genesis in the Holy Bible, the allegorical and metaphorical history book of the Greco-Roman Empire, God created the firmament to separate the "waters above" the earth from those below. Therefore, the term firmament is apparently code word for Earth’s second moon which is covered by oceans. These oceans produce clouds which then descend upon the upper Earth (i.e., Greenland) in a dome-like mist form. This is evidently why depictions of angels in heaven (i.e., Greenland) are always shown to be living upon the clouds. Interestingly, the word "firmament" translates to “Raqia” (R+C/K) and “Raqiya” (R+C/K) in Biblical Hebrew which acronymically and/or consonantly equate to “Rock”, an apparent reference to Greenland, the rock of ages which is located directly underneath the firmament. The connotation of firmness conveyed by the Vulgate's “firmamentum” is consistent with that of “stereoma,” the Greek word used in the Septuagint. The term “Stereoma” (S+T+R+M) acronymically and/or consonantly equate to “State of Rome” which is coincidentally also located underneath the firmament. According to the “Greek Apocalypse of Baruch” (c. 130 AD), the firmament was a great dome-like structure which may be pierced by the gimlet-looking Tower of Babel. Evidently, the clouds from Earth’s second moon hover just a few miles above the Earth’s surface, hence the attempt to breach it prior to the invention of aircraft. The “Jewish Encyclopedia” (c. 1901) describes the firmament by stating that, “The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven.” The earth swimming on water is an apparent reference to Greenland which is an island surrounded by water, while the arched vault of heaven is an apparent reference to the cloud-like mist which encompasses it. The terms “mystical” and “mystery” were evidently derived from this persistent mist that emanates from Earth’s second moon. This notion was corroborated by John Calvin in 1554 who proposed that "firmament" be interpreted as clouds. According to Copernicus' heliocentric model, the firmament was thought to be completely stationary, corroborating other accounts that Earth’s second moon is fixated directly above the Earth. The Flammarion engraving (1888) which mysteriously appeared in Camille Flammarion’s book “L'atmosphère: météorologie populaire” (1888), meaning "The Atmosphere: Popular Meteorology", depicts a traveler who has arrived at the edge of a flat Earth, sticking his head through the firmament. This artwork further suggests that the firmament is not firm or solid per se, but rather a penetrable thick cloud-like mist. The firmament is also depicted as a solid dome that is arched over the earth in both Mesopotamian and Indo-European mythologies, namely creation myths. The Sumerian sky-god An was known to rule the primordial seas above the firmament-like "heavens" which were previously separated from the flat disc of the earth below (i.e., the underworld).

Firmament in the Holy Bible
Because the Firmament is located above the Roman Empire in Greenladn, there are 15 references to firmament in the Holy Bible, the allegorical and metaphorical history book of the Greco-Roman Empire. The term “Firmament” (F/P+R+M+M+T) acronymically and/or consonantly equates to “Fire Mount” or “Fire Mountain”, an apparent reference to Mt. Olympus in Greenland which Earth’s second moon hovers directly over. The number “15” is telling numerologically speaking for it equates to the letter “O” in the Roman-English alphabet, a term used to describe both “All” and “Nothing”. The letter “O” may also be symbolic of wonder (e.g., “oh”) as well as the dome-like mist from Earth’s second moon which encompasses upper Earth (i.e., Greenland).

1. Genesis 1:6: “And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”

2. Genesis 1:7: “And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.”

3. Genesis 1:8: “And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.”

4. Genesis 1:14: “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.”

5. Genesis 1:15: “And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.”

6. Genesis 1:17: “And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.”

7. Genesis 1:20: “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.”

8. Psalm 19:1: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.”

9. Psalm 150:1: “Praise ye the Lord. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.”

10. Ezekiel 1:22: “And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the color of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.”

11. Ezekiel 1:23: “And under the firmament were their wings straight, the one toward the other: every one had two, which covered on this side, and every one had two, which covered on that side, their bodies.”

12. Ezekiel 1:25: “And there was a voice from the firmament that was over their heads, when they stood, and had let down their wings.”

13. Ezekiel 1:26: “And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.”

14. Ezekiel 10:1: “Then I looked, and, behold, in the firmament that was above the head of the cherubims there appeared over them as it were a sapphire stone, as the appearance of the likeness of a throne.”

15. Daniel 12:3: “And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.”

Second Moon in Holy Bible
Aside from the Firmament, the New Moon , the Pillar of Fire, the Pillar of Cloud, and the Morning Star, all of which are references to Earth’s second moon in the Holy Bible, the allegorical and metaphorical history of the Roman Empire, there are at least three other Biblical passages dealing with Earth’s second moon. Firstly, Joshua 10:12 states, “Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.” The passage is an apparent reference to the sun’s refraction off of Earth’s second moon of water which makes it appear as if the sun is always present. The fact both the sun and the moon are referenced in the same verse is telling. Secondly, Joshua 10:13 states, “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day”. Because Greenland and parts of northern Canada and Russia experience light from the sun via Earth’s second moon, the reference to a stationary sun and moon are confirmation of Earth’s second Moon, albeit in a de facto manner. In other words, the sun is always present because it is either directly shining or is being refracted via the ocean covered moon after it has set. Therefore, the light of the sun is always present via the moon which is stationary in heaven atop the Earth. Thirdly, Isaiah 14:12 states, “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”. The light of Lucifer (i.e., the “Morning Star”) falls from heaven down to the ground, an apparent reference the Aurora Borealis (i.e., the Northern Lights) which falls from heaven onto many nations (e.g., Canada, Russia, Iceland, Norway, U.S., etc.). Lastly, Isaiah 30:26 states, "Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the Lord bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound”. The notion that the moon could be as bright as the sun is only possible if the moon is directly reflecting the light of the sun, something only a mirror-like water-covered moon could accomplish. The sevenfold increase in the sun’s light is a reference to the refraction of the sun’s light off the ocean-covered moon which is subsequently projected out 360° via the Aurora Borealis.

Morning Star in Holy Bible
Because the Morning Star is found in Greenland, home of the Greco-Roman Empire, there are 3 references to “Morning Star” in the Holy Bible, the allegorical and metaphorical history book of the Greco-Roman Empire. The number “3” is telling numerologically speaking for it equates to Greenland, the third and final den (home) of the Roman Empire in Greenland.

1. Job 38:7: “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”

2. Revelation 2:28: “And I will give him the morning star.”

3. Revelation 22:16: “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.”

New Moon in Holy Bible
Because the New Moon is found in Greenland, home of the Greco-Roman Empire, there are 21 references to “New Moon” in the Holy Bible, the allegorical and metaphorical history book of the Greco-Roman Empire. The number “21” is telling numerologically speaking for it equates to the letter “U” in the Roman-English alphabet, a term used to describe all those living outside of Utopia, a “fictional” island society in the Atlantic Ocean which Earth’s second moon resides over. Consequently, the term “New” (N) acronymically equates to “North” as the letter “W” is often silent and added only for accent. Therefore, “New Moon” equates to “North Moon”, the location of where it can be seen.

1. 1 Samuel 20:5: “And David said unto Jonathan, Behold, to morrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to sit with the king at meat: but let me go, that I may hide myself in the field unto the third day at even.”

2. 1 Samuel 20:18: “Then Jonathan said to David, To morrow is the new moon: and thou shalt be missed, because thy seat will be empty.”

3. 1 Samuel 20:24: “So David hid himself in the field: and when the new moon was come, the king sat him down to eat meat.”

4. 2 Kings 4:23: “And he said, Wherefore wilt thou go to him to day? it is neither new moon, nor sabbath. And she said, It shall be well.”

5. 1 Chronicles 23:31: “And to offer all burnt sacrifices unto the Lord in the sabbaths, in the new moons, and on the set feasts, by number, according to the order commanded unto them, continually before the Lord.”

6. 2 Chronicles 2:4: “Behold, I build an house to the name of the Lord my God, to dedicate it to him, and to burn before him sweet incense, and for the continual shewbread, and for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts of the Lord our God. This is an ordinance for ever to Israel.”

7. 2 Chronicles 8:13: “Even after a certain rate every day, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts, three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles.”

8. 2 Chronicles 31:3: “He appointed also the king's portion of his substance for the burnt offerings, to wit, for the morning and evening burnt offerings, and the burnt offerings for the sabbaths, and for the new moons, and for the set feasts, as it is written in the law of the Lord.”

9. Ezra 3:5: “And afterward offered the continual burnt offering, both of the new moons, and of all the set feasts of the Lord that were consecrated, and of every one that willingly offered a freewill offering unto the Lord.”

10. Nehemiah 10:33: “For the shewbread, and for the continual meat offering, and for the continual burnt offering, of the sabbaths, of the new moons, for the set feasts, and for the holy things, and for the sin offerings to make an atonement for Israel, and for all the work of the house of our God.”

11. Psalm 81:3: “Blow up the trumpet in the new moon, in the time appointed, on our solemn feast day.”

12. Isaiah 1:13: “Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.”

13. Isaiah 1:14: “Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.”

14. Isaiah 66:23: “And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.

15. Ezekiel 45:17: “And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.”

16. Ezekiel 46:1: “Thus saith the Lord God; The gate of the inner court that looketh toward the east shall be shut the six working days; but on the sabbath it shall be opened, and in the day of the new moon it shall be opened.”

17. Ezekiel 46:3: “Likewise the people of the land shall worship at the door of this gate before the Lord in the sabbaths and in the new moons.”

18. Ezekiel 46:6: “And in the day of the new moon it shall be a young bullock without blemish, and six lambs, and a ram: they shall be without blemish.”

19. Hosea 2:11: “I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.”

20. Amos 8:5: “Saying, When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the sabbath, that we may set forth wheat, making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit?”

21. Colossians 2:16: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.”

Titan Moon of Saturn
Titan (i.e., “Saturn VI”) is reportedly the largest moon of Saturn. It is the only natural satellite known to have a dense atmosphere, and the only object other than Earth which exhibits evidence of stable bodies of surface liquid (i.e., water). Titan has a diameter roughly 50% larger than Earth’s known moon and has 80% more mass. Titan is allegedly composed of water ice and rocky material and has an atmosphere largely composed of nitrogen. Its climate reportedly includes wind and rain and has surface features similar to those of Earth, such as dunes, rivers, lakes and seas. Titan's methane cycle is admittedly “viewed as an analog to Earth's water cycle, although at a much lower temperature." Although NASA has put a man on the moon (allegedly) and landed on Mars (allegedly), there are mysteriously no clear and concise photographs of Titan in existence. Despite the deployment of the Hubble Telescope and space observations located around the word, no solid evidence of this moon by way of images can be found. Therefore, it appears that Titan is scientific cover for Earth’s second Moon which is located above the Earth in Greenland. After all, Titan exhibits the ocean-covered surface which Earth’s second moon purports to have. Since Saturn is a waterless planet, it’s far more likely that a water-based moon would belong to Earth. Lastly, the logo of the Tennessee Titans football team appears to depict Titan (i.e., Earth second moon). Although mostly blue in color, there are indeed red highlights within the logo which are indicative of the Aurora Borealis (i.e., the Northern Lights).

Aphrodite
Aphrodite is the goddess of the dawn in Greek mythology who is etymologized as "she who shines from the foam [ocean]". Her name was derived from “aphros”, meaning "sea foam", and from “deato”, meaning "to shine" or "she who shines from the foam [ocean]". In Hesiod's “Theogony”, Aphrodite arose from the sea foam after Cronus cut off Uranus's genitals and threw them into the sea, hence her name meaning "foam-arisen". According to legend, Aphrodite then floated ashore via a scallop shell. References to foam are evidently in respect to the watery mist which falls upon Greenland from Earth’s second moon which is covered by oceans of water. Consequently, the epithet “Aphrodite Acidalia” was occasionally added to Aphrodite’s name, after the spring she used for bathing. Aphrodite is also associated with and depicted with the sea, dolphins, swans, clams, scallop shells, and pearls, all of which pertain to water. Although Aphrodite is married, she is one of the few gods in the Greek Pantheon who is frequently unfaithful to her husband. That is because her Northern Lights are shed onto the underworld, in essence cheating on Greenland, her husband. According to myth, due to Aphrodite's immense beauty, Zeus feared that the other gods would become violent with each other in their quest to possess her. This narrative is an apparent reference to the non-stop war the Roman Empire has waged on humanity in order to keep Greenland as well as Aphrodite (i.e., Earth’s second moon) hidden. Consequently, Aphrodite is also known to have extramarital relations with Ares, the Greco-Roman god of war.

Eos
Eos is the Titaness goddess the dawn in Greek mythology who is almost always described with rosy fingers or rosy forearms as she opened the gates of heaven for the sun to rise. Eos is the daughter of Hyperion and Theia and sister of Helios (the sun) and Selene (the moon), "who shine upon all that are on earth and upon the deathless gods who live in the wide heaven.” The reference to “wide heaven” appears to be a veiled reference to the wide continent of Greenland, home to the immortal Greco-Romans. Hesiod states in “Theogony”, “And after these Erigeneia ["Early-born"] bore the star Eosphoros (i.e., "Dawn-bringer"), and the gleaming stars with which heaven is crowned”. This reference is telling for Greenland is considered the Crown of the Earth. Eos is also seen as the mother of all the stars and planets, for her tears are considered to have created the morning dew, personified by Ersa or Herse. Eos’s affiliation with dew is imperative to note because Earth’s second moon is covered by oceans which gave life to the Earth, hence the reference to motherhood. Eos is also known as the bringer of light, the “One Above”, “Who Travels High Above the Earth” and “The Divine”, all characteristics of Earth’s second moon. The Greek poet Quintus Smyrnaeus depicted her radiant horses of Lampus and Phaëton which drew her chariot, climbing the arc of heaven and scattering sparks of fire or the Aurora Borealis (i.e., the Northern Lights). Phaeton is coincidentally also the name of a mythical planet which was allegedly situated between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter whose destruction allegedly led to the formation of the asteroid belt. Eos is also the daughter of Theia. Coincidentally, Theia is also the name of a Mars-sized planet believed to have collided with the Earth roughly 4.5 billion years ago, creating the Moon of the underworld. In the epic Greek poem the “Odyssey”, Eos’ horses are named “Daybright” and “Firebright” and apparent references to the respective brightness of Earth’s second moon. During the day the moon is “Daybright” (blue) while at night the moon is “Firebright” (red and orange). The change in color is evidently due to the light of the sun which is refracted off the moons watery surface when the sun on or past the horizon (i.e., sunset).

Hausos
Hausos is the goddess of the dawn in Proto-Indo-European religion who is personified as a beautiful young woman. The name “h2ews?s” is derived from a root “h2wes” and “au?es” which translates to "shine" or the "the shining one". Hausos is also the goddess of spring who is liberated from prison within the mythology of the Indo-European New Year. Her abduction, imprisonment and subsequent liberation by a heroic dragon-slaying god is a central myth in Indo-European religion that is reflected in numerous traditions. The notion that Hausos is in prison likely stems from the fact that Earth’s second moon is stationary above the Earth. The reference to a dragon slaying god is an apparent reference to G.O.D. (i.e., Greenland of Denmark) who slays the dragon or “drag on” which is symbolic of the never-ending war that the Roman Empire has waged on the underworld since the discovery of Greenland and Earth’s second moon.

[He continues listing "Morning Star" Deities]

Freesu-San #fundie deviantart.com


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arranged marriage

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

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

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

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

Same-sex "marriage"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transgender "marriage"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

....

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

Who created marriage in the first place? God did. In the book of Genesis, highlights God's plan for marriage as it says:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." ~ Genesis 1:27-28
First of all, marriage, is not something that just happened recently in the century we live in. In fact the first marriage took place right in the beginning, when Adam and Eve are joined together as husband and wife (Genesis 3:21-24).

After he created Adam and all the animals, God said “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” . So He put Adam to sleep, “and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” (Genesis 2:21,22)

When a man and a woman get married they commit themselves to spending their lives in a new relationship. It is a partnership of love, made richer and deeper through sex. Like many people, Christians regard it as the best context for nurturing children. It is also seen as the best (many Christians would say the only) setting for sex.

In any marriage ceremony the bride and groom must confirm that they want to marry each other, and after the opportunity has been given publicly for anyone present to prevent the marriage if there is a legal reason, the couple join hands and make promises. They exchange rings, which are worn as a reminder of these promises for the duration of their married life.

Marriage is more than a man a woman joined together, it is a beautiful gift from God, a marital devotion solely between one man and one woman as God created it to be. And to add to it, marriage is meant to be for life, and not some cheap contract for people to use and dump. Jesus gave a solid warning concerning divorce, when He said, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." (Mark 10:11-12). Simple as that. Having said this, in marriage there should be room for reconciliation, else how can that marriage even stand?

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." ~ 1 Corinthians 7:10-11

There are aspects that can either build or crumble down a marriage: fcu777.deviantart.com/journal/…

A spiritual aspect on marriage

Now, there is more to marriage than the earthly one itself. Having said this, if you look at the issue in a spiritual aspect, it actually reflects our relationship between us the Church, the children of God for that matter and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who is the head of the Church, the body of Christ to be precise. The earthly marriage has this high symbolism that most of us unfortunately are not even aware of or chose to overlook .

If you look at Isaiah 54:5 where it says "For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called." And also the Bible says that the husband is the head of the wife "even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior." And that as wives submit to their husbands, so do we as Christians submit ourselves to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and His will (Ephesians 5:23,24,32).

This is something we as Christians really need to keep in mind.

....

In Conclusion

Marriage is a very beautiful union that God has created. In fact, the government did NOT create marriage, God did. Marriage is more than just about love and romance between two people, it is a holy marital devotion between a man and a woman, the way God designed it. And before you ask, in as much as marriage is important, and it is a beautiful union defined by God as between one man and one woman, we are actually given a choice whether to marry or not. I mean 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 says "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." That just shows you that marriage is not by force. All in all, marriage is and always will be between one man and one woman.

Unknown #fundie conservapedia.com

For example, if we have survival of the fittest, then there would only be one specie left. This would have to be a plant, because all animals eat plants, and so to have an animal left would mean at plant would have to be left, and that means two species. Furthermore, it would not only have to be one specie of plant left, but if it's truly survival of the species, only one individual plant.

Andrew Lansdown #fundie lifeministries.org.au

I. The origin of marriage

The opening chapters of Genesis reveal that marriage originates from God. He is its author on two counts—by creation and by command.

In the beginning, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). Marriage is possible because God made human beings male and female. Had he made us asexual like the angels there would be no marriage. But as it is, he made humanity as a duality—masculine and feminine. Consequently, men and women possess contrasting but complementary bodies and natures, thereby making it possible for one to fulfil the other in marriage.

Furthermore, God made human beings in his own image. Among other things, this means that we possess personality, conscience, intellect, and will. All these spiritual qualities are necessary for the relationship we call marriage. A ram and a ewe, a dog and a bitch, cannot marry because they lack the spiritual dimension that marriage requires. A man and a woman, on the other hand, may marry precisely because their natures are more than biology and instinct. As spiritual beings, we are capable of love and commitment. In short, because he created us in his image, God created us with the ability to enter into a relationship with each other.

God further established the foundations of marriage by the special creation of woman from man. After the Lord had made Eve from Adam’s rib, he brought her to Adam, who said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Genesis 2:21-23). Men and women are related by image and by blood. Therefore we yearn for one another.

Having made marriage possible by his creative power, God then made it necessary by his moral decree. He proclaimed that because woman was taken out of man to be his companion, “a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). God mandated marriage at the commencement of human existence. Marriage is morally imperative for any couple who wish to proceed in their relationship beyond a certain level of intimacy.

II. The nature of marriage

The essential characteristics of marriage can be discerned from a statement by the Lord Jesus Christ recorded in Matthew 19:4-6, where he cites and comments on Genesis 2:24. Answering a question put to him by the Pharisees about divorce, Jesus said, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” Six truths concerning the nature of marriage emerge from this statement.

Firstly, marriage is heterosexual. It is for male and female—not male and male or female and female. While this is a truism, such is the moral tenor of our age that some people are confused about it. But there is no confusion in Scripture. It condemns homosexual behaviour as biologically aberrant and morally abhorrent. The advocacy of homosexual marriage is nothing less than an attempt to clothe an unspeakable perversion in the robes of decency. Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female? Marriage involves the union of members of the opposite sex.

Secondly, marriage is sexual. The first thing a man and a woman do when they are alone after their wedding is “become one flesh”. Marriage involves intimate physical and spiritual union between a man and a woman.

Thirdly, marriage is monogamous. It permits one man to unite with one woman for life. Christ clarifies this by the way he cites Genesis 2:24. While the use of the singular for “man” and “wife” in Genesis 2 ought to be enough to indicate the monogamous nature of marriage, Christ leaves no room for doubt or dispute by inserting the word “two”: the man and his wife, “the two shall become one flesh.” Marriage involves an intimate union of two people to the exclusion of all others.

Fourthly, marriage is solitary. A husband and wife must stand together, and this means that to a certain extent they must stand apart. The Lord declares that the first step in the marriage process is to leave mother and father. This is necessary so that the marriage partners may truly cling to each other. There must be no staying home with, or running home to, the parents. Old relationships must be broken so that the new may be embraced. Marriage involves two people setting out in life together, relying primarily upon each other for their desires and needs.

Fifthly, marriage is permanent. It is a union for life. Once a man and a woman become one flesh, they can never entirely separate themselves again. Their physical union establishes a spiritual union that affects their whole lives. They are spliced together, and cannot be separated without ongoing emotional and metal violence. In addition to this, the Lord Jesus reveals that it is God himself who actually unites a man and a woman in marriage; and he does so with a view to a life-long relationship. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder! Marriage involves a commitment from each partner to the other as long as they both live.

Sixthly, marriage is sacred. It is no mere human invention: it is a divine institution. When they marry, a man and a woman enter into a relationship hallowed by God. He is a party to their marriage. He is a witness to their vows and their intimacies, and he binds them to both. He joins them together. Marriage involves the divine as well as the human, the spiritual as well as the physical, the eternal as well as the temporal.

Anne Kennedy #fundie patheos.com

A number of critics attack the character of God’s love for all humanity by comparing Hell to Auschwitz. Would a loving God send his creatures there?

There are several differences between hell and Auschwitz, but two are dramatic and must be emphasized: 1. No one would choose to be in Auschwitz and 2. no one would choose to remain there if given the option to leave. Whereas scripture teaches us that the character of the human heart is such that unless God changes us, we would rather live in eternal torment than in harmony with our Creator.

First, our hearts are set against him. We suppress the truth about God (Rom 1:18-33). We willfully violate the laws he reveals in scripture and inscribes on our hearts (Rom 2). We do not seek to know or love God, but rather to replace him (Rom 3:10-20). We are, by nature, children of wrath (Eph 2:3).

Second, this hardened animosity toward God is stronger than our desire to escape anguish and torment. Observe that the Rich Man in Jesus’ parable in Luke 16:19-31 does not ask to be let out of the place of torment and ascend to be with Abraham and the poor man Lazarus. Not at all. He wants Lazarus to come down:
‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’(Luke 16:24)

He sees heaven, sees glory, sees Abraham and doesn’t want it. He wants relief but not redemption.
The parable of Lazarus and the rich man only illustrates the biblical pattern of rebellion. God provides life, love, sustenance, and virtue. Humans respond by repudiating God. As life becomes coarse and suffering increases, the rebellion only gathers steam. Torment does not lead to repentance and dependence but to increased hatred.

....

God’s wrath is, for those who reject God, preferable to repentance and surrender which would bring mercy and peace.

We must not, therefore, think of hell as a place where God imprisons people against their will. Hell is the place where the human will is fully actualized.

This leads, of course, to a deeper question. God is omniscient. God knew from eternity those who would be damned. Why did he create them?

....

We cannot say then that God created morally neutral beings and then caused them to rebel against him and then punished them for acting according to the evil he created in their hearts. That is, sometimes, the caricature that critics of Christianity like to paint. It is, also, a caricature that many would like to lay at the feet of Calvinism in particular. But the problem is not one that is unique to any one theological perspective. All Christians believe that God is omniscient. Therefore, all must wrestle with the fact that God created many millions of people knowing that they would reject him and live forever in torment.
So God did not create people and then cause them to rebel against him.

God did create people, giving them life, love, the blessings of his created order, truth, common virtue, knowing that they would harden their hearts against him and return his blessings with curses. In fact, he created all people knowing that every single one of us would despise him, his love and his many gracious gifts.

God would be fully justified in handing each of us over to this despising and allowing all humans to continue to hate him for eternity. This would be both consistent with his love – creating, blessing, delighting in the beloved and then giving the beloved the desire of her heart – and consistent with his justice – sinners would experience the consequences of sin.

Instead, he choose to rescue some from this fate and not others. He chose to draw some to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ (John 6:37-40, 44, Romans 8:29-31, Eph 2:4-10) and allow others to follow their own hearts to their own end. As RC Sproul has pointed out so brilliantly, no one is treated unfairly. Some receive mercy. Others justice. No one can complain that God is in the wrong. And no one can say that they have not been loved by him.

But, to return to the problem, God determined to create millions of people, knowing that he would shower them with love and truth and that they would nevertheless hate him and, here’s the crux, knowing that he would not to soften their hatred and turn them to love, knowing that in the end he would say to them, “thy will be done…”

Why?

....

Paul, as he often does, asks what appears to be a rhetorical question. But the question is not really an open one. God allows people to follow their hearts and choose hell over repentance so that his loving-kindness to his enemies might be displayed during their lifetimes and his justice might be displayed at the Judgment (Rev.20)

Just judgment makes God’s justice manifest and when his character is revealed. he is glorified.
So is this what it is all about? God’s own glory?

Yes. That is what everything is about. God is the origin and measure of all that is good. A truly good being will glorify all that is good and that means God will glorify himself and all his attributes above all things.

With regard to those who despise him and violate his law, his glory is made manifest in the outworking of his justice – his “doing what is right”

But even then, and this must be observed, God does not merely snuff them out. They bear his image. They are his creatures. He gives even those who hate him the desires of their hearts. They would not have it any other way.

Roger_Ailes aka Kelgan #fundie imdb.com

Well lie-berals, I've come back to make your life miserable.

I've been locked up for the past month, so I have been unable to post my inspirational messages to all of you. The police showed up at my house with a warrant for my arrest on what they said was an assault and battery charge, but you and I both know why they were really arresting me, it was because I'm a Christian, and because we are nearing the end of days, persecution against Christians is increasing. In fact, I fully expect to be arrested again very soon. One of my friends got in trouble down in Deep Elm, which is a little community on the wrong side of the tracks, where all the bars and strip clubs are located. I swallowed my pride and went there to help him, and I was attacked, and all I did was defend myself. I'm not ashamed of the fact that I put 7 men in the intensive care unit, I did what I had to do. I know that I can get a little rowdy sometimes, and I like to go out and drink a beer or two, but at least all of the establishments that I patronize are on the RIGHT SIDE of the tracks, so that makes me a respectable citizen. I will gladly work, pray, and live on hay, why? Because Yahweh will give me a great big piece of pie in the sky on the day that I die.

The judge sentenced me to serve 11 months and 29 days, and for the first couple of weeks, it wasn't that bad. The jail was full of other mainstream American Christians who were also locked up on bogus charges, and we had a pretty good time. Then, they began to get transferred to other facilities within the state, and I was left alone and bored. So a couple of days ago, I tore the cell door off of its hinges, and walked out of that jail with a clear conscience. The guards knew better than to put their hands on me to stop me, so they just let me go. I went and paid a visit to my son, and I sang a little song to him, I picked him up in my arms and sang "Baby face, you've got the cutest little baby face".

I want to talk to you today about abortion. I always hear people say things like "Yes, I believe that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, but who am I to judge the actions of another person. If someone wants to have an abortion, then that's their choice, and it's not my place to interfere". In modern society where moral relativism has become the norm, one of the most popular passages of the Bible is "Judge not that you be not judged". Well, most people don't realize that that particular passage is taken completely out of context. I'm not really sure when this passage of the Bible became so popular, but it has become part and parcel of the onslaught of relativism that so dominates our time. It is also the altogether natural fruit of the teaching of Satan when he approached Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden six thousand years ago, and asked "Did God really say that?"

The time has come for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. If a young girl gets into trouble, and decides to have an abortion, then she can have an illegal, back alley style abortion, the way God intended. Our society has made abortion far too sterile, and safe, when it should be dangerous and terrifying. Abortion has to be kept away from decent, polite society. Women have been getting abortions since the beginning of time, and they're never going to stop having abortions, but never before has society been so tolerant of abortion. Abortion was something that everybody knew was going on, but nobody talked about it, and that's the way it's supposed to be.

There have been times on this website when people have accused me of being a homophobe. Well, that's just not true, I know what a homophobe is, and I don't fit the description. In fact, I was thinking about this issue during my confinement, when all of a sudden, God sent me a great idea! If two men want to get married, then obviously that's illegal, but it's not illegal for a man and a woman to get married. Marriage is a societal structure best involving one man and one woman, so if one of the gay men were to undergo a sex-change operation, then they would no longer be two MEN trying to get married, which is immoral and illegal, but they would be a MAN and a WOMAN!! Don't you all see? It's a built-in loophole, homosexuals can already get married, as long as one of them consents to have a little operation in order to become a woman!! Once the man's sex organs are replaced with a woman's sex organs, then the two men are no longer two men, but one man and one woman! Now that sounds like an arrangement that would make everybody happy.

You see, there is a big difference between a human assertion on the one hand, and Yahweh's eternal truth on the other. The next time you hear someone ask "But who am I to judge?" Summon the courage to answer: "Well, that all depends on whose assertions and whose truth is being challenged."

Raisedbyhumans, you did not read my post, because you are afraid of the truth. You are a closed-minded individual, and you prefer to stay that way. That's just sad, I can't imagine being as closed-minded as you.

A wise man once said: "Minds are like parachutes, they only work when they are open". Maybe it was President Ronald Reagan who said that, I don't know, but it was some really wise man.

My fists can do more damage than any gun. It would actually be considered more humane for me to shoot somebody, than for me to punch someone. Of course, shooting would take all the fun out of fighting though.


Lying is also a sin Geoffrey! If there's one thing that you have to say about me, it's that I'm honest.

I make it a policy to not give out personal information over the internet, unless I am ordering Christian music cds, or other Christian merchandise, or sending a donation by credit card to the Republican National Committee, but why do you want to know my eye color?

Why are backing up servo? Don't start backing up now. I'm willing to give you a break, because obviously you've got no idea what you're saying. There isn't a jail that's been made that can hold me, unless I allow the jail to hold me, but then since I'm allowing myself to be held, it's not the same thing, I'm still in control. I might allow a prison to hold me for twenty or thirty years, I might allow the guards to shoot me, but I would be allowing it, I would still be in command.

Tyrone Rodriguez #racist #homophobia #ableism kotaku.com

[...]Kotaku spoke to four external developers who worked with Nicalis and seven former Nicalis employees, most of whom requested anonymity because they were afraid the company would retaliate against them. (Some of those employees left the company out of frustration; others were let go.) Some shared anecdotes about the company ignoring them for months on end. All described Nicalis’s founder and president Tyrone Rodriguez as a friendly but often difficult boss, prone to behavior that some called controlling and exploitative. Multiple former Nicalis employees said Rodriguez pressured them to drink heavily, made racist jokes in the workplace, and would oscillate between berating them and ignoring them. A few shared Skype logs of Rodriguez using racial and ableist slurs, racist jokes, and antisemitic comments during work conversations. [...]

In interviews with Kotaku, seven former Nicalis employees painted a picture of Rodriguez as a boss who wielded his power over staff in exploitative ways. “The level of control he has over his employees is definitely a problem,” said one former staffer. “It was, ‘Anything I tell you to do, you have to do this, because I’m the boss.’” Sometimes that meant employees wasting days or weeks of work because Rodriguez wouldn’t respond to their questions; other times it meant more personal grievances. For example, two former Nicalis employees said they’d be rebuked for taking dinner breaks during crunch hours or taking time off to go to the doctor or take care of sick relatives.

[...]

On business trips to Japan and at other events like E3 and PAX, former Nicalis employees say that Rodriguez would push them into uncomfortable situations, giving them specific orders about how to act and behave. Two former employees told stories of Rodriguez ordering staff not to cross their legs or put their elbows on the table at dinner. One said that Rodriguez would monitor employees’ Twitter accounts and tell them not to interact with certain people. Six former employees who spoke to Kotaku said that he’d pressure them into drinking heavily, ordering shots of gin or vodka and belittling anyone who refused to participate. “He’d order the highest alcohol content shots, push us to drink them, and we’d be hesitant,” said one. “He’d be like, ‘Come on, don’t be a little bitch.’” (This is a phrase we’ve also seen Rodriguez use in Skype logs and on Twitter.) Several said they’d notice that Rodriguez would hand out shots and drinks but not have much himself, and two former Nicalis employees said they’d seen him get developers drunk before talking about business deals with them.
During one dinner in Japan, according to two people who were there, Rodriguez said he would pay for an employee’s airplane tickets to another country if they drank a disgusting concoction that he’d created at the table, made up of raw eggs, beer, soy sauce, and other assorted food items that Rodriguez had found. Given that Rodriguez owned the company and was responsible for all of their paychecks, Nicalis employees said they felt pressured and uncomfortable during occasions like this. “It’s not very professional… In any other company that’d be a big HR thing,” said one former employee. “But there is no HR at Nicalis, so that went unaccounted for. We were expected to self-report, but you can’t really do that when he’s the one violating HR stuff. Who are we supposed to report to?”

One Skype log shared with Kotaku by a former Nicalis employee shows Rodriguez calling external partners “retards” and his employees “you gays.” In another Skype exchange shown to Kotaku, an employee talks about watching Star Trek and Rodriguez says, of Jean Luc-Picard, “I like that nigger.” Two other former Nicalis employees said that Rodriguez would, as a goof, encourage one employee to use the n-word in Skype group chats. Said a third, when I asked: “I haven’t experienced anything like Tyrone demanding people use racial slurs, but he likes to say ‘white is right’ often in a ‘jokey’ way.”
Kotaku obtained a number of Skype logs from the Nicalis group chat in which Rodriguez communicates with employees. The logs are filled with racist, antisemitic, and homophobic language from the Nicalis founder. Here are some excerpts:

{Transcripts}

03:35 Tyrone Rodriguez
we‘le xchange at the airport
03:35 Tyrone Rodriguez
matt was getting jewed by his bank today
03:35 Tyrone Rodriguez
the exchange is 103 to the CAD dollar

22:33 Tyrone Rodriguez
it‘s their marketing group
22:33 Tyrone Rodriguez
they had a recent shift in people
22:33 Tyrone Rodriguez
so the new people are kind of retards

06:29 Tyrone Rodriguez
did you know we made an official date on the behest of a retailer?
06:30 Tyrone Rodriguez
this jew is responsible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Lazarus,_Jr.
06:50 Tyrone Rodriguez
because he probably got paid off by the jew
06:50 Tyrone Rodriguez
corrupt asshole

22:30 [Name redacted]
have we heard anything from Sony and / or Nintendo regarding PAX?
22:31 Tyrone Rodriguez
as far as?
22:32 [Name redacted]
if our build is a „yes“ or a „no“
22:32 Tyrone Rodriguez
sony yes
22:32 Tyrone Rodriguez
Nintendo seems no
22:32 [Name redacted]
and if we should send a new one
22:32 Tyrone Rodriguez
which is what I expected
22:32 [Name redacted]
why doesn‘t Nintendo want it?
22:32 Tyrone Rodriguez
because they‘re gay

21:41 Tyrone Rodriguez
that‘s a lot!
21:41 Tyrone Rodriguez
it‘s usually under 4
21:42 Tyrone Rodriguez
but Obama‘s fucking everything up
21:42 Tyrone Rodriguez
lazy porch monkey

06:31 Tyrone Rodriguez
aah, so you have to go 2x add black bars
06:32 Tyrone Rodriguez
that‘s ironic
06:32 Tyrone Rodriguez
usually the blacks are behind the bars
06:33 Tyrone Rodriguez
that may have been one of my best

Kotaku has reviewed dozens of Skype transcripts full of jokes and messages like this.

One former Nicalis employee, who was overweight and suffered from health issues, said that Rodriguez would make comments on his weight and often told him to go for walks. (This employee requested anonymity but was willing to publicize these specific details, even knowing they might make him identifiable to Nicalis, because he felt it was important.) During a business trip to Japan, the former Nicalis employee said that he’d been walking around so much that his inner thighs began bleeding, and he wanted to rest in his hotel. When Tyrone Rodriguez and his brother, Nicalis CEO Victor Rodriguez, asked him to go on a trip to a nearby landmark, the former employee said he refused. “Tyrone started saying things like, ‘Who do you think paid for your trip?’” he said. “He was essentially trying to coerce me into going… I said, ‘No, I’m not going.’” Soon afterwards, he said, Rodriguez fired him. “When we got back from Japan I feel like that might have been why they got rid of me. Because I stood up for myself.”

Other former Nicalis employees have told similar stories about being rebuked or punished for refusing to go on trips with Tyrone Rodriguez. Three former employees said that Nicalis removed them or people they worked with from the credits of their games once they left the company. “Tyrone can be very generous and a really good guy,” said one. “If he needs something from you. But I’ve seen him turn pretty quickly when you’re not needed anymore.”

{Submitter‘s note: Here is Tyrone Rodriguez‘ reaction on Twitter:}

https://mobile.twitter.com/tyronerodriguez/status/1172280592102129666

{Transcript:}

I wrote some terribly insensitive, stupid remarks in DMs that don‘t represent who I am. Just because they were done in a private situation while trying to be „funny“ and edgy doesn‘t make them any less terrible. They‘re indefensible and unacceptable.

As someone who has experienced racism and discrimination in my life, I should know better and must be a better person. I can‘t throw around words for shock value or because I think they‘ll get a laugh.

I want to also clarify that my insensitivity and vulgarity shouldn‘t reflect on the people I work with. They‘re very good people and shouldn‘t be held responsible for my own actions.

If I‘ve hurt you- and I wasn‘t aware until today that I might have- I hope you can forgive me someday.

Zen_Overlord #fundie reddit.com

We were born on the wrong side of the industrial revolution.

We were the kings. We were the nobility, the clergy, the lords and dukes. We were the scholars of the Holy Roman Empire. We were the great painters and composers that fueled the Renaissance. Females were given to us simply out of charity, because everyone understood how our romantic needs powered us.

But look at us now. We're forced onto fucking reddit because society hates the beautiful and the noble, and loves the dirty and downtodden (notice how normos always get a hardon for "rebels taking down the empire" stories).

We're too civilized for females. Pluck a king out of his throne, put on normal clothes and throw him in a slummy tavern, yeah no shit the females won't think he's "confident" enough.

Such a waste. Us being incels is like a man taking several wheelbarrows filled with $100 bills and dumping them into a river one by one. You would think one of the female passerbys would go "HOLY SHIT!" and take some for herself, but she sees that no one else is doing it and decides against it.

The bad guys have won. At least we can take solace in the fact that they will destroy the environment and thus the planet. With the end of our genes, goes the end of humanity. Can't say we didn't war

exchangedlife #fundie exchangedlife.com

Consider the fact than many insects have such short life spans. Some flies only live for one hour. They have less than 60 minutes to find a partner, mate, find a place to lay eggs and die. According to evolutionary scientist, the evolution process takes about 250-300 million years to occur. What is the likely hood that not one, but two of these flies would evolve within one hour of each other in a 300 million year process? So the window of evolutionary opportunity is faster than a camera shutter compared to the length of time the process takes.

Patrick Scrivener #conspiracy reformation.org

The stage is set in Syria for another Pentagon false flag operation!!

In October 1962, a Pentagon false flag operation called the Cuban Missile Crisis almost led to the annihilation of the entire human race. Beginning in the summer of 1962, "Communist" Nikita Khrushchev began secretly shipping "nuclear missiles" to Cuba via the British controlled Straits of Gibraltar. Khrushchev was not even Russian, he was a "fake Jew" from UKraine, and most of his soldiers in Cuba were UKrainians.

In preparation for the Cuban Missile Crisis, British Secret Service agent Greville Wynne recruited a Russian colonel named Oleg Penkovsky to decapitate the top Soviet military leaders.

MI6 Greville Wynne–working out of the British embassy in Moscow–recruited colonel Penkovsky as a spy.

Greville was the liaison between Winston Churchill and suicide bomber general Curtis LeMay.

KJB Penkovsky's job was to disable the Russian Doomsday Device before the Pentagon's thermonuclear attack!!

Under the guise of a trade delegation, Penkovsky the spy arrived in London on April 20, 1961.

From April 20 to May 6, 1961, Penkovsky underwent an intensive debriefing at MI6 HQ in London.

MI6 Chief Sir Dick White then shared this info with John McCone–his CIA counterpart.

During his stay in Britain, "Guy Fawkes" Penkovsky was shown every trick in the MI6 spying arsenal.

To disarm the Doomsday Device, Penkovsky recommended that small atomic bombs be planted at strategic locations and timed to go off just before general LeMay's bombers arrived:

As a strategic officer, a graduate of two academies, and having worked for some time in the General Staff, I know what the sensitive spots are. I am convinced that my viewpoint is absolutely correct, namely that in case of a future war, at H-hour plus two minutes, all of these critical targets such as the General Staff, the KGB Headquarters on Dzerzhinsky Square, the Central Committee of the Party, which organizes everything, and similar targets must all be blown up by pre-positioned atomic bombs rather than by means of bombs dropped from aircraft or rockets, which may or may not hit the vital targets.
In our Soviet Army we have a five-kiloton, a ten-kiloton, and bigger weapons, but they have not yet been able to produce a one-kiloton weapon. Our scientists are still working on it. I know this exactly. Such weapons would not need to be set within the buildings themselves, but there are many adjacent buildings where they can be concealed. Dwellings and stores are adjacent. For example, there is a large Gastronom [food store] next to the KGB Headquarters. A small group of saboteurs equipped with such weapons, governed by a time mechanism, should plant them in the locations from which all these headquarters can be destroyed. Irrespective of what other attacks will be made at H-hour, these essential headquarters must be destroyed. These headquarters can be easily spotted in every major city. They are easy to find in Leningrad, Sverdlovsk, Voronezh, and Novosibirsk, for example. All one would need would be one man to do this for each military district. This would destroy the mobilization and organizational directorates that are the backbone of the army. If these headquarters of the General Staff and the Military Districts are destroyed, this will reduce the combat strength of the Soviet Army to a very great degree. A number of months would be required to assemble more or less experienced men from the reserves. (Schecter & Deriabin, The Spy Who Saved the World, p. 75).

Amazingly, Penkovsky's spying was not done in a corner. His Moscow handler worked out of the British Embassy . . . just a stone's throw from the Kremlin.

Penkovsky would meet Janet Chisholm, wife of Station Chief Rauri, at Tsvetnoy Boulevard Park in Moscow.

Under the guise of giving candy to her kids, he actually gave her top secret documents about the Soviet nuclear arsenal.

Even children played a deadly role in the Doomsday scenario called the Cuban Missile Crisis!!

On the very day that President Kennedy made his "full retaliatory response" speech, Penkovsky was arrested. Moscow was about to be lit up with FIREWORKS, and its wasn't even New Year's Eve!!

On the very day (October 22) that President Kennedy made his "full retaliatory response" speech, Penkovsky's plot was uncovered.

The arrest of the Russian Guy Fawkes caused panic at the Pentagon as they now faced the prospect of a horrible death by cobalt hydrogen bomb radiation.

There is no doubt that the Pentagon feared the Russian Doomsday Device, and they dreaded the prospect of dying a horrible death by radiation.

The drama was as intense in Moscow as in Cuba and Washington City:

There was one more piece of urgent business falling to the KGB secret police. For the past year, a Soviet military intelligence officer named Colonel Oleg Penkovsky had been providing top secret documents to his British and American handlers. Among the documents now in the hands of the CIA was the technical manual for the R-12 missile system, together with the layout of a typical missile site and detailed descriptions of the various readiness levels. Penkovsky had been under suspicion for weeks, but the KGB delayed moving against him because it wanted to smash the entire spy ring.
With the Cold War on the verge of turning hot, Penkovsky could not be permitted to feed any more information to the Americans. Plainclothes agents burst into his apartment on the Moscow River and arrested him without a struggle. Because of the importance of the case, the head of the KGB, Vladimir Semichastny, decided that he would take personal charge of the interrogation. He ordered his men to bring the traitor to his third-floor corner office in the Lubyanka. They sat him down at the other end of a long conference table.
Fearing torture or worse, Penkovsky immediately offered to cooperate with the KGB "in the interests of the motherland." Semichastny looked at him with distaste. "Tell me what harm you have inflicted on our country. Describe it all in detail, with the most pertinent facts." (Dobbs, One Minute to Midnight, pp. 56-57).

Arch-traitor Penkovsky faced a firing squad and most of his accomplices were arrested. Typically, Wynne escaped and lived to a ripe old age. British Secret Service agent Nikita Khrushchev lost most of his power after the Cuban Missile Crisis and he was overthrown in 1964.

If that was British spying on the "police state" known as the Soviet Union, imagine what the situation is like today....Truly horrendous!!

The generals at the Pentagon spend most of their time figuring out how they can get Russia to shoot first, in order for them to launch a nuclear attack on that great and free country.

Now that the British Joint Chiefs have a puppet in the White House . . . and the Kremlin . . . they are eagerly looking forward to World War III.

The This is some long shit' edition of FSTDT.

Sande Van der Straten #ufo #magick bibliotecapleyades.net

These are the notes that I took at the meeting held February 8th, 1992 at Maleny, Queensland.

This is my version of my notes of the meeting with Robert Morning Sky a full blooded Apache/Hopi Indian. Who was raised by his two grandparents after his father was killed and his mother left the reservation.

From the age of 1-5 years, he had no contact with the white man at all. He was taught by his grandfathers and with a group of other young people by a group of people they called the Star Warriors - aliens he code-names Blues.

These people taught him to run 6 miles with a full mouth of water and not choke or spill a drop, then they would return and have to spit the water out at the feet of the Warriors. They had to stand with their backs to their elders who would shoot an arrow and they, the students, would have to turn and catch it mid-flight. He said they didn’t realize - the students - that they weren’t supposed to be able to do these things.

The policy of the Star Warrior is that knowledge is not given, it is earned. The way to learn is to be led to discovery.

There is an old Hopi prophecy (today’s red man is white tomorrows white man is green). The first alien contact started about 1947 - 1948 and they had either already, or were going to spend 50 years with the elders of the Hopi Indian reservation.

A description of the Star Warriors is of clear, translucent skin, large almond shaped eyes and small of stature. The main issue of their teaching was PURSUE YOUR PASSION, follow your own way, do your own thing, don’t be pressured into being anything but what and who you are.

A medicine man is not necessarily a healer, they are people who do their own thing with a passion, i.e. one that will make you practice your practice your own medicine, two, feel better - medicine people make both things one and the same. A warrior is a living example of passion.

What is passion, it is an inner feeling, a love activity. It is that which makes time flow quickly, that one will move heaven and earth to do, that one will make time for. Passion is the unity of union of love between man and woman, which has more power and energy than anything one earth and if harnessed can be unbeatable.

Harmony occurs when ones own heart beat moves in time with another, i.e. the drum music of the dance, the heartbeat of chosen one, the heartbeat of a nation, the heartbeat of the universe and the earth. Think about your passion, if it makes you feel good, and shivery, it is your passion. It is your passion that makes all things possible.

The Hopi tradition is that it is man’s job to make all things possible for the womenfolk. They must attract, but the women must chose.

The reason for long hair is enhancement of beauty and the "Indian love handle" - he mentioned that the caveman used to pull their women around by their hair, he says it was wrong, the Indian women catch their men by their hair!

Men must see the world through the eyes of women.

Passion
The fire, the individuality, the you. It is internal, we are told to be what you are supposed to be, don’t be anything else. We have a life force and energy that if harnessed could cause more damage than an atomic explosion. But we need to practice harmony and frequency. We find our own frequency and can raise it to match another and harmonize, match it don’t contend with it or anything else, or you will be destroyed. The first sensation we receive, is our mother’s heartbeat. We all need to be one harmonious heartbeat.

Body
Your job is to master your own body, if you don’t master your body, nothing will work for you.


Spiritual
Anything else is spiritual, the trees, air, water etc. To attain oneself, you have to move outwards, not grow inwards or else you will become like the black stars and implode.

Shape shifting - is possible by becoming that shape - my feeling is that in making self believe so much that a super imposed image forms in your mind and the mind of those around you - by increasing your own frequency you can become anything i.e. a microwave than excite water, so that it changes and becomes hot.

When our energy rise, so does our body temperature. We have the ability to raise our own and other peoples frequencies.
In 1943 the government conducted a series of experiments called the Philadelphia Experiment, to teleport articles.

It partly succeeded and partly went wrong. On January 8/9th, there was a terrific light storm that was not so much a storm as an immense light show. (During this storm I, Sande, was sitting of the front porch, connected to the storm, Robert, my guide, very clearly spoke to me and told me not to feed the storm). Robert Morningsky video-taped the storm and on part of the film, the form of a ship appeared.

December 19/20 Nexus magazine reported that a ship from the Philadelphia Experiment materialized into one of the bays in Australian Waters and then disappeared. picture (Courier Mail, 31/12/91).

If you are not in tune with your passion you cannot create your own reality. Your passion is your responsibility. Who cares what others feel and think.

Your answers and salvation are within.

1930-1940 World War II
Madman Hitler tried to create the perfect man, and conducted bio-genetic experiments
Work on flying saucers research, development what is known as Foo Fighters - (14.2.1944)
The US developed an atomic weapon and tested it in Northern New Mexico
Others tried to develop Time Travel. Out in the universe, alien nations viewed us and were dismayed. Can you imagine the SS Eldridge going through into another dimension. Whilst testing a new protection device called radar uncontrollable bursts of energy, several flying saucers were forcibly landed. The area of landing was the Arizona area. The Amerindians respected the aliens found.

1948
Several discs crashed, so a military force called blue force was formed, to remove all evidence of UFOs. A live alien was captured and he was called EBE, Extraterrestrial Biological Entity.

It was found that he was not able to eliminate waste through the normal way, it was eliminate through the pores of his skin. He took sick, and a famous botanist Jaro Mendoza was called in, but in 1952, EBE died. A project called Sigma was instigated to call EBEs brothers to come and find him but to no avail.

The satellite dishes were placed on Indian lands, and the workers, believing that the Indian race was non consequential, so gave them quite a bit of information, believing that they would not understand it.


1947
In the locker of one of the landed UFOs were found human parts.


1953
December, contact was made with Aliens. Astronomers found a bunch of space ships going around the earth. Contact was made outside one of the Indian reservations.

1954
Eisenhower met with the greys and was offered certain secrets in return for the use of people for research and experimentation. They informed the president that they were a dying race and needed help to get their bodies stronger and healthier. An agency MJ-12 was brought into effect, to monitor this program of experiments and implantations.

Negotiations were completed and treaty was signed in California. In Florida another body of Aliens arrived, called by Robert Morningsky, as the Blues.

They offered other advice, not to deal with the greys, it would only lead to disaster, but to follow your own path. They would teach with peace and harmony if men would disarm and listen. The military said no deal! So they left, but a few decided to remain and stayed in Northern Mexico and Arizona and made a treaty with the Hopi Indians.

These Aliens are known by the Hopi as Star Warriors.

The greys left an ambassador called Krill and adopted an equilateral triangle as their insignia. The military force name as the Blue Force became the Delta Force and was formed to study the greys. Two bases were built and called several names, the Earth base - Hanger 18, Dreamland or Area 51.

The greys went underground under the reservations in the four corner area of Mexico, Utah, Arizona and California. It was for the purpose of monitoring the Blues. The Blues had to flee the reservation and go into hiding, a few of the Elders went with them.

The Hopi legend is that there were two races, the children of the feather who came from the skies, and the children of the reptile who came from under the earth. The children of the reptile chased the Hopi Indians out of the earth, these evil under-grounders were also called two hearts.

The government has signed a treaty with the children of the serpent. The Hopi have signed a treaty with the children of the feather.

The greys want a perfect body, for a long time, there have been cattle mutilations. Always missing, were the organs of elimination. The grey’s bodies are always cold, and they feed on our energies, our fears, our out of control energies.

When you are fearful and out of control, the greys use and feed on that energy. What we need to do is know that it is o.k. to feel fear, but to flow with it, then control it by redirecting it into a positive event.

(NB - Do we not have an underground installation at Pine Gap that is run by the Americans? - Sande).

Control your passion - life force - you decide what you want, get an attitude! Don’t be afraid to say no! The government wants your money for their pet projects and the greys want your life-force, your energy.

Ask yourself these things.
1. Do the government make laws for themselves or for people.
2. Do they allow us to do our own thing.
3. Are we under their control on government subsidies etc...
The greys decided to stay on earth and needed acceptance, so they hired an advertising agency to come up with some good ideas - hence - My favorite Martian, ALF, Star Trek, Star wars, Alien Nation and ET.

The new program the Mutant Ninja Turtles and the Dinosaurs?? Look and be aware of the symbol of the triangle - TriStar Pictures??? Don’t rely on the government for your support, help yourself where you can. See the movie JFK.


1959
The Jason Society decided to do something about global warming:
1. Blow a hole in the ozone layer, to let the heat out.
2. Develop underground for the elite societies.
3. Develop other planets into colonies. The last two were adopted, but the first has since be done.
Several things have been happening to engender fear and to give more control to the government:
1. Release of dangerous Psychotics and early release of killers and menaces to society.
2. Wars and upheavals.
3. Drug induced societies and drug dependent societies.
4. Mainland China.


Kachina Hopi - great spirit fire

Any living thing that is stressed is food for the children of the lizard.

Robert saw for the first time pictures of crop circles, and recognized them as Hopi symbols. He professed that if he could see them in their correct order, he would be able to ’read them’.

He feels that Mother earth is calling out Help me!


Question time
Q: - Why would governments hide the fact that aliens exist?
A: - If we knew, we would quit doing what the government want us to do.

Q: - Do the greys know they are aliens?
A: - The Greys have interbred - the more they interbreed, the more chance there is that they will lose their memories of who they really are, they become half human and half alien and can be quite mixed up emotionally. They must be 5th and 6th generation greys by now, and who don’t know they are greys. (Where do you think we get all our information from - disgruntled greys!!)

Q: - How can we tell the children of the greys.
A: - They make you feel creepy and have reptilian looking eyes and features. Greys have large eyes and have difficulty focusing. They are arrogant. They will be a strong body odor they tend to drain one of energy. They need to wear sunglasses - CIA????

The Blues
Short, big eyes, wouldn’t describe too much, because they are preparing for something big. You will feel them, and you will know them!! It is possible that a 6th generation grey could end up marrying a 6th generation blue.

Our misuse of our energy can aid a grey to shape shift and thus not be recognized.
(At the meeting, I was with another person, and while the intermission was on, we were quietly talking, when the person appeared from nowhere, and introduced himself to me, using my name. [my name had not been mentioned, neither did I know this man. I did not have a name tag on].

It was an extremely hot day, and when I shook his hand, it was freezing cold and dry. He shook hands with my partner also. We watched him move back through the hall and disappear into a small of people. We watched the front door, and he did not exit through there. But when we looked for him later, he was nowhere to be found.

I have no idea what it all meant, I only know that it was a strange experience. Neither my partner nor I could remember the man’s name, although he has said it twice. No one else had contact with the man, or remembered seeing anyone. My partner was a very logical person, not given to fanciful visions etc.)
On December 21, 1991, a fragmented video tape would trigger a series of events that would permit these papers to come to life.

On the video tape were bits and pieces of information that confirmed what some American Indians have known for some time... that Alien Life Forms exist and walk amongst us.

Due to the release of information on that tape, it is now possible to reveal further information that could not be spoken of before this time.

An ages old code of silence could slowly and cautiously be unveiled. In the late forties and early fifties, a movement began on the pueblo Indian Reservations of the Southwest. It was the intent of the Elders involved to raise an isolated group of young Warriors in the "Old Ways". The teachings began but would soon receive an unexpected presence... the "Star Warrior". (Please read the chronology included).

Hand in hand with the "medicine warrior" ways, the "Star Warrior" ways would become the foundation of education of the young warriors. Hand in hand with the Elders, the Star Brother taught the Secrets of the Universe. Raised in the way of the Kachina, the children knew that the Spirit of things always looks different.

The appearance of the Star Brother was not frightening, he only looked a little unlike us... and... he played with us as a child would.

Knowledge must be earned. Wisdom must be learned... the "Way of the Warrior" would confirm that which was discovered and would give suggestion for direction, but Passion for knowledge MUST be exhibited... and so, the code was born - "confirm but do NOT originate.

Suggest and direct but leave discovery to the seeker of knowledge". These full-blooded Indian boys and girls spent their lives learning through discovery... and one by one they went out into the "outside" world. The author of these papers was one of those youngsters. The material in these papers does not violate the code, it only confirms information which has been uncovered by others.

It is hoped, however, that these papers may give researchers an idea or suggestion for a different perspective which may help to uncover further information on the "Grand Overview".

The information in these papers should not be accepted in and of themselves. You must seek our confirmation for yourself. The credibility of these papers does not depend on its author, but rather on what you discover from your study and investigation of the material presented.

CONFIRM EVERYTHING FOR YOURSELF! THIS IS THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN BE SATISFIED WITH THE TRUTHS PRESENTED.

The material is presented in bold, forthright form. If you seek elaboration.

"Keys" are available upon request.



SECRETS OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN - HOPI LEGEND OF CREATION

The Hopi Indian Legend of Creation tells of three different beginnings.
One story says that we have arisen from an underground paradise through an opening called Sipapu.
The second story tells of the descendancy from our birthplace near a Blue Star.
And the third story relates of a migration from a faraway place across a great body of water.
All three are true.

What matters is not which came first, but that they are all true. (Focus not on the leaf, rather look at the whole tree).

This spot is thought by some to be Sipapu, entrance to the Hopi Underworld.
It is a sacred place of pilgrimage for the Hopi,
at the bottom of the Canyon of the Little Colorado above its junction with the Colorado River.

The story of Sipapu reveals that we emerged in a somewhat undeveloped physical state, much like the prehistoric man.

Our bodies were still forming and pliable, but our features were a bit brutish. Man, called Koyemsi or Mudhead had two small round lumps for ears, two protruding knobs for eyes and one large lump for a mouth. The head was smooth and round as a ball.

As man developed, his physical body and features became more refined until he looks as he does now.

THIS IS THE HOPI VERSION OF EVOLUTION - (Key 1)
- This story of creation says that the underground paradise was wondrous with beautiful clear skies and plentiful food sources.

It was because of the existence of those called Two Hearts, the bad ones, that refuge was sought in the upper world by the Hopi, the peaceful ones. The underworld was not destroyed but was only sealed up to prevent the Two Hearts from rising upon to the surface world.

(Suggested research Hollow Earth Theorists may want to look at this legend more closely. At least one government agency is said to continue monitoring the Hopi Indian, to see when and if a return into the ground begins).


THE SECOND STORY OF CREATION - (Key 2)
- Tells of the descent of the Hopi from the Blue Star of a constellation called the Seven Sisters. One version tells of our travel to earth on the back of Enki, the eagle. Grandfather, the Great Spirit allowed the first man to select his home from the many stars of the universe.

Enki told first man of his home earth, and brought him to visit. First man’s exploration of the earth convinced him that this was where he wanted his children to be born and to grow. First Man returned to the heavens to tell Grandfather of his decision. Grandfather was pleased and granted to first man the right to call earth his home.

First man soon returned to the green place or Sakwap with his family shortly afterwards.

(Many of the hero stories throughout time and through many different cultures refer to a valiant group of seven. Warriors descended from the stars often use the sign of the Seven Sisters on their shields and medallions).


THE STORY OF THE MIGRATION - (Key 3)
- From a great land across the big waters speaks of the departure from a paradise far away. This story parallels many other creation legends, but differs only in that no disaster or chaos seems to have caused the journey.

The purpose of the journey was to begin a new home and a new life. Some interpretations have the Hopi leaving their home in order to spread the Teachings of the Old Ones.


SORCERER VS MEDICINE MAN - (Key 4)
- In the Southwest, as in all areas of North America, there exist men and women who practice the use of power to achieve their goals. Sometimes called the medicine man or woman, sorcerer or shaman, these individuals have often been the subjects of books and even movies. Their practice is often referred to as magic.

Nothing is further from the truth. Magic is the un natural use of the Powers of Nature. They who turn to the practice of disharmony are more properly called witches, warlocks and sorcerers. (It is this disharmony that eventually undoes these practitioners and seals their doom). Medicine men and women work with the force of Nature.

(Move against the river, it weakens and ultimately destroys - move with the river, and the power of the river enters your soul and reveals its knowledge).

One series of popular books (Carlos Castaneda Series) refers to Don Juan. One of the Sorcerers of the Southwestern Desert. His apprentice was known as Carlos. Through the series of books, Carlos is guided by Don Juan and Don Genaro on a path to Sorcery.

The methods used by Don Juan are well known to the Medicine Men and Women of the Southwest and most of what is described in the first two books is a valid teaching technique of teaching by Distraction. However, due to the blinders Carlos refuses to move from his eyes, the two books seem to be rather confusing. This is not because of Don Juan.

Don Juan’s attempts to make him see in another way, are totally rejected by Carlos and the result is a mixed up re-telling of events. Do not accept the final book’s premise that Carlos has achieved the status of Sorcerer or knowing one - that is not the outcome. Those who refuse to remove the blinders and expand their awareness, will forever be trapped in a prison-world of their own making, and will never see the dangers around them.

(They who do not wish to see CANNOT; Those who do not wish to hear CANNOT; Those who do not wish to feel CANNOT. Suggestion - re-read the Don Juan comments carefully).


MEDICINE MAN/WOMAN (Key 5)
- At this point it would be well to mention that Medicine men/Woman are not necessarily healers. In fact, your medicine is your passion. Your medicine always makes you feel high while dancing, then dancing is your medicine. If you feel high while cooking, then cooking is your medicine. Your medicine will always help to cure that which ails you.

Your medicine will always give you the power to rise up and continue. (This medicine is of the spirit) Your medicine is also that which you do. Your conduct in the Land of Living Things, what you do is your signature in life and it is your medicine. how your treat others and how you react to the world is your medicine.

You medicine can help the ailments of others or it could, in fact poison them. What you do effects other at all times. (If your medicine is harmful to others, you, as a medicine man or medicine woman have failed in your task.) What you DO in the land of the living things is your medicine. (This medicine is of the body).

(It is the true medicine man/woman that makes the medicine of the spirit one with the medicine of the body.)

TRUTH AND WISDOM - (key 6)
- Truth and wisdom must always be sought out. Neither shall come easily. If at first, the teacher ignores you... Ask again!

All masters of Wisdom will succumb to the Passionate student. To demand a right to knowledge is to say you provide this for me. To ask for knowledge is to show respect for wisdom and to pursue knowledge is to show passion for truth. (In life, there are no RIGHTS, only privileges). Unlike power, truth seeks to come out. It does not hide, it is hidden by those wishing it to remain concealed. Truth and power are tools to be used. Not ends in themselves.

(Power can cover or uncover truth;...truth can only uncover power; Power can lead to truth...Truth always leads to power. Wisdom is knowing how to use both).

PASSION - (Key 7)
- In order to pursue your Passion, first you must recognize your passion. The following guidelines should help you to identify your passion:
1. Your PASSION always makes you feel on fire.
2. Your PASSION always makes time disappear (five hours always seems like five minutes.
3. Your PASSION occupies most of your waking thoughts.
4. Your PASSION forces you into action, you cannot sit.
5. Your PASSION is something you will always find time for.

AWARENESS - (Key 8)
- There are three parts to Awareness:
1. The Inner Spirit or the PASSION
2. The Outer Being or the BODY
3. The Outer Spirit or the SPIRITUAL
(Master the inner self first, the physical self secondly, then and only then, can the spiritual be conquered).

How can we master the more complex out of body experience if we cannot stop overeating? How can we stop overeating if we do not have Passion or discipline to accomplish it?

All spiritual teachings require mastery of the spirit. Development, or growth, is always outward, not inward. Mastery of the Inner Spirit or passion is first; Mastery of the body or Physical is next; Mastery of the Spiritual is the final step. Those who turn the order around will find their development moving inward and falling in on itself.

(Passion is the secret to all things. Master this and all things shall be revealed to you).

STAR WARRIORS - (Key 9)
- To follow the path of the STAR WARRIOR, you must first eliminate two concepts from your mind and spirit - Can’t and Impossible -. How long would you stay married to a spouse who constantly told you that you could not do something? You can’t go there; You can’t do that; You can’t say that! - Not very long.

So why then permit yourself to deny yourself? Remember, if you believe yourself inferior, you are! If you say to yourself, I cannot - you are right. If you say to yourself, I can - you are also right. To become who you wish to become, first establish who that person is and how they would act. Then, practice and rehearse everything that person would think and do.

(To become a deer, one must act, think, live and be as the deer - only then can the passion of the deer be yours).

In other words, create yourself. Write a script for your own movie. The hero is your. In the script, write all those things you wish for yourself, all those things you would like to do or feel. Then rehearse your script. Practice becoming the hero or heroine of your movie. Rehearse over and over again until you know the behavior instinctively. Slowly, you will begin to know how the hero acts and thinks. Slowly, you will become the hero of your movie and your life.

The only way to become a runner is to begin running - The only way to become a lover is to begin loving - The only way to become passionate is to practice passion - Practice being that which you wish to be...and soon you shall become it.

THE 10 COMMANDMENTS OF THE STAR WARRIORS - (Key 10)
1. I am a child of the Dancing Star born of chaos.
I AM BORN OF THE STARS. THE STARS WERE BORN OF CHAOS. THERE SHALL ALWAYS BE CHAOS, BUT I SHALL ALWAYS BE WARRIOR.

Only in challenge shall we find our greatest strengths and our weaknesses. Only in challenge shall our passions be made strong. The goal of life is outward development. NOT inner peace. Peace that brings no challenge means stagnation. Confidence in self wrought through challenge is TRUE peace.

2. I am fire.
I AM FIRE. I AM PASSION. ALL THAT I DO, I DO WITH PASSION. - Fire is passion. Passion is that inner force that distinguishes us from all others. Passion is that which makes the Bear become the Bear... never will you see the Bear trying to fly as the Eagle, for it is his passion to be the bear. Passion is the gift that allows us to be what we wish. To do anything without passion, is to go through the motions.

To be Passionless is to lose the fight of life. Those who have no fire are easy to conquer and manipulate. The study of Physics and other sciences tells us that all things are comprised of atoms which in turn are comprised of electrons, protons and neutrons...all are particles of energy or electricity. This energy cannot be destroyed, only changed. From these very same particles came the release of a basis of our existence, within our own bodies.

Herein, science has revealed the existence of a force unlike any on this planet, the force which directs each one of us in our path. This is our passion, this is our gift.

3. I see the fire in all things.
I SEE THE FIRE IN ALL THINGS - All things possess fire. All this have spirit. The only difference between man and animal is that they wear different skins. The only difference between man and all things is the skin, or outer covering. In the Hopi world, the spirit of a think is called kachina. It is the kachina that is the fire or passion. Those who can see and hear can learn from those kachinas around us. If you can communicate with another human being, you can communicate with the trees, the wind and all things of the earth.

4. I am but a visitor in the land of living things.
I AM BUT A VISITOR IN THE LAND OF LIVING THINGS - The skin we wear is but a temporary robe. That part of us which is most important is the inner spirit, or the passion. Yet, we must never forget that we are guests in this land and we must conduct ourselves as such. We respect all that is here.

That which we may receive in this place must be left here.. things cannot be taken with us, but all of our riches that we have accumulated in memories and knowledge shall go with us forever.

5. I walk the path of silence.
I WALK THE PATH OF SILENCE - In the Song of the morning sky, there is a line that says live as though you cannot speak. It means that what you do is more important than what you say. If you cannot speak, you must communicate your love and friendship through your actions. You must demonstrate that which you feel.

Let your actions be your measure. Only in silence can you learn. He who talks does not hear - only in silence can you defeat your enemy, he who makes no noise is invisible.

6. I am not seen or heard. I am only felt.
I AM NOT SEE OR HEARD, I AM ONLY FELT - The warrior must make himself felt. If he lives his life and the world has not felt him, he has failed. If he lives his life and grandfather has not felt him, he has failed. His passion must be experienced by others, not witnessed. He who uses his fire warms the world, he who shouts of his fire fills the world with noise.

7. I take only that which I can return.
I TAKE ONLY THAT WHICH I CAN RETURN. THE BALANCE OF NATURE AND HARMONY OF THE UNIVERSE MUST BE MAINTAINED - If the warrior takes a tree for use as a

various homophobes #homophobia zeldadungeon.net

Would You Stop Playing the Legend of Zelda if Link Was Homosexual in the Next Game? Would this ruin the game series for you? Or would you just not play this one game?

link's Sister: “I just won't play that one game.”

locke: “If the gameplay etc. were good enough to make up for the awkwardness of playing as a character that I couldn't relate to then I might play it. Otherwise I'd just skip that game. One game I don't like isn't enough to ruin the series. Only if it becomes a trend.”

KawiNinjaZX: “That would be stupid, relationships and sexuality are never a point to the game, they are only minor and are implied. If Link straight up kissed a guy I would turn off the game.”

Dragoncat: “Yoai fangirls scare me...I'm no homophobe, but I dislike yoai and yuri. People that like it tend to just want to throw two characters who would never be together in a million years into sex scenes so they can drool. It's disgusting and it completely disrespects the characters. People who support hetero pairings tend to not be that way. So for that reason, I'd prefer Nintendo NOT doing that.”

Sir Quaffler: “I'm assuming you mean Link would be gay and only gay in the hypothetical game, rather than giving us the option to choose.If we would have no choice in the matter and Link would be gay no matter what we as the player would want, then I would not play that game. I tend to project my own preferences through the game, Link's (almost) blank slate allowing me to do so, so for him to suddenly be very forthcoming to other male characters would totally break me from the experience. I would never do that, why would I want to play as a character that does that? It would not tarnish the rest of the series at all (I already don't think it's infallible, AoL is an abomination in my eyes anyways so one hypothetical game would not "ruin" the series for me), but I would definitely be more cautious about picking up subsequent games.However, if that were optional rather than mandatory, then no I would not be against that and would definitely still pick up the game. Include it as an option for people who want the main character to feel more like them, just don't force it upon the rest of us who don't agree with that lifestyle”

Kylo Ken: “No, I wouldn't play this one at all. A very large reason why I play the Legend of Zelda is because I can relate to Link. And that's being objective considering I am Christian.”

Demise_ : “I'd definitely not play that one game, it would definitely not ruin the previous games, as for future games if they would be completely uninfluenced by that game then it's fine (e.g. if that one game was developed completely by another studio).”

Vanitas Remnant: “Yeah, it would really ruin it for me. I have nothing against gays, but that would just be... weird.”


Theeohn Megistus #conspiracy in5d.com

In the beginning of this universe Divine Creator created “Games”. The Game for this Universe was called Polarity Integration. The goal was simple: experience polarity and integrate it; once achieved, reunite with Divine Creator. The players of this game would be the Humanoids and the Reptilians. The Humanoids were given a creation myth which stated that the Humans could colonize any planet they chose, but if they find another race on the planet, they must negotiate a peace treaty and strive for harmony. The Reptilians were given a creation myth that stated that they owned the Galaxy and had the right to colonize any planet they chose. If a non-reptilian race is present, they could and should destroy it. Humans were created right-brain dominant (or feminine polarized), Reptilians left-brain dominant (or masculine polarized).

The Reptiles were given a head start so that their technology would start out superior to the Humans. Their home world was called Aln and was located in the Orion Constellation. The Reptiles already attained space travel when the humans were still swimming in the oceans. The humanoid home world was Avyon in the Vegan star system and existed initially as aquatic primates (the Cetaceans).

When humanoids became advanced enough for space travel about 22 million years ago, they colonized another planet called Avalon. Soon the reptiles arrived and a conflict resulted. They infiltrated the colony with their advanced technology and while courting friendship and trust, sowed the seeds of discord between those that wished to grow spiritually and those that wanted to grow technologically. A civil war ensued and the reptiles supplied both sides with sufficient technology to annihilate themselves. This was round one. The reptiles won.

The Founders of the Game moved some of the humanoids to Sirius B so they could be away from the reptilian interference. Over a very long period of time two groups emerged called the “Etherics” (non- physicals) and the “Physicals.” The Etherics were feminine polarized and the Physicals were male polarized. The Founders then moved the Physicals to Aln, the Reptilians home world and the Etherics were moved to Tiamat, the primordial Earth.

The Reptilians weren’t real happy about the Physical Humanoids showing up on their planet and soon the battles began and the colony was nearly destroyed. Some of the humans were forced into slavery and others went underground and formed the Black League. The Black League managed to escape Aln for Tiamat to join the Etherics.

The Reptilians eventually found out about Tiamat and decided to colonize it. When they arrived, there was a proto-humanoid civilization and the Etherics. The Etherics sent positive energy to the Reptiles in an effort to create a peaceful coexistence and get them to let go of their Creation Myth. It worked well for a very long while. It almost looked like integration had already occurred. There were snake reptiles on one side, dinoid reptiles on the other and the humanoids in the middle. The humanoids had learned farming and were growing enough food to feed the whole planet. This was subsequently called the Great Experiment, the forerunner of planet Earth. This was the first time Etherics had been used to obtain a peaceful coexistence and it was amazingly successful.

However, word got out that a planet existed that was living in peace and harmony and the ruling Orion Reptilians decided to pay a visit. This was, of course, in violation of the Creation Myth and they immediately started sowing the seeds of discord among the Reptiles in an attempt to convince them that the Humanoids were secretly planning their destruction. It took a very long time for the ruling Reptilians to work this plan through because the Etherics kept sending thoughts of love and harmony and the physical humanoids kept sending them food. But ultimately the Creation Myth won out and the Reptiles developed a plan to destroy the humanoids through germ warfare.

The proto-humanoids understood what was happening and decided that they would leave the planet and go to the Pleiades aboard the starship Pegasus and the Etherics would mutate back into the aquatic primates (whales and dolphins) and maintain the biosphere. A plan was devised to rid the planet of the Reptiles through implosions of the underground fusion generators. About 98% of the Reptiles were destroyed in the ensuing world-wide cataclysm but a few survived and were present when the remaining planet was repopulated as Earth. Another small group was given sanctuary aboard the Pegasus and went to the Pleiades. Another group fled to the planet Maldek. This all happened about 8 million years ago.

A long period of peace existed after these events. The land guardianship role was vacant so the cetaceans and spiritual hierarchy began searching for a replacement which they eventually found on the fourth planet of the Vega system, the birthplace of present-day humans. They were aquatic primates at that time but through assistance of the Galactic Guardians their evolution was allowed to jump forward to become the Vegan Humans and subsequently created a new galactic guardian group. This was about 4.5 million years ago. A Galactic Federation was created and in the ensuing migration over 2.5 million years, the Galactic Federation agreed to colonize Earth again. The Earth Colony Hybornea was created in the northern lands near present day Florida (the Earth axis has shifted since then). It was a civilization that existed for nearly a million years beginning two million years ago.

The Lyrans decided that, in order to live in complete harmony, they would eliminate the self-defense function. They did this through genetic engineering. However, it left them defenseless so they developed a warrior race which lived separate from their civilization. They were genetically engineered with enhanced adrenaline output to react more aggressively than natural. However, this change caused an imbalance which limited the ability of this altered being to connect to its creator. These new helpers were unstable and threatening to the civilization that created it. As a solution to the problem the Lyrans exiled the whole population of altered beings to a sparsely inhabited planet in a far-off corner of the galaxy. To ensure this would never be revealed to anyone, they altered all memory of this experience and no records were allowed to be taken. This new planet was called Earth. Humanity was left on this “prison planet” to work out the genetic imbalance through adaptation.

Sometime after humans were marooned on Earth, a different extraterrestrial race arrived and attempted to enslave them. However, they did not comprehend human warlike capabilities and were repulsed. They have been planning retribution ever since and now confer with the present-day hierarchy at the top of the secret societies. The planetary awareness of these beings has been in the form of the beast or Satan or the devil. If their plan is allowed to be completed, the planet could be destroyed. They don’t care, they only want revenge.

A war of liberation broke out on Lyra about 360,000 years ago during which the terrorizing army fled to the Pleiades and took possession of the Hesperides system. The name was changed to the Pleja system in honor of their leader. She led an expedition to the SOL system and took control of Mars, Earth and Malona. Conflict broke out on Malona over control of the planetary government. Earth was evacuated back to Lyra-Vega. The war on Malona ultimately pulverized the planet and caused significant destructions on Mars, Venus and Earth.

A peaceful group of Lyran-Vegans migrated back to Earth many years later and developed a high civilization of Hybornea which lasted 6000 years and was again destroyed by wars. About 53,000 years ago wars again broke out in the Lyran system and a leader named Pelegon came to Earth with 70,000 men to establish another civilization which lasted 10,000 years and ultimately was again destroyed by wars. About 100,000 people fled to the Barnard Star (Beta Centaurus) while Earth was thrown back to the Stone Age.

They returned after 7000 years under the leadership of Atlant to create the great Atlantian civilization. His wife Karyatide created Lesser Atlantis and her father Muras created the great civilization of Mu. These blossomed into a planetary civilization which lasted 18,000 years until, in 13,000 B.C., a group of scientists tried seizing power. They were trying to again create a race to support their violent tendencies. Before the scientists were subdued and escaped back to Beta Centaurus, much of the continent of Atlantis was destroyed.

Two thousand years later this same group returned for revenge under the leadership of Arus (the Barbarian) and his 200 sub-leaders. He conquered Hybornea and began to systematically subjugate the rest of the world by attacking India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and surrounding areas. It was Arus and his men who were the “Sons of Heaven” that bred with the Earth females called the “Evas” to create the biblical Adam and Eve,the ancestors of many present-day humans. The descendants of Arus left the planet in 26 A.D. after creating Jmmanuel and implanting the Galactic laws and philosophies in humanity.

The origins of Lemuria began on a continent in what is now the Pacific Ocean around 900,000 B.C. and lasted until 26,000 B.C. It was a Lyrian/Sirian styled civilization with democratic principles of governance. It created a number of daughter empires during its existence; the most important of those was Atlantis (which existed in part, on a huge island-continent in the center of the Atlantic Ocean), the Libyan/Egyptian Empire in Africa and the Yü Empire of central China and Tibet.

Due to the influence of renegade Pleiadians / Centurians (Anunnaki), the Atlanteans began developing a hierarchical society which led to feelings of separateness and superiority. After they were granted equal guardianship of the planet 26,000 years ago by the Lemurians, they began plotting ways to grab the sole guardianship. They found allies in the colonies of Alpha Centauri and the Pleiades mostly through the Galactic Federation outpost colonies that shared the concept of a hierarchical society. They and various Pleiadian and Centaurian rebel-renegades plotted the destruction of Lemuria. Their plan was a technical success; however it resulted in the destruction of one of the Earth’s moons, the entire continent of Lemuria, cataclysmic events over the entire earth and a mini-ice-age.

The Atlantians (with the assistance of the Pleiadian and Centurian Rebels) used space ships with force fields to cause one of the Earths moon’s to spiral inward and just as the moon reached the ‘LaGrange Point’, they blasted it with particle beam weaponry. This resulted in a massive meteor shower over Lemuria with the resulting rupture of its subterranean gas chambers and the sinking of the entire continent. The physical destruction of Lemuria was so complete that nothing remained except legends. This was Great Flood #1.

Atlantis had its beginnings about 100,000 years ago. It was destroyed three times; the last time was coincident with Great Flood #3. In the second incarnation, which began 25,000 years ago, they had made great technological progress which was far greater that anything man has attained today however, it lacked sufficient spiritual development and became locked into materialistic endeavors. They wished to replace the clan structure of Lemurian society with an elite structure. This concept of governance was not well received and resulted in a series of costly civil wars across the entire planet. The clan structure is based on groups of people who all shared the same vision and goals about what should be accomplished in their respective fields. It was similar to our present-day scientist and technical trade-groups, except that these trade-groups also had limited governing authority. It meant that the most knowledgeable people were the ones in charge. It has been the elite form of governance that has been in place on this planet ever since Atlantis came to power 25,000 years ago.

They brought in one of the artificial Maldek moons to help balance the planet. The destruction of one of Earth’s two moons caused an unstable wobble in the Earth. This artificial moon was, in fact, a fully armed battle station. It was also an attempt to signal to the rebellious holdouts that military superiority was at hand which was ready and able to end all civil wars and rebellions. The rebellions instead continued over the entire 10,000 year period of this Middle Empire. There was a period of terrorism, torture and inquisitions. They created a superior ruling class which was sustained by the myth of a god-king. A single supreme god-king ruled over all.

Following the destruction of Lemuria, the Libyan/Egyptian Empire negotiated an understanding that allowed them to maintain some autonomy over their own affairs; however they did have to make some concessions to do this. The only other Empire of significance was the Yü, which refused to bow down to the Atlanteans. They even issued several decrees demanding an apology to the other empires for their careless and inhumane destruction of Lemuria and the subsequent cataclysms.

The Atlanteans, jointly with the Egyptians, countered with demands to rescind the decrees. The Yü Empire refused. The combined forces of the Atlantians, the Egyptians and the renegade Pleiadian Centurian allies forced the remnants of the Yü Empire underground. They still exist today as the Kingdom of Agharta in deep underground caverns beneath the Himalayan Mountains and under present day Tibet. The entrances from Tibet were all closed after China invaded in 1949. It is not clear, but is believed that they were searching for the entrances. Attempts to find it using modern day tunneling equipment have been unsuccessful.

Towards the end of the second Empire, autocratic rule was in full force and the remaining rebel alliance was exiled to southern Europe, to a place called Ionia (Greece) and there they would stay until they renounced their ways and complied with the ruling authority. This rebel alliance consisted of the former ruling elite as well as leading scientists. They decided instead to create a Lemurian style governance with plans to ultimately bring their government back to Atlantis. In other words, they became even more organized and dangerous than before they were exiled.

This did not sit well with the ruling authority of Atlantis. The rebels had defied them at every turn and now they were a greater threat than before. A plan was devised to end the problem by destroying Ionia by a method similar to the way they destroyed Lemuria. The plan required the assistance of the rebel Pleiadians and Centurians. This plot was discovered by the Ionians. The result was that the Ionians were able to counter the attack by interrupting their energy beam from Nibiru and the moon exploded over Atlantis instead. Atlantis therefore was destroyed in much the same manner as it had destroyed Lemuria. The Atlantean subcontinent was reduced to a few scattered islands. One of the two Firmament layers was destroyed as well. This was Great Flood #2. This happened 13,000 years ago.

This event did not completely destroy Atlantis however and attempts were made to reconstitute the civilization with what remained. They developed a crystal technology that was capable of transmitting energy wirelessly over great distances. They used the device to propel and guide airplanes, surface vehicles and submarines. They tapped solar energy and also found a way to tap the collective consciousness of the human mind. They eventually found a way to use the collective mind in harmony with the crystals and the Earth as a power source. The people became subservient to this system of mind and power control against their will (ala “The Matrix”). They also found a way to harness the power of the crystal to rejuvenate a person endlessly. One of the crystals is in the Biblical Ark.

Several thousand years before the first flood, the Anunnaki showed up in a ceremonious fashion and presented themselves as gods from heaven to the Atlantians. They started plugging into the ego-consciousness of the leaders by stimulating and fueling their base desires. New technologies were offered as gifts and in return they would do their bidding in holding influence over their subjects in rather depraved ways. They were instrumental in creating mind-Earth resonance devices and even came up with a way to alter the mind of the people to obey their wishes through a slow-pitched electro-magnetic pulse transmitted through the crystal generator network. This sound, which was inaudible to the human ear, caused a release of neurochemicals (the peptides that influence behavior) that caused irrational emotional states and submission to authority. They began attacking lesser civilizations to conquer and take their resources. Through genetic engineering they also helped develop a mutant human who was disconnected from his higher self. These humans would be unaware of their spirituality and would be much easier to control. These evolved into present-day humans.

The final destruction of Atlantis occurred sometime around 10,000 years ago. There was a conflict in the Middle East between the Rama Empire, the Egyptian Empire and the Sumerian Empire. In an attempt to end the conflict they destroyed some of the crystal temples that held up the Firmament. The idea was to open a hole just big enough to flood the enemy out of their positions. However, there was a simultaneous destruction of multiple temples on both sides which destroyed a sufficient number to cause the entire Firmament to collapse. This caused all of the water ice suspended in the atmosphere to come crashing down in a cascade effect over the entire planet. What remained of Atlantis was gone forever beneath the waves. A significant portion of Atlantis still exists at the bottom of the ocean in the Central Atlantic, off the coast of the Carolinas, the Bahamas and the south-western coast of Cuba. This was Great Flood #3.

The Firmament was created before humans existed. They were placed here by the Game Lords to allow for the development of sentient life approximately thirty-five million years ago. It has been destroyed and repaired many times. It consisted of two layers of water ice that acted as a shield against harmful radiation and caused there to be a uniform climate across the entire Earth surface. The temperature was in the high 70’s near the equator and the low 70’s at the poles. The winds were a modest 5 mph, the skies were always sunny, and there were few clouds, no hard rain, no significant winds and no storms. The ice in the Firmament created a lensing effect which made the Moon, Sun and stars all look bigger than they otherwise appear. The Firmament held about as much water as all the oceans rivers and streams on the planet, so when it came down, it would appear as though the sky was literally falling down.

Of course, the empires of Sumeria, Rama and Egypt were all destroyed in the subsequent flood. This flood spread world-wide to encompass the Americas, Asia, Europe and Africa. Every indigenous culture has a flood story. It rained for 40 days and in that time an entire world civilization was destroyed. What were left were legends and myths of gods and goddesses from an age which was completely erased from the earth. Approximately two million people survived the event on the surface. The Agharta (Lemurian) Empire also survived as they were already protected underground.

The Atlantean rulers and their associates fled to the star system of Hadar (a.k.a. Beta Centauri). The people of Hadar insisted that nothing should be done to save what was left of the human race. An argument ensued with the Pleiadians over the issue but the renegade Pleiadians won out. They intervened and restored many areas including the Middle East (Sumeria), the central valley in Mexico (Maya and other Mesoamerican civilizations), the Indus valley area of India and in North Central China near the city of Xian, and the entire Nile river basin in the land of the Egyptians.

So the restoration of life on this planet was once again in the hands of the same people who caused the problem in the first place. It was their intervention that triggered the destruction of Lemuria, the destruction of Atlantis and the entire world civilization. Through it all, it still didn’t sink into the Pleiadian rebels what they were doing to mankind. In the period 1500 B.C. through 1200 B.C. the renegade Pleiadians were forced to withdraw from direct intervention by the main defense forces of the Pleiadian Star League. This finally brought the “reign of terror” to an end.

The Spiritual Hierarchy was responsible for sending the Christ, Budda, Mohammed, Ahkenaton and other ascended masters to show us “the way the truth and the light”. This planted the seeds of spiritual consciousness. Other attempts to bring back the Sirian/Lemurian style governance included Noah and the Hebrews. Noah didn’t get very far and after the Exodus; the Hebrews instituted the concept of Judges to bring the people a concept of a society led by spiritual beings. However, these attempts failed because the human psyche was not ready for it and it was decided that planting the idea of a Christ consciousness would grow into the human psyche over thousands of years and be ultimately successful. Emperor Constantine modified these teachings in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicea.

Because of the destruction of the Firmament, a significant amount of damaging radiation has been allowed to hit the planet surface. This causes a disastrous effect on all living things. There was no reasonable chance that humans would be able to survive over the long term independent of outside support with their spiritual selves disconnected.

Most humans don’t know that their primary mission on the planet is to be a guardian of the planet; that without their conscious support of the biosphere in concert with the cetaceans, all life on the planet falls apart, literally. The only thing that’s still holding it together right now is the cetaceans and the Spiritual Hierarchy. A guardian is one who brings in the energies of creation and regulates them for the biosphere. The Earth land guardian is man. It is a very unique process whereby the creative life energies given by the Spiritual Hierarchy are physically transmuted into maintenance life energies. Chanting, singing, dancing, ceremony and meditation are all forms of this process. A guardian must consciously and subconsciously maintain these inter-dimensional energies so that they are dispersed in a proper manner. Using Universal Law, a guardian imagines, then combines this with feeling to create. Children do this instinctively when they play and sing and jump around although this is decidedly less focused.

Anson R. Nash, Jr. #fundie caller.com

Ida Olivarez's commendation of the Caller-Times ("Banish bigotry," Aug. 10) is evidence of tolerance run amok. She smiles at two homosexuals getting "wed." She would no doubt consider her expression one of love for all mankind.

I would like to ask Olivarez if she has the same intolerance for the stripe down the center of the highway. That stripe isn't there because the highway department is full of "hatred, bigotry and judgement." It's there to keep people from getting hit head-on when straying from their side of the road. God has drawn a stripe down the highway of our sexual lives. If we didn't cross that line, there would be no STD's, abortions, or children with two mommies. There would be fewer psychiatrists, more empty hospital beds, lower rates of AIDS, higher productivity in business, lower insurance costs and fewer broken families. What part of that picture suggests God's hatred to you?

DoctorDoom #conspiracy libertydwells.com

For the sake of argument, let's dispense with the liberal "birthers" bullshit. There are millions of aware, troubled Americans who are NOT willing to suck the "historic" Marxist's dick because of his skin color and ignore the very real question of his constitutional eligibility for the office of POTUS. Insultingly dismissing concerned, politically savvy citizens with a mindless buzzword is what liberals do. It's akin to calling critics of Gorebull Warming "deniers". Never mind the arguments. Just defame them.

[...]

If [Obama] is proven to be ineligible, it's not a matter of, "Will it happen?" By definition, a bill that has been signed into law by a person who is not qualified to sign it has not been enacted. It is not a law, no matter how much one wants it to be so. Ignoring that reality would change nothing, and it would signal the collapse of the US legislative system.

A world-shaking constitutional crisis would result from Obastard being proven to have been unqualified for office. For one thing, America would have been without a president since January 20, 2009, in violation of Article II of the Constitution. As such, nothing involving the POTUS performing an executive action was valid, by definition. If a person is not legitimately the President of the United States, the person could not have acted in that capacity.

It matters not one phucking iota that the result of that revelation would be devastating. One cannot escape the consequences by pretending that the causes did not happen or are irrelevant. To say, "Well, it's done and we can't change it, so we must live with it," is intolerable and more disastrous to America than the ineligibility of the president for the office. Elections and reelections don't alter reality. If the person in that office is not there legally, he is not the POTUS, period, no matter what tens of millions of deceived voters thought.

It behooves America to get the cold, hard facts. All of the credible evidence points to Obastard not being a natural-born US citizen. What do deliberately forged birth certificates say? What does a faked SS number say? What do millions of dollars spent burying every trace of his past say?

"Barrack has led by example, when we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, we took a public HIV test." What does that unjoking admission by Moochelle during a June 2008 campaign speech say?

This country MUST know the truth. It wouldn't be "nice" to know. It is mandatory to know. Even if he had been out of office for a decade when the facts were proven, the consequences would be no less horrific. Everything he did in his eight years of illegal occupancy of the People's House would be nullified. And the longer we wait, the worse it will be.

I for one would be relieved if that asshole DID prove his legitimacy. Then he could be opposed strictly on his record. However, anyone who isn't lip-locked on his phallus knows that he and his lackeys have gone out of their way to avoid answering the question of his eligibility. What the phuck is he hiding?

Clueless appeasers trying to bury the issue with chants of "birthers" are doing no one any favors.

David J. Stewart #conspiracy lovethetruth.com

I used to promote the World Net Daily (WND) website, but stopped because of their worldliness, promotion of Hollywood and association with fools like Ann Coulter. ...

To the Illuminati, Coulter is being used to destroy the religious right by making them appear as so stupid and ignorant that no one with more than one or two brain cells would join them, and it's working. With every hate-spewed tirade on the news shows, she is destroying conservatism and elevating the NWO just a little bit more. The Illuminati's war on our psyches is being fought on multiple fronts. First, they are training us to believe that an immoral liberal agenda is the correct ideology while simultaneously convincing us that embracing morals and religion is the equivalent of idiocy. Ann Coulter serves as a vital weapon in the Illuminati's all-out assault on conservatism. She is an infiltrator at the highest level, and too many are blind to her true motives. [emphasis added]

SOURCE: Ann Coulter and The Illuminati

Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Alan Colmes, Bill Maher, Rush Limbaugh, Joseph Farah and thousands more fools are stooges for the global elite, manipulating and shaping public opinion. In return, they are paid incredible salaries. For example: FoxNews pays Bill O'Reilly $18,000,000 a year. O'Reilly's net worth is $85,000,000. Ann Coulter has a net worth of $8,500,000. Sean Hannity has a net worth of $60,000,000. His sidekick Alan Colmes has a net worth of $12,00,000. Disgusting huh? Religious salaries are just as disgusting. Pastor John MacArthur of Grace To You pays himself $246,586 a year!!! Peter Popoff has a net worth of $10,000,000. On judgment Day in eternity, every one of these shysters will give account to God for fleecing the public. Just because you can take advantage of people, or because everyone else in the charity racket is doing it, doesn't make it right in God's eyes. IT IS VERY WRONG!!!

World Net Daily (WND) publishes a magazine titled, “WHISTLEBLOWER,” in which they downplay the 911 attacks being an Inside Job. May I say, I DON'T TRUST liars! Anybody with a working brain, especially someone in the information business, can see that the 911 attacks were an INSIDE JOB, orchestrated by the Bush administration. The evidence is concrete, overwhelming and damning against The White House, Pentagon and Wall Street (aka, the Military Industrial Complex).

Yangfan #fundie en.minghui.org

Most of the practitioners in our Fa study group are elderly and have practiced Falun Dafa for over ten years. They have experienced miraculous things and all have expressed their gratitude for Master's protection.

Practitioner May went to a hardware center in the summer of 2013 to purchase some parts to repair a water heater. A salesman in his 50s asked, “Elder sister, what are you here to buy?” He said: “I should call you younger sister because I am already 58, and you must be younger than me.” The practitioner said: “Can you guess my age?” “Are you 50 yet, ” he asked. May said, “I am 73 already.” The salesman was shocked, “You are over 70?”

He called his coworkers to come over and see her. “Look, this lady is already 73. She doesn't look that age.” Five people circled May. May said, “I practice Falun Gong, so I look younger and have a healthy body.”

She told them: “Falun Gong is a high-level Buddha school cultivation practice based on the principles of Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance, and we learn to be good people. Don't believe the lies that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has said about us.” The employees said they felt that Falun Gong is miraculous, and after they learned the facts about the practice, all five of them agreed to withdraw their memberships from the CCP. After May finished her story, other practitioners in our Fa-study group shared their experiences.

Practitioner Yu is 65 years old, has a very healthy body, and people tell her she looks like someone in her 50s. Practitioner Jing said that she used to weigh about 160 pounds, but after cultivating dropped to her normal weight of 130 pounds. She said she feels light when walking. Practitioner Hui finished her lunch around noon one day in November 2012 and remembered she had some cooked ribs that needed to be warmed up, so she put them in a pot, added some water, turned on the stove around 12:30, and left the kitchen. She left to go to the supermarket forgetting the pot heating on the stove.

At around three o'clock Hui left the supermarket and suddenly remembered the ribs in the pot. Her heart sped up. She was so worried that she forgot how she got home. When she arrived, she first looked to see if there were any fire trucks around her home, then she looked for smoke coming out of the window. Everything looked normal. She struggled up the stairs and with shaking hands unlocked the door. She went to the kitchen and found the pot was still steaming with about 2 centimeters of water in the pot. Hui turn off the stove and went into another room to bow to Master's photo. She said, “Thank you, Master.”

Practitioner Hui's daughter had been married for ten years but hadn't managed to get pregnant. Although she had been to the hospital and received some treatments after consulting with a physician, she still hadn't conceived. Hui told her daughter to recite “Falun Dafa is Good, Truthfulness- Compassion-Forbearance is Good” sincerely. The daughter did so and in 2012 became pregnant. When she started bleeding she quit her job so she would get lots of rest. Unfortunately, she had two large episodes of bleeding, which scared her. Hui's daughter kept reciting, “Falun Dafa is Good.”

The intermittent bleeding lasted for over a month. During this time she went to the hospital for an ultrasound and continuously recited “Falun Dafa is good” while inside the examination room. Her husband recited the same words while waiting outside the exam room. The ultrasound showed that the fetus was fine but there was a tumor in the uterus. Hui understood that Master was cleansing her daughter's body to create a good environment for the fetus.

Because the tumor was growing alongside the fetus, her doctor felt that she needed a Cesarean section at about eight months into the pregnancy. The doctors involved in the surgery said that they were surprised that she was able to conceive. Falun Dafa can perform miracles and is an extraordinary practice. Her daughter had a five-pound baby boy. Hui named him “Fuer” (which means a child from a blessing). Fuer is almost two now. Whenever he heard Master's voice, he would put two palms together in front of his chest, kneel on the ground, and bow.

A few days before the 2014 Lunar New Year I tried to hang up a curtain but was unable to reach the curtain rod. I put one stool on top of another one and climbed up. When I finished, forgetting that I was on two stools, I stepped down with one leg. In the second it took to realize how high up I was, I felt myself floating in the air. I had time to adjust one leg and put my foot on the lower stool. I then came down safely. The stools were about one meter high. If I had fallen, I could have either broken a bone or twisted my ankle.

I truly felt I was in the air for one or two seconds. At that moment, I didn't feel worried and had enough time to step solidly down to the ground. I was moved to tears whenever I said: “Dafa disciples are truly the happiest.” Dafa disciples have cultivated to today with Master's protection—everyone feels the Buddha's mighty virtue. There is only one sentence among thousands of words to express our happiness: “Thank you, Master.”

jim #fundie realjewnews.com

The only Laws that should ever be used, if the US is really a Christ guided country, are either the Ten Commandments or the two Laws of Christ: seek the Power and Gnosis of the Infinite Creator at each and every moment of one’s existence (Zen); and treat others as you would treat your self (Karma).

From this perspective, one can investigate one of Scalia’s pet peeves, marriage of same sex couples.

The fourth Commandment states that one is to hold one’s parents in the highest regard. But how does one hold same sex degenerates in high regard, when they clearly cannot breed and only wish for financial benefits from the communist and thoroughly God-less US Government?

The Karma aspect is that gay sex is diseased from the get go, as they seem to require hundreds of sex partners, whether “married” or not, involve the anal cavity, rodents, and who knows what else, and the majority of pedophiles are faggots.

The bottom line is Christianity is against homosexuality period, and they used to rightfully murder folks for that sin. If you claim to be a Christian and a supporter of same sex marriage, then get the hell off of your prescription drugs, stop listening to NPR and CNN, and wake up to reality.

Word Salad Award

Maryann Rada #ufo #fundie #moonbat #crackpot ninespath.com

The knowledge of Nine is the knowledge of divinity, of mystery, of truth. It is truly a divine mystery, you could say. The unraveling of it is the grandest pursuit and the most rewarding. It is the knowledge which begins and ends understanding and which takes understanding beyond itself so that it becomes something else altogether. Nine is consciousness; it is the basis of manifest form as an expression of Self. Nine is itself without form in manifestation, yet is within the essence of all form. Speaking of Nine, it would be a good idea to review the way the communication works. OM is the source of everything. From there originate all universes. You are aware of one out of an infinitude of universes, yet each universe is holographically related to all others. In fact, you also exist in all other universes at once. This is what is called, by many, being multidimensional beings existing simultaneously in alternate realities, yet it is more than that. Not only do you exist in alternate realities simultaneously, you also exist in realities outside of time, unbound by location, and incomprehensible in terms of either time or space. That is the aspect of existence in which you are awareness of OM. There is nothing so otherworldly about that, as it is your natural state of being as an emanation of OM. All of your experiences of multidimensionality, trans-dimensionality, hyperdimensionality, et cetera, are merely impressions of awareness into the definitions of reality you create as OM. None of it is ever wrong; all of it is fed back to the source of beingness in a loop of never-ending, ever-changing intelligence. Bringing your attention now to your experience in the now you know as you life on Earth today, you are always in contact with OM through this arrangement of intelligence-gathering being. Every molecule of your being is. The collective of individuals also experiencing this now are. You as you exist in all other realities also are in direct connection with the intelligent beingness of OM.

What is the nature of that connection? Here is where we get into the territory of Nine. The harmonic structure of the fabric of all reality, whether it is 3-D on Earth in the 21st century or of another planet, galaxy or universe altogether is in accord with the essential truths of OM, which are simple, elegant, and marked by the frequency of Nine. That is, they have at their core a common understanding of being as expressed in the simplest of terms as a numerical knowledge base upon which can be built any system of reality-construct imaginable. Nine as is commonly understood on the basis of arithmetic has some peculiar properties. Numerologically, too, it is of interest for its particular meanings. As an integer, it is the highest of singular expressions, and as the code of divinity it is full of elegance and sublime mystery. These are the commonly known aspects of Nine.

OM does not rely on a pocket calculator to determine the nature of Nature, but creates according to the knowingness of I AM. All that is is because I AM exists in everything and is in the essence of everything as divinity itself. I AM is what makes water wet, what makes joy happy, what makes home. I AM is how OM is known. I AM my self alone is a statement of the function of One. A statement of the function of Two would be I AM someone in relation to other than my self. A statement of the function of Three would be I AM of a derivative. Of Four, I AM part of. Of Five, I AM engaged with reality in a particular form. Of Six, I AM in search of Source. Of Seven, I AM within framework of understanding. Of Eight, I AM united with other. Of Nine, I AM.

Beyond the I AM of Nine, there are only permutations and complications of the core base of creation of OM. Beyond OM cannot be. Are there other multiversal creations which source from other than OM, you ask? All multiversal creation is of OM and no other. Is there any other creation besides OM’s creative emanance? Does OM have a source? These are questions worthy of exploration. They are not questions to be taken lightly, that is sure. First, let us explore the back yard. Venturing down the street is premature, at the moment. You may understand more by staying close to home until you have a map of the neighborhood and learn the basics of celestial navigation.

The knowledge of Nine is the knowledge of divinity, of mystery, of truth.

Nearly all of the energy you see as matter has been brought into being by thought. You have a thought, it coalesces. What exactly happens in the process of thinking? Let us explore from the point of view of a person in touch with Nine.

First, you must understand what we, who live as beings in constant awareness of Nine, do to stay in that awareness. There is only one slight difference between seeking the constant awareness of Nine and maintaining it, and it is simply a matter of making the intention into a reality. Thus it is in all things. Before a thing was a thing, it was a consideration, an intention, a thought. The shift from the state of thought to the state of mass-measurable thing is no less than a shift in the thinker of the thought from a being which considers itself to be merely the construct of some other being’s thinking to the awareness of self divine. Since divinity has for a long time been misunderstood from the personal experience of self, the art of making reality has been left to artists. The dreamers of dreams either had to work very hard or have a natural magic at work for them. Large amounts of money also helped. Times have changed and so has the ability of mere mortals to taste of the divine. It is a nectar that awaits discovery within every molecule of your being. Recognize it as such and you will experience transfiguration. It is your knowledge of self as divinely created that leads you to the experience of religious ecstasy and spiritual bliss. Knowledge of your self as the embodiment of the thought of the divine I AM leads beyond bliss, past ecstasy, to the very threshold of the divine source itself. This is living in awareness of Nine.

When a being in the state of awareness of Nine thinks a thought, the cycle of creation begins anew. From the awareness of the thought through the voicing of it to another, through the process of taking form and learning how to express its essence, how to be, how to say, “I AM” — a thought becomes manifest. Before you know it, you have for good or for ill created something. There are countless ways such thinking can end up, and what determines the outcome most directly is your awareness as the originating thinker.

Matt Walsh #fundie theblaze.com

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third, read Matthew 19. Jesus, casting away any lingering doubts, describes a lawful marriage in detail: “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

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

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

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

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

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

Patrick Scrivener & an unnamed airline mechanic #conspiracy reformation.org

The Bible says that we are to PRAY to God the Father in the Name of Jesus Christ the Lord. When you read the following it should make you do some urgent KNEE DRILLS - as in PRAYING.

In our eye-opening article entitled Rome steals U.S. lands, we proved that vast tracts of U.S. lands were promised as collateral to foreign holders of U.S. fiat dollars.

However, this presents a problem since millions of Americans are living on those lands right now. The following article will show how Rome is solving that problem.

When an ordinary jet plane passes high overhead it leaves a white trail called CONTRAILS. It is formed by condensation of water droplets or ice crystals in the atmosphere. It is harmless and usually dissipates very quickly. However, during the past 3 years, all over the U.S., a new phenomenon has appeared. It is called CHEMTRAILS. The following expose will explain who is behind it and why it is the greatest menace to our country that has ever appeared.

For reasons you will understand as you read this I can not divulge my identity. I am an aircraft mechanic for a major airline. I work at one of our maintenance bases located at a large airport. I have discovered some information that I think you will find important.

[...]

One day last month I was called out from our base to work on a plane for another airline. When I got the call the dispatcher did not know what the problem was. When I got to the plane I found out that the problem was in waste the disposal system. There was nothing for me to do but to crawl in and fix the problem. When I got into the bay I realized that something was not right. There were more tanks, pumps, and pipes then should have been there. At first I assumed that the system had been changed. It had been 10 years since I had worked on one. As I tried to find the problem I quickly realized the extra piping and tanks were not connected to the waste disposal system. I had just discovered this when another mechanic from my company showed up. It was one of the mechanics who usually works on these systems. I happily turned the job over to him. As I was leaving I asked him about the extra equipment. He told me to "worry about my end of the plane and let him worry about his!"

The next day I was on the company computer to look up a wiring schematic. While I was there I decided to look up the extra equipment I had found. To my amazement the manuals did not show any of the extra equipment I had seen with my own eyes the day before. I even tied in to the manufacturer files and still found nothing. Now I was really determined to find out what that equipment did.

The next week we had three of our planes in our main hanger for periodic inspection. There are mechanics crawling all over a plane during these inspections. I had just finished my shift and I decided to have a look at the waste system on one of our planes. With all the mechanics around I figured that no one would notice an extra one on the plane. Sure enough, the plane I choose had the extra equipment!

I began to trace the system of pipes, pumps, and tanks. I found what appeared to be the control unit for the system. It was a standard looking avionics control box but it had no markings of any kind. I could trace the control wires from the box to the pumps and valves but there were no control circuits coming into the unit. The only wires coming into the unit was a power connection to the aircraft's main power bus.

The system had 1 large and 2 smaller tanks. It was hard to tell in the cramped compartment but it looked like the large tank could hold 50 gallons. The tanks were connected to a fill and drain valve that passed through the fuselage just behind the drain valve for the waste system. When I had a chance to look for this connection under the plane I found it cunningly hidden behind a panel under the panel used to access the waste drain.

I began to trace the piping from the pumps. These pipes lead to a network of small pipes that ended in the trailing edges of the wings and horizontal stabilizers. If you look closely at the wings of a large airplane you will see a set of wires, about the size of your finger, extending from the trailing edge of the wing surfaces. These are the static discharge wicks. They are used to dissipate the static electric charge that builds up on a plane in flight. I discovered that the pipes from this mystery system lead to every 1 out of 3 of these static discharge wicks. These wicks had been "hollowed out" to allow whatever flows through these pipes to be discharged through these fake wicks.

It was while I was on the wing that one of the managers spotted me. He ordered me out of the hanger telling me that my shift was over and I had not been authorized any overtime.

The next couple of days were very busy and I had no time to continue my investigation. Late one afternoon, two days after my discovery, I was called to replace an engine temperature sensor on a plane due to take off in two hours. I finished the job and turned in the paperwork.

About 30 minutes later I was paged to see the General Manager. When I went in his office I found that our union rep and two others who I did not know were waiting on me. He told me that a serious problem had been discovered. He said that I was being written up and suspended for turning in false paperwork. He handed me a disciplinary form stating that I had turned in false paperwork on the engine temperature sensor I had installed a few hours before. I was floored and began to protest. I told them that this was ridiculous and that I had done this work. The union rep spoke up then and recommended that we take a look at the plane and see if we could straighten it all out. It was at this time that I asked who the other two men were. The GM told me that they were airline safety inspectors but would not give me their name.

We proceeded to the plane, which should have been in the air but was parked on our maintenance ramp. We opened the engine cowling and the union rep pulled the sensor. He checked the serial number and told everyone that it was the old instrument. We then went to the parts bay and went back into the racks. The union rep checked my report and pulled from the rack a sealed box. He opened the box and pulled out the engine temperature sensor with the serial number of the one I had installed. I was told that I was suspended for a week without pay and to leave immediately.

I sat at home the first day of my suspension wondering what the hell had happened to me. That evening I received a phone call. The voice told me "Now you know what happens to mechanics who poke around in things they shouldn't. The next time you start working on systems that are no concern of yours you will lose your job! As it is I'm feeling generous, I believe that you'll be able to go back to work soon" CLICK. Again I had to pick myself from off the floor. I made the connection that what had happened was directly connected to my tracing the mysterious piping. The next morning the General Manager called me. He said that due to my past excellent employment record that the suspension had been reduced to one day and that I should report back to work immediately. The only thing I could think of was what are they trying to hide and who are THEY!

That day at work went by as if nothing had happened. None of the other mechanics mentioned the suspension and my union rep told me not to talk about it. That night I logged onto the Internet to try to find some answers. I don't remember now how I got there but I came across a site dealing with chemtrails. That's when it all came together. But the next morning at work I found a note inside my locked locker. It said, "Curiosity killed the cat. Don't be looking at Internet sites that are no concern of yours."

Well that's it. THEY are watching me.

Well you already know what they are doing. I don't know what they are spraying but I can tell you how they are doing it. I figure they are using the "honey trucks". These are the trucks that empty the waste from the lavatory waste tanks. The airports usually contract out this job and nobody goes near these trucks. Who wants to stand next to a truck full of sh--. While these guys are emptying the waste tanks they are filling the tanks of the spray system. They know the planes flight path so they probably program the control unit to start spraying some amount of time after the plane reaches a certain altitude. The spray nozzles in the fake static wicks are so small that no one in the plane would see a thing.

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

When women take their clothes off in public, sins and crimes are eventually going to happen, it's inevitable. A woman who advertises her body doesn't deserve to be raped, but she is certainly asking to be raped, and she may get what she is provoking. Any women who doesn't understand what I am saying is either very naive, a complete idiot, or a godless rebel headed for judgment from God. Sensual clothing provokes lust from men.

There is nothing more despicable and evil than a whorish woman who intentionally dresses immodestly to lure the eyes of men, to tease them, and she enjoys watching men struggle with lust. No godly women would ever stoop that low. If I were a king and had my way, women would be placed under arrest for exposing their thighs and bosoms in public. They would be convicted and given prison time, depending on how many times they had been warned. First offences would be a week in prison. Second offenses would be one month. Third offenses would be one year. After the fourth offense, she'd rot behind bars for 5-years. During that time in prison, she would be taught how to walk, dress, speak and behave like a lady. She would learn to sew and make clothes for herself and family.

What happens thousands of times each day in America is that men are charged with sexual harassment, ogling a woman, or jailed for sexual crimes they commit, because they were provoked to lascivious lust by a whorish woman (or women). The court system always goes after men, but not a word is ever said to the slutty little whore who took all her clothes off and enjoyed every minute of teasing others. Talk about evil!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, here we go:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bang! Owned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

nsawantsmedead #conspiracy abovetopsecret.com

Alien = Demons the DMT connection

I am sure enough of you are familar with the pineal gland by now. However I will do a small recap for those who are not. Your pineal gland produces DMT and is released under the following circumstances;
1)First 50 days of a fetus's birth
2)When you dream at night
3)When the physical body dies

Well I would think with the above 3 items on hand that would speak volumes of transitition point between soul and body no matter if you carry faith or not in God or afterlife.

Ok so in early study of DMT patients giving the synthetic form had very scary experiences. Most all have witnessed some scary form of an alien/s.
With that said I would conclude that aliens and demons are no different. Some people have a difficult time believing in a God but aliens don't seem to far fetched in some sort of superior life form. Next problem I see people have with making the two to be the same is aliens have some sort of physical body. My theory is when two beings come into the same enviroment there is some sort of process happening maybe the human mind expecting a physical form grants the being to have one. No different than what has been written in kabbalahistic texts on golemns. Also I am a firm believer of your thought empowers it. I imagine if 98% of the people today saw one they would have instant fear and would allow self submission. To the point it comes down to your will, strength and beliefs.

Harry #fundie talkorigins.org

IF I WERE AN EVOLUTIONIST

1)I would convince people that order came from disorder and chaos. 2) I would convince people that intelligence came from non-intelligence. 3) I would persuade minds to believe that living things can spring from dead matter.(The opposite of the law of biogenesis) 4) I would dupe people into believing that their most distant relatives were lovesick amoeba. 5) I would tell man that if the sun was only one degree closer, we would all burn up, and if the sun was only one degree farther away, we would all freeze to death. Then I would convince man that the accident called evolution caused the sun to be placed in the only position it could be in for man to exist on the earth. 6) I would convince man that the intricate design of the universe had no designer, it was all an accident. 7) I would convince man that dolphins at one time had legs and climbed trees and then evolved into men. 8) I would convince man that the very first thing that ever came into existence, came into existence out of nothing. 9) I would convince man that the laws of nature( gravity, biogenesis, aerodynamics etc.) did not need a law giver. These laws came into being accidently from non-intelligence. 10) I would tell man that if the moon was not in the exact place it is in, the earth would be covered by water, and that the moon is where it is by accidental happenstance and good fortune.

LAST OF ALL IF I WERE AN EVOLUTIONIST, I WOULD PERSUADE PEOPLE THAT GRIMM'S FAIRY TALES ARE ALL TRUE

James Laffrey #racist whiteswillwinparty.org

Trump: Right and Wrong

This morning in my car, I heard on the radio that Donald Trump won yesterday’s (s)election for the next president of the United States of America.

Back in the primary season, I said that Trump was another “designated loser” whose job was to make the half-awake Whites think they had a viable representative in the electoral process. Thus, the built-up steam of rightful anger among the half-awake would be vented off, and the jews could go on about their normal anti-White business.

So, I was wrong about Trump being a “designated loser.”

When Trump won the Republican nomination for president, my thinking was forced to change. I retreated to the foundation of solid rock.

Since I don’t have a short memory, since I have researched and analyzed a lot of history, it was easy to note that the jews don’t let a two-term president be followed by another president of the same party. They keep flipping back and forth. There’s a great little one-panel cartoon showing an American in a car and alternately shifting from forward to reverse, either way crashing into a wall in front of and behind the car. One wall is Demo, the other Repub. So, knowing that Trump was likely to get the paper crown, I fell back to saying what was certain: Trump is another lying crypto-jew.

Adolf Hitler correctly noted that Communism and Democracy were, and are, two sides of the same jew-owned coin.

Likewise, Republican and Democrat are two sides of the same jew-owned coin.

I am right about these things.

Foundations

Our original WHITE Founding Fathers had no parties. They were all Whites for a White USA. They established a Republic of semi-sovereign States, NOT a Democracy. They were for fair and free Commerce, NOT Capitalism which was later invented by the jews for the jews. And then only 12 years into U.S. history, the jews succeeded in their monumental CON in overthrowing the original USA of the Articles of Confederation and foisting their CONstitution upon our White country. Read all about that here in my historic one-of-a kind article.

How did the jews — James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, et al. — get away with it? Our Founding Fathers didn’t know about crypto-jews. They only knew about the jews who openly identified themselves as jews, and they thought being a jew meant a religious affiliation rather than being a member of the parasitic, devious, heinous anti-human race. Also, the Founders were surely war-weary. And as Whites, yes we must admit it so that we can overcome it, they were gullible to jew lies.

And immediately after establishing the CONstitution, the jews caused divisions giving rise to parties.

Adolf Hitler said he used the party structure in order to win power but that he planned for a future of no parties, just Germans. Sounds great.

That’s what I want. That’s what I see for our future: No parties in the USA, just Whites. A government by Whites, of Whites, for Whites, in the White States Of America.

Conclusion

So, Trump. I began my big wake-up when Obama was (s)elected and then immediately appointed known criminals from the Clinton administration. Maybe some more of our fellow Whites will begin their big wake-up when they see Trump appointing known criminals from previous administrations. Also, because of the Internet’s ubiquity now, our fellow Whites will have an increased possibility of becoming awakened to the fact that Trump is already surrounded by jews that he chose to be surrounded by, and that Trump’s new appointments will be all or nearly all jews. (Note: I use the nonpersonal “that” rather than the personal “who/whom” whenever I want to in referring to the anti-humans, who do not deserve human status.)

The only slightly interesting aspect for us is whether Trump will mostly appoint jews that are hard to identify as jews or whether he will appoint a slew of the already known and obvious jews.

Did I say it yet in this article? Trump is a crypto-jew. Has to be. A White man is not given the opportunities by jews that Trump has been given. The jews do not give tv fame and wealth to White men. The jews do not give massive banking help to White men to survive and make comebacks from massive bankruptcies. Doesn’t happen, folks. The jews push us down. They bankrupt us. They do not prop us up. Therefore, Trump is not a White man. Period.

But now the half-awake have had all their steam vented off. Trump will be shown to have lied about nearly everything that matters. When he doesn’t do what he promised he would do, he will use the age-old excuses of “a contrary Congress,” and information he “wasn’t privy to” before he became president, and Climate Change, ha ha, and on and on.

It was so-called conservative Republican Ronald Reagan who did the first big amnesty for invaders. Yes, I say “invaders,” while the jews used to say “illegal immigrants” and now say “undocumented immigrants” and simply “immigrants” and “migrants.” They are all vile invaders and more of us should simply be killing them. (I plan an article on this subject.) You see, a Republican could get away with doing what Reagan did at a time when a Democrat would have been lambasted for “overdoing” his liberalness.

That’s how it works. No matter which jew party’s animal mascot is on the balloon at the White House festivities, the jew agenda advances. The elephant pushes it forward or the donkey pulls it forward, each to whatever extent the gullible, dumbed-down, medicated, intoxicated, self-poisoned populace will tolerate.

How about a prediction? Democrat jews couldn’t get gun control to go forward. But Republican jews will be able to, to some extent. I predict they will. The NRA (National Rifle Association), led by crypto-jews, went all-in for Trump because Trump made the appropriate noises in favor of the “Second Amendment.” Hillary Killary Clinton promised to be a gun-grabber — not a grabber of her fellow jews’ guns nor her jew bodyguards’ guns, of course. Not Negroes’ guns. Not Mexiturds’ guns. Whites’ guns. Our guns.

So, Trump will advance the jew agenda against us. He will help the jew bankers continue their massive crimes. He will sign some kind of limits on guns or ammo, or on private sales, or he will advance the recording of gun-owner registrations. He will not deport enough of the shitskins illegally and wrongly alive inside our country. He will not even try to force the jew-owned corporations to pay us a living wage instead of the current poverty wages. He will, certainly, continue the massive funding of jews-only Israel. He will not stop the U.S. Military Murder Machine from killing anybody but jews around the world for the sole benefit of jewry.

A problem now is that the masses who wanted Trump to win will wait and do NOTHING while waiting to see what will happen, bit by bit, month after month, year after year. And as Trump’s deeds display step-by-step his true DNA, the jewsmedia will trump-up other secret jews pretending to be better-than-Trumps for the still-ignorant masses to pin their hopes on and say their stupid prayers for.

Those of us with both Knowledge and Wisdom have seen it all before. We know that waiting is continued slow suicide. We know that the solution is to kill the invaders — including all jews and the shitskins that the jews invited in, no matter how many generations they’ve already been here.

White heroes are wise, careful, courageous, effective killers of the enemy. One by one. Two by two. Occasionally, groups of jews, when such great opportunities arise. White heroes, for now, tell no one. White heroes choose the best advice from the articles listed at the bottom of this website, and adapt that advice for their skill sets and situations.

We are falsely asked if we “want a race war?” There already is a race war, a long-running race war. It’s all anti-White. We need that race war to flare up so that it is in our fellow White MEN’s faces, and then they will rise to join us, and finally we will win the race war once and for all.

Trump, surrounded by jews, says he will “make America great again.” Only our America WHITE again will be great again. Only Whites ever made a country great for Whites. Only Whites will do it again.

Jean-Batave Poqueliche #sexist returnofkings.com

It is grim to realise that we have reached a point where our contemporary society is so sick, that it could be healthier for everyone if women were imposed the legal status of property instead of being free individuals. The fact that this absurd method could indeed create a safer society shows how cancerous our “progressive” Western world has become.

...

Women would keep the status of human beings even by becoming property. They would become the asset of a Senior Male Authority (SMA) from birth until his death or their own. In practice, the bond between man and female property would resemble the one between a legal guardian and a minor, incapacitated senior or mentally handicapped adult.

With women being children in adult bodies, the comparison is appropriate. But where the authority of the legal guardian expires in time, the right over female property would not be finite. All decisions would be taken by the SMA (father, older brother, then husband). The auction of a young woman from a father to a suitor of his choice would be agreed upon by setting a dowry.

Purchasing power would be in the hands of the SMA, preventing women to spend male income on frivolous and useless items like female “holidays” (the real sex tourism), designer clothes, drugs, club entrances and the like.

...

This measure would include the right of repudiation for the husband in case of serious misconduct. The decision would have to be studied and approved by a jury of adult all-male peers.

Repudiation would be efficient to keep women in line because they greatly fear being called out, held accountable, and losing resources or status because of self-inflicted behaviour, and this proposal would not deprive them from love. On the contrary, because of the affection that a man shows towards his property (added to the blood or family bound), the women he acquires will be safer. His “investment” has both a financial implication in addition to an emotional one.

To the triggered liberals, women are already property in Islam. But all I hear about it from the left on social media are crickets. Contrary to Shariah law, my theory does not include whipping, gang rape, honour killing, beheading or stoning when women are at fault.

...

10 societal benefits of declaring women legal property

1. No women in the military or police, so men and women would die less.

2. Divorce would plummet and single mommery would become a rarity.

3. No access to funds (under SMA supervision) for women would benefit the global economy.

4. Being a negotiable asset, women would be under constant male protection.

5. Women (and men) would die less of drug, tobacco, alcohol abuse and the heart diseases, cancers and violent or accidental deaths caused by it.

6. Due to heavy competition, women would have to be thinner, reducing the epidemic of obesity and the health risks that it involves.

7. Less child mortality and death during childbirth (women giving birth younger combined with better healthcare hence greater chances of survival).

8. No more left-leaning parties elected as women would be deprived of the right to vote.

9. Conservative governments elected by men would favour traditional families over leeches and degenerates.

10. Less domestic violence as women would avoid damaged men, having no personal resources (and hitting your woman would be like keying your own car: pointless).

...

7 ways this proposal would bring balance to the sexual market

1. No more welfare policies encouraging women to remain single or raise bastards. Welfare would be focused on those who need it the most, like veterans or the elderly.

2. No more inflated ego and instant gratification through attention whoring on social media. Its restricted access would create saner women. Promotion of degeneracy would be greatly reduced in the mainstream and social media.

3. No Instagram prostitution for wealthy sheikhs, being defiled for platform shoes and handbags with “stylish” patterns worthy of a child doodle.

4. Women would actively seek males based on their ability to provide, as they would have no alternative access to wealth.

5. Males would access a healthier sexual market, their hard work being rewarded by regular sexual intercourse, relative loyalty and children.

6. No more violent third world hordes imported by the votes of bitter women. No more homosexual agenda, gateway to the next great taboo, the pedophile-friendly agenda.

7. Professional advancement and success earned by women through sexual favours, like the one popular in Hollywood, would virtually disappear as adultery would be a valid reason for repudiation. “Promotion through horizontal refreshment” would only be used by already repudiated women, nothing of value would be lost.

...

It is not a panacea. The nature of women can’t be changed, but women-as-property would be finally held accountable after the “empowered” ones spent such a long time driving the Western world into the ground.

Ray Comfort #fundie facebook.com

“I think abortion is wrong, and terribly sad (for lack of better terms) and I would never have one. I also think that it's not my place to tell other women what they can and can't do with their babies and their bodies… I just think with abortion, it's nobody's business except the woman who will be having the procedure. Yes, it's sad and there are usually other options. No, I would never have one. BUT, we're talking about other women here. Does this make sense??” Emily Wells

I was pleased to see that you concluded with “Does this make sense?”

To answer your question:

“I think the killing of Jews is wrong and terribly sad (for lack of a better term), and I would never kill one myself. But I think it's not my place to tell people what they can and can’t do with Jewish families. I just think with Jew-killing, it's nobody's business except the person who will be doing the killing. Yes, it's sad and there are usually other options. No, I would never kill one. BUT, we're talking about other people here. Does that make sense?"

PLEASE watch www.180Movie.com It will answer your question more fully. It’s award-winning and has had millions of views. It will be worth your time.

Jedidiah Van Horn #sexist identitydixie.com

[From "Sexual Utopia in Power"]

It is well known to readers of this journal that white birthrates worldwide have suffered a catastrophic decline in recent decades. During this same period, ours has become assuredly the most sex-obsessed society in the history of the world. Two such massive, concurrent trends are hardly likely to be unrelated. Many well-meaning conservatives agree in deploring the present situation, but do not agree in describing that situation or how it arose. Correct diagnosis is the first precondition for effective strategy.

The well-worn phrase “sexual revolution” ought, I believe, to be taken with more than customary seriousness. Like the French Revolution, the paradigmatic political revolution of modern times, it was an attempt to realize a utopia, but a sexual rather than political utopia. And like the French Revolution, it has gone through three phases: first, a libertarian or anarchic phase in which the utopia was supposed to occur spontaneously once old ways had been swept aside; second, a reign of terror, in which one faction seized power and attempted to realize its schemes dictatorially; and third, a “reaction” in which human nature gradually reasserted itself. We shall follow this order in the present essay.

Two Utopias

Let us consider what a sexual utopia is, and let us begin with men, who are in every respect simpler.

Nature has played a trick on men: production of spermatozoa occurs at a rate several orders of magnitude greater than female ovulation (about 12 million per hour vs. 400 per lifetime). This is a natural, not a moral, fact. Among the lower animals also, the male is grossly oversupplied with something for which the female has only a limited demand. This means that the female has far greater control over mating. The universal law of nature is that males display and females choose. Male peacocks spread their tales, females choose. Male rams butt horns, females choose. Among humans, boys try to impress girls—and the girls choose. Nature dictates that in the mating dance, the male must wait to be chosen.

A man’s sexual utopia is, accordingly, a world in which no such limit to female demand for him exists. It is not necessary to resort to pornography for example. Consider only popular movies aimed at a male audience, such as the James Bond series. Women simply cannot resist James Bond. He does not have to propose marriage, or even request dates. He simply walks into the room and they swoon. The entertainment industry turns out endless images such as this. Why, the male viewer eventually may ask, cannot life actually be so? To some, it is tempting to put the blame on the institution of marriage.

Marriage, after all, seems to restrict sex rather drastically. Certain men figure that if sex were permitted both inside and outside of marriage there would have to be twice as much sex as formerly. They imagined there existed a large, untapped reservoir of female desire hitherto repressed by monogamy. To release it, they sought, during the early postwar period, to replace the seventh commandment with an endorsement of all sexual activity between “consenting adults.” Every man could have a harem. Sexual behavior in general, and not merely family life, was henceforward to be regarded as a private matter. Traditionalists who disagreed were said to want to “put a policeman in every bedroom.” This was the age of the Kinsey Reports and the first appearance of Playboy magazine. Idle male daydreams had become a social movement.

This characteristically male sexual utopianism of the early postwar years was a forerunner of the sexual revolution but not the revolution itself. Men are incapable of bringing about revolutionary changes in heterosexual relations without the cooperation—the famed “consent”—of women. But the original male would-be revolutionaries did not understand the nature of the female sex instinct. That is why things have not gone according to their plan.

What is the special character of feminine sexual desire that distinguishes it from that of men?

It is sometimes said that men are polygamous and women monogamous. Such a belief is often implicit in the writings of “conservative” male commentators: Women only want good husbands, but heartless men use and abandon them. Some evidence does appear, prima facie, to support such a view. One 1994 survey found that “while men projected they would ideally like 6 sex partners over the next year, and 8 over the next two years, women responded that their ideal would be to have only one partner over the next year. And over two years? The answer, for women, was still one.”[1] Is this not evidence that women are naturally monogamous?

No, it is not. Women know their own sexual urges are unruly, but traditionally have had enough sense to keep quiet about it. A husband’s belief that his wife is naturally monogamous makes for his own peace of mind. It is not to a wife’s advantage, either, that her husband understand her too well: Knowledge is power. In short, we have here a kind of Platonic “noble lie”—a belief which is salutary, although false.

It would be more accurate to say that the female sexual instinct is hypergamous. Men may have a tendency to seek sexual variety, but women have simple tastes in the manner of Oscar Wilde: They are always satisfied with the best. By definition, only one man can be the best. These different male and female “sexual orientations” are clearly seen among the lower primates, e.g., in a baboon pack. Females compete to mate at the top, males to get to the top.

Women, in fact, have a distinctive sexual utopia corresponding to their hypergamous instincts. In its purely utopian form, it has two parts: First, she mates with her incubus, the imaginary perfect man; and, second, he “commits,” or ceases mating with all other women. This is the formula of much pulp romance fiction. The fantasy is strictly utopian, partly because no perfect man exists, but partly also because even if he did, it is logically impossible for him to be the exclusive mate of all the women who desire him.

It is possible, however, to enable women to mate hypergamously, i.e., with the most sexually attractive (handsome or socially dominant) men. In the Ecclesiazusae of Aristophanes the women of Athens stage a coup d’état. They occupy the legislative assembly and barricade their husbands out. Then they proceed to enact a law by which the most attractive males of the city will be compelled to mate with each female in turn, beginning with the least attractive. That is the female sexual utopia in power. Aristophanes had a better understanding of the female mind than the average husband.

[...]

Fallout of the Revolution: “Date Rape”

A few years into the sexual revolution, shocking reports began to appear of vast numbers of young women—from one quarter to half—being victims of rape. Shock turned to bewilderment when the victims were brought forward to tell their stories. The “rapists,” it turns out, were never lying in wait for them in remote corners, were not armed, did not attack them. Instead, these “date rapes” occur in private places, usually college dormitory rooms, and involve no threats or violence. In fact, they little resemble what most of us think of as rape.

What was going on here?

Take a girl too young to understand what erotic desire is and subject her to several years of propaganda to the effect that she has a right to have things any way she wants them in this domain—with no corresponding duties to God, her parents, or anyone else. Do not give her any guidance as to what it might be good for her to want, how she might try to regulate her own conduct, or what qualities she ought to look for in a young man. Teach her furthermore that the notion of natural differences between the sexes is a laughable superstition that our enlightened age is gradually overcoming—with the implication that men’s sexual desires are no different from or more intense than her own. Meanwhile, as she matures physically, keep her protected in her parents’ house, sheltered from responsibility.

Then, at age seventeen or eighteen, take her suddenly away from her family and all the people she has ever known. She can stay up as late as she wants! She can decide for herself when and how much to study! She’s making new friends all the time, young women and men both. It’s no big deal having them over or going to their rooms; everybody is perfectly casual about it. What difference does it make if it’s a boy she met at a party? He seems like a nice fellow, like others she meets in class.

Now let us consider the young man she is alone with. He is neither a saint nor a criminal, but, like all normal young men of college years, he is intensely interested in sex. There are times he cannot study without getting distracted by the thought of some young woman’s body. He has had little real experience with girls, and most of that unhappy. He has been rejected a few times with little ceremony, and it was more humiliating than he cares to admit. He has the impression that for other young men things are not as difficult: “Everybody knows,” after all, that since the 1960s men get all the sex they like, right? He is bombarded with talk about sex on television, in the words to popular songs, in rumors about friends who supposedly “scored” with this or that girl. He begins to wonder if there isn’t something wrong with him.

Furthermore, he has received the same education about sex as the girl he is now with. He has learned that people have the right to do anything they want. The only exception is rape. But that is hardly even relevant to him; he is obviously incapable of doing something like that.

Think About It #conspiracy thinkaboutit.online

The primary shooter was a Corsican hitman Lucien Sarti who shot JFK in the head from the grass knoll and he used a hollow point bullet and it blew JFK’s head apart. This is why the brain had to be lost. But Sarti was only one of 3 hit teams in Dealey Plaza, all consisting of foreign contract killers, who were connected to the Trafficante crime family, who were also deeply connected to the CIA, who in turn served the globalists.

There are witnesses, on tape, that confirm every preceding sentence. The hit was ordered by David Rockefeller.

After JFK’s death, everything changed (eg. nuclear arms race increased, the Vietnam War began in earnest, the Oil Depletion Allowance tax deduction was fully reinstated, JFK’s C-Notes were taken out of circulation and the NWO marched on and Rockefeller became even wealthier).

Why bring up the parallels to JFK when discussing this last false flag? I am already seeing a pattern where America is again stuck on the forensic evidence. I know the event is only moving into the 4th day at this point, but the “gaps” in the official narrative are there for all to see, at least those who have eyes that want to see.

Like many other black stains on our history:
texas chainsaw massacre
jim jones jonestown massacre
indian massacres in america
sand creek massacre
school shootings
port arthur massacre

The Las Vegas shooting will be among them.

Let’s look at the forensic evidence….

We are asked to believe the unbelievable. That this man, from the local town of Mesquite, had adjoining hotel rooms on the 32nd floor and over a period of several consecutive days, he stockpiled ammunition and at the latest count over 30 guns.

How did he conceal the guns from hotel security and most importantly from the maids who should have been servicing his rooms?

Would it be enough to “just put the do not disturb sign on the door?” That might work for one or two days, but several days? After several days wouldn’t the maids say something to their supervisor that the man in the two adjoining rooms is refusing maid service. Shouldn’t that have triggered hotel security?

And if the maids were in the rooms, where would the guns and ammunition been hidden? Remember, this is Vegas where security is trained to recognize and respond to threats because of the high stakes nature of the business.

We are asked to believe that an “out of shape and portly” 64-year-old man managed to expertly lay down highly effective automatic weapons fire, which ended the lives of 59 people and wounding nearly 600 innocent victims?

Meanwhile the accused assassin fired off thousands of .223 rounds. these rounds were fired from 400 yards away and as a result would have been outside their effective range. In addition, no shell-casings were “magically” cooled before they hit the carpet in the kill zone. Because if they were not cooled, they would have burned holes in the carpet.

“This was accomplished, we’re told, by one man firing 10 rifles… wait, no, 27 rifles all by himself, without any military training whatsoever. This same man set up a James Bond spy camera in the hotel hallway to monitor police in an attempt to defend himself against the inevitable police assault, then he just changed his mind and shot himself the moment the cops showed up… all for no apparent reason.”

The media has NOT successfully answered the question of how the assassin moved the massive amounts of rifles and cumbersome and weighty ammunition boxes past hotel security.

This wasn’t just a hotel. This was a Vegas hotel in where the security is “armed to the teeth and trained” to see these kinds of events. Why?

Because they have their gaming operations to defend.

The fact that this much killing material was smuggled unnoticed past trained security is NOT believable.

Adding fuel to the fire is the idea that this man installed NSA style security cameras in the hall to get ready for the police assault and then he turns the event into a suicide mission? This isn’t believable either…

Several military people have said, the type of gun that was used in the killing, from listening to the tape, over half of the “experts” identified the gun they heard as a MG 60 with belt.

This gun is very heavy and requires a belt. Only a very strong person could use this gun, shooting with one arm, while feeding the belt into the gun with the other arm…

And we’re asked to believe that this portly 64-year-old man accomplished this feat and fired the gun with incredible accuracy?

All of these massive casualties couldn’t be caused by .223 rounds that we are being told the assassin used, according to the official narrative.

Most likely, they were actually heavier rounds fired from something like a belt-fed MG 60.

Regardless of the gun, where are the shell-casings and their after effects?

A couple sources have said, “that in the unlikely event that .223 rounds were used, a target would have been struck every 2.3 seconds given the length of the event…

All of this from a man with no military training who was also an overweight senior citizen.

Congressman Trey Gowdy was interviewed on Fox News and he expressed his lack of belief in the official narrative quite clearly. Gowdy said, “he did not see anyway that an event of this precise planning could be carried out by one person.” And I would add to that Gowdy said, one person with no military training.”

Scott Bennett posted a video on YouTube that was taken down by Google, which showed muzzle flashes on, or near the 4th floor, and as the “timing problem” would indicate, multiple shooters would be needed to have carried out this crime.

coincidence is? The dictionary defines it as “a striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance.”

How about the owner of the Mandalay Bay Hotel, MGM Resorts CEO Jim Murren, Endorsing Hillary Clinton after being a lifelong Republican? He Disses Trump.

The target? Thousands of country music lovers, usually known to have right wing values and many are strong Trump supporters.

This Massacre In Las Vegas and the Surrounding Facts Don’t Add Up!

Life, Human Life is from God #fundie godlikeproductions.com

Babies Lives Matter BLM

Things Not usually taught in Government Education Camps (public schools)

KJB Genesis 1:26-27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

KJB Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

A Doctors Testimony-
At the end of a lecture in St. Louis, one of the doctors
present told me of a lady in good standing in
society and the church, who came to his office
and requested his services in producing abortion.
Her reason was that she had three children
and her husbands income was not sufficient to
support four children. He suggested that if
the presence of four children in the home
would lead to the death of the whole family
by starvation, that she return home and kill
one of the three. She was horrified at the
doctors suggestion that she murder one of the
children. The doctor explained that if she followed
his suggestion her health would be protected and
there would be but one guilty of murder, while,
if he followed her with, her health would be injured
and there would be two responsible for the
murder of her unborn child. But, Doctor,
she replied that would not be murder? I've not felt
it's movements. The Doctor explained to her how life
began at the moment of conception, how the little
embryo was as much a living human being as when it
has become strong enough to make it's movements known.
The true mother love triumphed and
she returned home and resolved to protect,
love, welcome and toil for four instead of three.

Medical Genocide approved of by World Governments under Satan's New World Order

Four Different Things:Abstinence, Conception Elimination, Conception Prevention, Birth Control

1)Abstinence - Not having Sex
2)Conception Elimination - Never having Intercourse
3)Conception Prevention - The rhythm method and/or Using Condoms or similar
4)Birth Control - Using a IUD, Chemical pill/drug to force abortion/menstruation

The Intrauterine Device IUD does not stop conception
The IUD does little or nothing to interfere with sperm migration or
fertilization (conception). It achieves its birth control effect primarily
by preventing the newly conceived human life from implanting in the uterine
lining (endometrium) and is thus an abortifacient.

The "Birth Control Pill" does not stop conception, it ends pregnancy by forcing menstruation through a Hormone induced Abortion.
The Hormones in the Pills are stronger than the ones that tell the body that the woman is pregnant, but the body still goes through partial transformations in the breast to provide milk to the Baby, that is why breast cancer rates go up in women with long term birth "control" pill use.

Many women on the "pill" have had many pill induced abortions and many partial transformations of their breast tissue.
Who knows how many forms of cancer are a result of hormones starting the Pregnancy Changes, and them having them abruptly end when the Menstruation pills take over and starts the woman's Period?

(P2)Abortions - USA Child Sacrifice/Murders (Genocide of the Unborn)as of July 28, 2014

www.numberofabortions.com
(USA since 1973=57Million) (World since 1980 1.34 Trillion)

[link to www.humanlife.org]
The Pill is used by about 14,000,000 American women each year and 60,000,000 internationally.

Thus, even an infinitesimally low portion (say one-hundredth of one percent) of 780 million Pill cycles per year globally could represent tens of thousands of unborn children lost to this form of chemical abortion annually. How many young lives have to be jeopardized for
prolife believers to question the ethics of using the Pill? This is an issue with profound moral implications for those believing we are called to protect the lives of children.

After the Pill had been on the market fifteen years, many serious negative side effects of estrogen had been clearly proven. These included blurred vision, nausea, cramping, irregular menstrual bleeding, headaches, increased incidence of breast cancer, strokes, and heart attacks, some of which led to fatalities.

Methods of Genocide Protected by the New World Order Government inside the United States of America.

the items below prove that Americans are being exterminated in a organized program of Genocide, protected and allowed
by their own "government"

Government approved/promoted WEAPONS used against People
-Abortion and Birth Control(physical and Chemical/drug induced Abortions)
-Rx Prescription Drugs, They rob the body of nutrients to detoxify from the drugs that suppress symptoms but actually create disease and new symptoms for witch Doctors will prescribe you MORE Rx Drugs. Drugs do not Cure Disease, they only treat (suppress) the symptoms and make you more Ill.
-Radiation (Cell, WiFi, Nuclear Fukashima, D.U. Weapons)
-GMO (Wheat, Corn, Soy, Cotton seed, Canola, Sugar Beets)
-Chemicals used on/in food, Pesticides/Herbicides/Preservatives/Dyes/Additives
-High Fructose Corn Syrup
-Refined Sugar
-Fried Foods/(Hydrogenated Oils) cause free radical damage and inflammation
-Aspartame and Sucrolose / NutraSweet and Splenda
-Alcohol consumption is a poison that like refined sugar suppresses the immune system and causes damage to the body.
-Fluoride plus other Chemicals and Drugs in the Water.
-BPA
-Chemtrails
-Vaccines
-Chemicals Cleaners, Flame Retardants, air fresheners.....
-Chemicals in Cosmetics and Perfumes
-WAR - Military Industrial Complex
-Laced Tobacco / E - Cigarettes
-Antiperspirant have aluminum compounds that increase breast cancer risk
-Processed Foods Micro Wave It so its really bad/destroyed
- Sunscreen, usually filled with Chemicals known to increase the risk of Cancer.
Sunscreen and covering the body in cloths all the time suppresses the Body in the production of Vitamin D, that is needed for countless essential body process to work properly.

Addictions (Cell Phones, T.V., Internet, Porn, Video Games, Sugar, Pop, Rx Drugs, ssri drugs)
============

Want to live?
Get Good Nutrition, Sleep in a natural/clean fresh dark room away from electromagnetic radiation, Exercise, Drink Clean Water, Detoxification and reducing Stress Cure the body of Disease (Dis-Ease).

Lord_Suburbia #racist niggermania.net

Just wanted to share some quick and dirty stories from my work experience with howler monkeys.

Steel Processing plant:

I worked at a steel finishing plant in my early 20's that was down the road from the probation office and the owner LOVED to hire apes on probation because he could pay them pennies (minimum wage) and if they didn't show up he contacted their PO and had them sent back to jail. You would think that would give them incentive to work hard and show up, right? Nope. One guy brought a fucking pillow in for night shift and spent half his shift eating food several different women would bring him during the shift. He didn't even wear work boots. He got fired out almost immediately (as soon as I got to talk with the plant manager).

The next guy was so stupid that he couldn't pass the 90 day probation period to run a turret lathe. He was given TWO 30 day extensions making his probation 150 days!!! We had to fire him and on the way out he threatened to kill all of us "white motherfuckers". He was so dangerously bad that by the end of his employment we made him sweep the floor because we were scared he would harm himself or another person running a machine. The previous foreman on the shift was a nigger and got cuffed and hauled out mid-shift for drugs and conspiracy to commit murder. He only did 2 years and paroled out and guess who came right back? He was rehired as a laborer and soon promoted back to supervisor!!!! That was when I quit.

Chemical plant:

We didn't have as many niggers at the chemical plants but they were union niggers (the worst kind). I have never seen anyone so lazy. They would sit on their ass and sleep or talk on the phone while others did their jobs and could not be fired without bringing grievances against the company so they were mostly left alone. In my 12+ years in the chem industry I NEVER saw one earn their pay or get fired for NOT earning their pay. They would also talk shit about the whites and considered their lazyness some kind of revolt against the "white man". They were getting paid about $25+ an hour to sleep.

Security work:

For a year or so I was a security supervisor at a car lot and a warehouse. My lord, the stories.... All our monkeys eventually got fired for sleeping on the job/ general stupidity, but it was a bottom of the barrel company so they would just hire more of the same. They all stunk like cocoa butter or B.O. (whats with that?) and all had a sob story for EVERYTHING. I spent my day kicking them off their phones and reminding them to get busy. Look away for a minute and they were idle and or would hide so they could sleep or talk on the phone. They always tried to bum money from the white guards (I had to intervene and put an end to that) They would never have transportation to work and didn't have the decency to call when not coming in. I think most of them honestly expected to be paid just to sit there.

Twice a week we had a dealer only car auction. One was for ghetto used-car dealers (shit cars) and the other was for upscale (new car/ gently used) dealers. The nigger guards were not allowed to work the upscale auction due to customer complaints. The upscale auction was a piece of cake- all you had to do was stand and be awake. All the buyers were white and professional/ courteous. They boo's couldn't even manage to stay awake for that.

The GHETTO auction was something else man.... niggers and middle easterners fighting over cars. Yes fighting. We had to have so many guards there it might as well have been a jail house. Generally the middle easterners were complainers about everything and didn't follow instructions but were not violent about anything- they hated the niggers too. The niggers tried to claim certain cars as "turf" and run off other buyers. They would bid with no money (duh!) and after being banned would try to sneak back in. Every one we had to kick out for not following the rules or picking fights screamed racism. Every damn one. They would also try to cozy up to the guards for favors. Not going to happen.

The car lot also sold lot space to an impound for REPOS for a ghetto financing company called Santander. All Santander does is make loans to niggers that they cant possibly pay and then take back the cars. Rinse and repeat. They tacked on a ton of fees to redeem the cars and made a ton of money until they eventually resold the car and told the spook to fuck off. You would see an endless parade of jobless niggers coming to get their Camaros, older BMW's, Escalades etc... some came every damn month and usually with an older relative (grandparent, mom) to pay their fees for them. They were always rude as fuck and expected the guard staff to serve them!!!! Yea they expected service, like they were car shopping! I would straight up tell them they were there for non-payment of their loan and we didn't work for them.

Wanna see a chimp-out? Tell a nigger you don't give a fuck about serving them. They would all call management who would tell them the security staff did not work for Santander and were under no obligation to help them out or serve them in any way. lol. Every one would get in their car and claim we scratched it and demand money, which they would not get. They would all chimp out over the fees and hold up the line. We had to call the cops on a few a week who thought they would try to intimidate us into releasing their car. One momma ape took a swing at me one day and had to be cuffed and removed when I told her I didn't work for her or her daughter and she was there because she didn't pay her bill and was NOT a customer. They waited in the lot for me to get off shift with the intention of (?) but didn't feel so bold when one pointed out the security issue .38 on my hip.

These were fun- I'll have to rack my brain and remember some more and repost sometime.

Reason2012 #fundie christiannews.net

We prohibit_polygamy to protect women against religious and cultural abuse.

We prohibit_bestiality to protect animals against abuse, not to mention to just put a stop to perversion.

We prohibit_pederasty to protect children.

We prohibit_murder to protect people from killing each other.

We prohibit_incest to protect families against abuse and to avoid the chance of babies with genetic abnormalities.

We prohibit two people of the same gender from being called a marriage because kids have the right to be raised by their biological mother and father - same-gender marriages legally deny them this right 100% of the time, by design. So we protect kids from this by prohibiting any other form of "marriage" besides one man and one woman.

We prohibit two people of the same gender from being called a marriage because kids have the right to be raised by a mother and a father, not forced into setups that are dysfunctional 100% of the time and deny them this right: two or more fathers and no mother, or two or more mothers and no father. So we protect kids from being legally denied this right by prohibiting any other form of "marriage" besides one man and one woman.

We prohibit two people of same gender from being called a marriage (which it NEVER has in the history of the world) by the state as that's the state violating the constitution to establish their own state religion: Redefining religious institutions they never defined to begin with.

We prohibit two people of the same gender from being called a marriage because the government is violating the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America by REDEFINING religious institutions then passing laws to establish this new state religion where anyone who does not adhere to this new state religion is condemned as a criminal: sued and fined thousands of dollars.

We prohibit two people of the same gender from being called a marriage because in general marriage is for the possibility of procreation for the continuance of society - it's the bedrock of any healthy society. A same-gender marriage is, by design, never capable of such a thing and hence has one less basis of being called a "marriage".

We prohibit two people of the same gender from being called a marriage because any pro-creation should be within a marriage - same-gender 'marriages' are forced to go outside the 'marriage" 100% of the time by design. So we prohibit same-gender "marriage" to protect the foundation of a healthy nation.

We prohibit two people of the same gender from being called a marriage to protect Christians from being charged as a criminal if they do not violate their beliefs.

We prohibit two people of the same gender from being called a marriage because every single person alive has one biological mother and one biological father. Nature alone re-iterates what marriage is - that this is what a family is.

JD Hall #fundie pulpitandpen.org

[From a sarcastic article titled "My Open Letter of Apology to the Gay Community (From a Christian)"]

1. I’m sorry that any of us ever referred to you as a “gay community.” Really, that’s not helpful. A “community” is a group of individuals that either live in the same place or share the same values. Sodomy (defined as unnatural and immoral sexual behavior) is not a value. Sodomy is a deviancy. Now, if you defined “community” as sharing interests and not values, then there could theoretically be a gay community because you hold unnatural and immoral sexual behavior as a common interest. However, to call you a “community” would legitimize this sin in a way that we don’t legitimize any other sin. For example, we don’t recognize “the thieving community” or the “the lying community” or “the bank-robbing community” or “the rapist community” or the “white collar criminal community.” If communities could be founded upon self-destructive behavior, those communities would be self-defeating, and a self-defeating community is no community at all. In fact, a truly “gay community” would be extinct within one generation. Your unnatural sexual deviancy leads to death; legitimate communities are self-populating and regenerative. It was a dumb term for Christians to start using, and I apologize for all of those who inadvertently give credence to the narrative that yours is a community and not a group of sinners who share in community-destroying behavior.

Coby #sexist love-shy.com

Considering the hell men have to go through in the feminised world today where everything is skewed to favour women in all areas of life, but especially in the dating scene, then the new system would have to be one which would quickly and swiftly reverse the damage done to our societies by the incessant terrorism of men by feminism and it's policies propped p by governments and institutions. So I'd propose of system of male choice in the dating game. All I'd recommend is one law and one law only with regards to male-female relationships. No matter what a man says to or asks of a woman, a woman cannot say no. A no from a woman could be reported as easily to the Police as a current day rape, and would also be punishable by a jail sentence.

Call me a misogynist, or call me angry from perceived mistreatment of ordinary men under the hammer of feminism, but it's the only way for society to make up for years of torment and give ordinary men not only the chance to date a woman without the fear of ever hearing a no, but also the chance to date out of their league and the chance to produce better-looking offspring.

A woman saying no to a man under the new system could be classed as equivalent to raping the man. You may think this is misoginist and harsh, but wake up guys, ugly men are going to prison daily in feminised countries for even looking at women, when the women will claim is that she was raped, only in actual fact to only be looked at by the wrong type of guy for her in the wrong way.

The only system that would work is one where the dating minefield would be pushed to the female side of the battleground.

Cornelius Hunter #fundie evolutionnews.org

Yale's Steven Novella Argues with Michael Behe -- Here's Why Novella Is Wrong

Steven Novella, a neurologist and noted "skeptic" at Yale University School of Medicine, has commented on a recent Harvard University experiment for visualizing bacterial adaptation to antibiotics. In doing so, he argues with Michael Behe whose take on the subject was noted at Evolution News. Here is why Dr. Novella is wrong.

The Harvard researchers constructed a giant petri dish with spatially varying antibiotics to watch how bacteria adapt over time and space (the researchers came up with a great name for the experiment: The microbial evolution and growth arena [MEGA]-plate). And adapt they did. Those adaptations were instantly claimed as an example of evolution in action. The researchers wrote that the "MEGA-plate provides a versatile platform for studying microbial adaption and directly visualizing evolutionary dynamics" (emphasis added). And the press release informed the public that the experiment provided "A powerful, unvarnished visualization of bacterial movement, death, and survival; evolution at work, visible to the naked eye." Likewise, Novella called it "a nice demonstration of evolution at work in a limited context." There's only one problem: The experiment did not demonstrate evolution, it falsified evolution.

First off, Novella deserves some credit for acknowledging at least some limitations in the experiment's results:

Of course, this one piece of evidence does not "prove" something as complex and far ranging as the evolution of life on Earth.

Novella also deserves credit for acknowledging that evolutionary change that requires a few mutations, rather than merely one, is a big problem. Novella has solutions that he believes resolve this problem, but at least he acknowledges what too often is conveniently ignored.

What Novella does not acknowledge, however, is that bacteria adaptation research, over several decades now, has clearly shown non-evolutionary change. For instance, bacterial adaptation has often been found to be rapid, and sensitive to the environmental challenge. In other words, when we look at the details, we do not find the evolutionary model of random variation slowly bringing about change, but rather environmentally directed or influenced variation.

That is not evolution. And indeed, the Harvard experiment demonstrated, again, very rapid adaptation. In just ten days the bacteria adapted to high doses of lethal antibiotic. As one of the researchers commented, "This is a stunning demonstration of how quickly microbes evolve."

True, it is "stunning," but "evolve" is not the correct term. The microbes adapted.

The ability of organisms to adapt rapidly falls under the category of epigenetics, a term that encompasses a range of sophisticated mechanisms which promote adaptation which is sensitive to the environment. Given our knowledge of bacterial epigenetics, and how fast the bacteria responded in the Harvard experiment, it certainly is reasonable to think that epigenetics, of some sort, may have been at work.

Such epigenetic change is not a new facet of evolution, it contradicts evolution. Not only would such complex adaptation mechanisms be difficult to evolve via random mutations, they wouldn't provide fitness improvement, and so would not be selected for, even if they did somehow arise from mutations.

Epigenetic mechanisms respond to future, unforeseen conditions. Their very existence contradicts evolution. So the Harvard experiment, rather than demonstrating evolution in action, is probably yet another example of epigenetic-based adaptation. If so, it would contradict evolution.

Another problem, one that Michael Behe points out, is that it appears that most of the mutations that occurred in the experiment served to shutdown genes. In other words, the mutations broke things, they did not build things. This is another way to see that this does not fit the evolutionary model. It's devolution, not evolution. Novella begs to differ, and says Behe has made a big mistake:

Behe is wrong because there is no such thing as "devolution." Evolution is simply heritable change, any change, and that change can create more complexity or more simplicity. Further, altering a protein does not "degrade" it -- that notion is based on the false premise that there is a "correct" sequence of amino acids in any particular protein. Evolution just makes proteins different. Proteins perform "better" or "worse" only in so much that they contribute to the survival and reproduction of the individual. If it is better for the survival of the organism for an enzyme to be slower, then the slower enzyme is better for that organism.

First, Novella ignores the fact that many of the mutations introduced stop codons, and so did not merely slow an enzyme but rather shut it down altogether.

Secondly, it is not Behe here who is making the mistake, it is Novella. He says "Evolution is simply heritable change..." But this is an equivocation.

On the one hand, evolutionists want to say that shutting down or slowing a gene is "evolution," but on the other hand, they say that a fish turning into a giraffe is "evolution."

Unfortunately evolutionists routinely make this equivocation. This is because they don't think of it as an equivocation. In their adherence and promotion of the theory, the distinction is lost on them. All change just smears together in one big long process called evolution. You can see other examples of this here and here.

So the comments, press releases, and articles send a misleading message. Readers are told that the researchers have seen "evolution in action." The message is clear: This is evolution, the evolution. But it isn't. There is nothing in these findings that show us how a fish turns into a giraffe.

Multiple Mutations

As I mentioned, Novella also believes that evolution coming up with designs requiring multiple mutations is not a problem. His reasoning is that while this would be a problem if most mutations were harmful, they aren't. Most mutations are neutral, so evolutionary drift can introduce the many needed mutations, and once the set of required mutations are in place, then you have the new design.

This is a profound misunderstanding of the problem evolution faces. You can't evolve a protein, for example, with drift. That most mutations are neutral does not suddenly resolve the curse of dimensionality and resolve this astronomical search problem. There just is no free lunch.

Similarly, Novella makes yet another profound mistake involving what he calls "the lottery fallacy."

The first is basically the lottery fallacy - considering the odds of John Smith winning the lottery by chance alone and concluding it could not have happened by chance. Rather, you should consider the odds that anyone would win the lottery. This is actually pretty good. Behe looks at life on Earth and asks -- what are the odds that this specific pathway or protein or whatever evolved by chance alone. He is failing to consider that there may have been billions of possible solutions or pathways down which that creature's ancestors could have evolved. Species that failed to adapt either migrated to an environment in which they could survive, or they went extinct. In other words, Behe should not be asking what the odds are that this bit of complexity evolved, but rather what are the odds that any complexity evolved. It is difficult to know the number of potential complexities that never evolved -- that number may dwarf the odds of any one bit evolving. Right there Behe's entire premise is demolished...

This is a terribly flawed argument for several reasons. First, life needs proteins. All life that we know of needs proteins. Thousands of proteins.

Yet proteins are far beyond evolution's reach. It is true, per Novella's point, that there are a whole lot of ways to make a given protein. There are many, many different amino acid sequences that give you a globin. But "many, many" is like a grain of sand compared to the astronomical amino acid sequence search space. Again, there is no free lunch.

But Novella goes further than this, which brings us to the second flaw. Novella is not merely arguing there are many different ways to construct life as we know it. He is pointing out that there are, or at least there could be, a whole bunch of different ways to make life in the first place.

If you take them all together, you could have a pretty big set of possibilities. Perhaps it is astronomical. So what we got in this world -- the life forms we observe -- are not point designs in an otherwise lifeless design space. Rather, the design space could be chock full of life forms. And hence, the evolution of life becomes likely, and "Right there Behe's entire premise is demolished."

What Novella is arguing for here is unobservable. He is going far beyond science, into an imaginary philosophical world of maybes.

Not only is Novella clearly appealing to the unobservable, but even that doesn't work. At least for any common sense approach. There is no question that the design space is full of useless blobs of chemicals that do nothing. A speculative claim? No, that is what this thing called science has made abundantly clear to us. Even the simple case of a single protein reveals as much. Only a relatively few mutations to most proteins rob them of their function. Protein function is known to dramatically reduce as different amino acids are swapped in.

Of course this is all obvious to anyone who understands how things work. Sure, Novella may be right that there are other, unknown, solutions to life. But that isn't suddenly going to resolve evolution's astronomical search problem. The problem was never contingent on the life we observe being the only possible life forms possible

[Submitter's Note: Emphasis original]

thinline #conspiracy abovetopsecret.com

Was the whole Bernie Sanders and the Black Lives Matter person jumping on stage a conspiracy? while not all political candidates have secret service protection, one would think that there would have been some security to stop someone from going on stage or to pull them off the stage. After seeing this, one would imagine that Sanders would have better security going forward, if this was a real event

~ Chelsey ~ #fundie answers.yahoo.com

What would America be like if you took all of the Judeo-Christian influence out?

So many here against Christianity in America. What would you invision as a country if we sunk to the depth of Communism in its hey day....a Godless Nation.

How would this improve anything. Could you explain how our country would be in a better position if the Judeo-Christian influence were gone?

Answer : Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transsexuals, etc. would
be the norm, teenage pregnancy would skyrocket,
ANYTHING would be acceptable, no one would have any morals,
crime rates would balloon, right and wrong would be a matter
of opinion not law, so it would be okay for humans to marry
animals or inanimate objects.


Hopefully the answers will be educational.

Mad Monarchist #fundie madmonarchist.blogspot.co.nz

Why I shouldn’t be King of Great Britain: The UK embassy in Washington DC would be home to the world’s largest statue of King George III. If at all possible, I would try to face him toward Mt Vernon. Since I wish nothing more than for the English-speaking countries to be drawn ever closer together, this would not be a good thing for Anglo-American relations and yet, I know I would not be able to stop myself from doing it.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Spain: First visit to Mexico, I’d show up dressed like Cortes and carrying a flag. And, you know, they probably wouldn’t like that. Recently, King Felipe VI met with Martin Schulz and that highlights another reason because I could certainly never stomach shaking hands with the likes of Martin Schulz. (shudder) In dealing with certain Latin American leaders, I would not be able to stop myself at asking them to “shut up” but would probably include a string of epithets that would certainly not be conducive to Hispanic solidarity, which I would like to see more of.

Why I shouldn’t be Grand Duke of Luxembourg: I would spend all my time campaigning to be elected Holy Roman Emperor. I just couldn’t help it. Campaigning to evict the European Court of Justice from Luxembourg soil would probably also be seen as “too political” and “interfering” in government matters for current sensibilities.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Belgium: All foreign aid to the Congo would be in special currency bearing a portrait of King Leopold II. And that would be evil! They would probably also misunderstand it, assuming sympathy with atrocities carried out in his name rather than a swipe at the nature of “independent” countries being on the dole of former colonial powers.

Why I shouldn’t be King of The Netherlands: I would offer to annex any remaining Boer areas of South Africa. And I doubt that would go over well. Problems with Indonesia would also doubtless be unavoidable and I doubt the Dutch public could cash the checks my mouth would be writing -if you know what I mean. Referring, even in a joking way, to Belgium as “the Southern Netherlands” would probably also ruffle some feathers.


Why I shouldn’t be King of Denmark: The national coat-of-arms would be changed to show Reptilicus devouring Germany. And that would be weird. Hardly in keeping with the dignity and integrity of the oldest monarchy in Europe. (Bonus points to anyone playing along at home who actually knows who “Reptilicus” is)

Why I shouldn’t be King of Norway: I’m not proud of it, I don’t like to admit, but I must face facts and I have to be honest. At some point I would have to wear a helmet with two big horns on it and would constantly be threatening to raid someone.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Sweden: Constantly hitting on Finland and asking when we can get back together would probably not be considered a legitimate foreign policy. It would probably upset the Russians too.

Why I shouldn’t be Prince of Liechtenstein: I’d form a military and declare war on San Marino.

Why I shouldn’t be Prince of Monaco: I would probably bankrupt the place trying to buy Menton and Roquebrune from France. There would also be family tensions anytime Gad came up as absolutely no one is good enough for my dear Charlotte.

Why I shouldn’t be Pope: Perhaps this one shouldn’t count but the Pope is technically the sovereign of a legal state so it is included for that reason. My “Renaissance” style papacy would give the entire Catholic world whiplash after the reign of Pope Frank. Not good. Every address to the world would probably consist of me screaming, “You’re all going to burn in Hell you godless heathens!” Can’t see that winning many over honestly.

Why I shouldn’t be King of (insert name of predominately Muslim country here): I doubt an infidel monarch would last long. Aside from differences of belief, I don’t drink anymore so that’s not a problem and I can live without pork but…a whole month without being able to smoke? I would explode.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Lesotho: I would absolutely refuse to have any dealings with South Africa, which for Lesotho would make life pretty damn difficult considering that the country is entirely surrounded by South Africa.


Why I shouldn’t be King of Swaziland: Aside from how positively ridiculous I would look in the national costume, there are other aspects of life I could never adjust to. For one, I couldn’t do the whole polygamy thing. The idea of one wife is frightening enough. Good. God.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Bhutan: There is no way I could stop myself from hitting on pretty much every female member of the royal family -and that would be awkward. (seriously, they are ridiculously gorgeous)

Why I shouldn’t be King of Thailand: Constantly playing “One Night in Bangkok” would probably not be considered appropriate royal behavior. Some people are really offended by that…I know.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Cambodia: Pretty simple. On day one I would fire Hun Sen, upsetting Vietnam, end friendly relations with China and North Korea and probably be assassinated in quick order, plunging the country into chaos.

Why I shouldn’t be Emperor of Japan: I’d go to pray at Yasukuni Shrine wearing a kimono with a big rising sun on it and all the Chinese and Koreans heads would explode in a fit of rage that might start World War III. And nobody wants that. But, I’d probably also be assassinated by right-wing extremists for not going along with their ‘Japan is the only country that never did anything wrong ever’ mentality.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Tonga: After some rather rotund monarchs, having a king who looks like he was just rescued from the world’s worst POW camp would probably be too great a shock for the people of Tonga.

Toe Jam #conspiracy shroomery.org

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

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

Sue Bohlin #fundie blogs.bible.org

A recent email from a friend: "Sue, I'm seeing more and more 'evangelical' churches come out in support of gay marriage. Also, Christian friends are changing their views on the validity of the LGBT lifestyle being acceptable for a Christ-follower. I start worrying that I'm missing something, and even start questioning my beliefs."

No, my dear friend, you are not missing something, but it is a good time to question (not doubt) your beliefs so you can be more convinced than ever that the Creator God has not changed and neither has His word.

I think there are two big reasons so many confessing believers in Christ have allowed themselves to be more shaped by the culture than by the truth of God's word, drifting into spiritual compromise and even into apostasy (abandoning the truth of one's faith). This is not a new problem; the apostle Paul urged his readers in Rome, "Don't let the world around you squeeze you into its own mold, but let God re-mold your minds from within. . ." (Romans 12:2, Phillips).

Reason One: Rejecting the Authority of God's Word

The bitter fruit of several decades of shallow preaching, teaching and discipleship is that many believers have been especially vulnerable to Satan's deceptive question to Eve in the Garden of Eden: "Did God really say . . .?" When Christians ignore or flat-out reject the unmistakably clear biblical statements condemning homosexual relationships, they are playing into the enemy's temptation to justify disobedience by making feelings and perceptions more important than God's design and standards.

There are now two streams of thought on same-sex relationships and behavior, the Traditional View and the Revisionist View. The Revisionist View basically says, "It doesn't matter what the Bible actually says, it doesn't mean what 2000 years of church history has said it means, it means what we want it to say."

People are redefining the Bible, gender and marriage according to what will let them do what they want, when they should (in my opinion) be asking the insightful question posed by Paul Mooris in Shadow of Sodom, "[A]m I trying to interpret Scripture in the light of my proclivity, or should I interpret my proclivity in the light of Scripture?"

The Bible:
Traditional View
The Bible is inspired by a Holy God and is inherently true and trustworthy. The Bible is written by men, but divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit and is sealed by a God of truth and authority.
Revisionist View
The scriptures which traditional Christianity understands to condemn homosexuality [such as Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10] have either been mistranslated, yanked out of context or were only appropriate to the culture of that time. Therefore, we no longer have to follow passages we don't like.

Sexuality:
Traditional View
Sexuality and sex are God's good gifts to men and women. While sexuality is an essential attribute of human nature, our Creator did not intend it to be the defining characteristic of humanity.
Revisionist View
Sexuality—the feelings and attractions one feels for other people—is God ordained, diverse, deeply personal and morally permissible. One's sexual orientation, whatever it is, should be celebrated as one of God's good gifts.

Gender:
Traditional View
God created both male and female in His image, and each gender reflects different aspects of the imago Dei. God's sovereign choice of gender for every person reflects His intention for that person's identity; it is one of the ways in which he or she glorifies Him as Creator.
Revisionist View
We are free to make a distinction between sex and gender. Sex is biological maleness or femaleness at birth, and gender is how one feels about their "true" maleness or femaleness internally. Based on Galatians 3:28, "there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Marriage:
Traditional View
Marriage is God-ordained between one man and one woman in a lifelong, monogamous, covenantal relationship. The Bible begins with the marriage of Adam and Eve, and ends with the marriage of the Lamb (Jesus) and the Bride (the church). The complementarity of husband and wife express God's intention of both genders in marriage.
Revisionist View
Homosexual behavior is appropriate within the confines of a committed, loving, monogamous, lifelong, Christ-centered relationship.

Both individual Christians and churches have drifted into endorsing same-sex relationships because it always feels better to follow one's flesh than to follow Jesus' call to "deny yourself, take up your cross and follow Me" (Matt. 16:24).

Reason Two: Snagged by the Gay Agenda

In addition to those several decades of shallow preaching, teaching and discipleship I mentioned earlier, many believers have not been submitting themselves to the truth of the Word of God. By default, then, they were easily shaped and swayed by the six points of a brilliantly designed "Gay Manifesto" spelled out in a book called After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s. Originally published as an essay called "The Overhauling of Straight America" that was published in a gay magazine, the authors laid out this plan which has been executed perfectly in the United States. (The quotes below are from the essay, found here)

1. Desensitization and normalization of homosexuals in mainstream America. Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible.

"The principle behind this advice is simple: almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances.

"In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent—only later his unsightly derriere!"

2. Portray members of the LGBTQ community as victims. Indoctrinate mainstream America that members of the LGBTQ community were "born this way."

"In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector."

"Now, there are two different messages about the Gay Victim that are worth communicating. First, the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message must read: 'As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. Nobody ever tricked or seduced them; they never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn't willfully contrary - it's only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you!'"

3. Give protectors a just cause: anti-discrimination

"Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme."

4. The use of TV, music, film and social media to desensitize mainstream Americans to their plight as gay people

Over the past 25 years, gay characters, on TV especially, have captured the hearts of American viewers because they were attractive, funny, smart—the kind of characters viewers would like to be. No one was shown the dark underside of gay bars and bathhouses, or same-sex domestic violence, or having to get one's HIV+ status checked.

5. Portray gays and lesbians as pillars in society. Make gays look good.

"From Socrates to Shakespeare, from Alexander the Great to Alexander Hamilton, from Michelangelo to Walt Whitman, from Sappho to Gertrude Stein, the list is old hat to us but shocking news to heterosexual America. In no time, a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization."

Use celebrities and celebrity endorsement. And who doesn't love Ellen DeGeneres?

6. Once homosexuals have begun to gain acceptance, anti-gay opponents must be vilified, causing them to be viewed as repulsive outcasts of society.

"Our goal is here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream's self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.

"The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs, and convicts speaking coolly about the 'fags' they have killed or would like to kill; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed."

This is how I see how we got to this place where so many people have been deceived. They didn't anchor themselves to the Truth of the Word of God, and they opened themselves to the cultural brine of Kirk and Madsen's plan to overhaul straight America.

And it worked.

I will close with three personal observations about this situation:

Christians have bought into the culture's worship of feelings over God's unchanging revelation
People love how being a protector of the underdog makes them feel
Not enough of us Christ-followers are living lives that demonstrate the beauty and satisfaction of abiding in Christ
To my sweet friend who asked the question, let me say: God's good gift of sex and the intimacy of the marriage relationship is still intended ONLY for one man and one woman for life. In the beginning, one (Adam) became two (when God formed Eve from Adam), and then the two became one again. That is a deep mystery that makes all variations and deviations on God's intention wrong.

I am indebted to Hope Harris for her insight and analysis of this question.

Abolish Human Abortion #fundie facebook.com

"I recently sat in on a hearing with a referee of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The subject of the hearing was the ACLU protesting an Abolitionist petition to treat abortion as murder. Now, being the Godless and humanistic group that they are, the ACLU fully relied upon case law and judicial precedence. They did not make any appeal to a moral standard or any sort of objective truth. But rather, as you would expect from the pagans at the ACLU, they relied only upon the whims of man. The twisted, subjective, ever changing, wisdom of man.

Now, keep that in mind while reading this article from Joe Carter of The Gospel Coalition. Being on a website called so boldly "The Gospel Coalition", and knowing that the writers and pastors who form the said coalition claim to be subservient to the Word of God, as opposed to the wisdom of man, one would think that this article would be saturated with proof texts and an exegetical examination of the question. One would think that the Gospel Coalition would not be looking to the same institutions and principles that the depraved ACLU so fully relied upon. The sad truth is that while reading this article I was continuesly reminded of the hollow, subjective, and cowardly arguments the ACLU made against Abolition.

Whenever any judicial/ethical question like this is raised, we as Christians must first ask this foundational question, "by whose standard?" I believe we all know how The Gospel Coalition has answered this question. Clearly not God's standard. They are plainly relying upon the same standard as the ACLU. The same standard as any humanistic institution. This is a mockery of justice, logic, and God."
Abolitionist John Andrew Reasnor

"Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, 'He catches the wise in their craftiness,'"
1 Corinthians 3:18-19

manonthemoon #conspiracy davidicke.com

I believe there are actually two, identical moons that rotate the earth, one exactly opposite the other. The Moon actually orbits at half the speed we think it is and is closer than we believe. That is why we get TWO TIDES per day and not just the one we would get if there were just one moon.

http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/...two-moons.html

There is actually one real moon (that the astronauts landed on) and a fake spaceship moon, positioned at exactly the opposite side of the earth. That is why we never see two moons at once.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?clien...L5CJhQfj84DICg

David J. Stewart #fundie jesusisprecious.org

God Only Wrote One Book... THE BOOK!!!

Look here again at Hebrews 9:19, “For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people.” There are eight words you ought to underline in that verse, so that when you look at that verse, they'll stand out to your eyes.

Here are the 8 words that you ought to memorize:

...HE TOOK THE BLOOD

...AND SPRINKLED

...THE BOOK

How many bloods are there? “THE BLOOD” was sprinkled on “THE BOOK”! Amen! So how many books can there be? Obviously, JUST ONE BOOK!!!!!!! Notice the singularity... “THE BOOK”! It's the blood sprinkled Book. The blood guarantees the veracity, the purity, the dependability and the truth of the Book. There can only be one real Bible in any language! According to the American Bible Society, there are approximately 900 different English Bibles! God's Word is not random. In English, “THE BOOK,” is the AV (AUTHORIZED VERSION) 1611 KING JAMES BIBLE!!! Notice the singularity. ....

THE BOOK!!! THE BOOK!!! THE BOOK!!!

THE BOOK!!! THE BOOK!!! THE BOOK!!! THE BOOK!!! THE BOOK!!! THE BOOK!!! GOD WROTE ONE BOOK... THE BOOK!!!!!!!

Psalms:12:6-7, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

Perhaps you ask, “How do you know it is the King James Bible?” Well, let me give you a brief history lesson. You know that there are two superpowers in the universe: God and the Devil. So then everything in the universe has one of those two for its source. There's no third source, right? So then everything that calls itself a “Bible” would have to have one of those two for its source. Since God's not the author of confusion (1st Corinthians 14:33), then He only put out one...THE BOOK!!! Who put out all the rest of them. You got it... THE DEVIL!!!

starinhand #fundie worthychristianforums.com

I'm pretty sure if you read all of this you'll probably just think I'm crazy. I live in Brampton Ontario and I'm 100% sure there is demonology and witchcraft running rampant in my town and I've been struck by it. I wont explain the giant details of the story but I know one ex friend of mine by the name of Paul (*Mod Edit) and one by the name of Ryan (*Mod Edit) are involved in witchcraft or demonology. One has shown me magic and has repeated word for word what I was thinking. One night I was out at this little lake side area when walking shadows began ot appear around me... all wearing these black hoods, I could communicate with them in my mind. At one point I lied back on a rock and looked up at the stars and I noticed they all would disapear except one then that one star would begin to move thats when I got a bit freaked and closed my eyes... at that point I felt like a knife or dagger went into my neck when I opened my eyes I heard the voice of my once friend Paul (*Mod Edit) say "Damn I nearly got him" thats when I went home.

fixed earth website summary #fundie fixedearth.com

THE EARTH IS NOT MOVING (One Page Summary)
FACTS:

THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THE EARTH ROTATES ON A "AXIS" DAILY AND ORBITS THE SUN ANNUALLY. NONE.
ALL CALCULATIONS FOR ECLIPSES, THE SPACE PROGRAM, NAVIGATION, SATELLITE MOVEMENTS--ANYTHING THAT DEMANDS PRECISION AND ACCURACY--ARE BASED ON A NON-MOVING EARTH. BOILED DOWN, HELIOCENTRIC MATH IS THE SAME AS GEOCENTRIC MATH. MATHEMATICS HAS BEEN INVENTED SPECIFICALLY TO UPHOLD COPERNICANISM. (EINSTEIN CALLED MATH AN "ART FORM" AND SO IT IS!)
NO EXPERIMENT HAS SHOWN THE EARTH TO BE MOVING (MUCH LESS AT 30 TIMES RIFLE BULLET SPEED IN SOLAR ORBIT AND 250 TIMES RBS AROUND A GALAXY!) ONE WOULD THINK SUCH SPEEDS WOULD FLAP ONE’S COLLAR A LITTLE EVEN IF THE "SCIENCE" ESTABLISHMENT SAYS NO....
MULTIPLE EXPERIMENTS HAVE SHOWN THE EARTH TO BE STATIONARY.
REVISIONIST HISTORY REVEALS THE ROLES THAT COPERNICUS, KEPLER, GALILEO, NEWTON, EINSTEIN, SAGAN ET AL HAVE PLAYED IN FOISTING THIS LIE ON MANKIND.
THE LOGIC AGAINST A MOVING EARTH IS OVERPOWERING.
WORLD-CLASS ASTRONOMER SIR FRED HOYLE SAID TAKE YOUR PICK BETWEEN THE TWO MODELS....
COPERNICANISM PAVED THE WAY FOR DARWINISM (WHICH SPAWNED MARXISM, FREUDIANISM, EINSTEINISM, SAGANISM)
STAR SPEEDS ARE NOT A PROBLEM WHEN THE THICKNESS OF THE UNIVERSE IS SEEN TO BE WHAT IT REALLY IS, THAT IS, LESS THAN 1/2 LIGHT DAY THICK. BEGIN HERE...
NASA’S SPACE PROGRAM IS LABELED "ORIGINS RESEARCH" AND COSTS TAXPAYERS MEGA-BUCKS. COMPUTERIZED TELESCOPES ARE PROGRAMMED TO SEND BACK "SYNTHESIZED IMAGES". THE "IMAGE WARPER" PERMITS "GEOMENTRIC TRANSFORMATIONS" WHILE "ORIGINS TECHNOLOGY... CONFIGURES THE MULTIPLE SMALL MIRRORS..." IN THESE TELESCOPES. TALK ABOUT A CON JOB!
THE BIBLE SAYS THE EARTH IS NOT MOVING AND CANNOT BE MOVED. WHAT’L IT BE FOLKS? FALSE SCIENCE AS THE SOURCE OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH...OR GOD’S WORD??
Book Order: HERE...

Campbell34 #fundie city-data.com

I believe the Ambulocetus existed, yet your belief that traits found in whales is proof positive that whales evolved from the Ambulocetus is pretty far fetched. Traits are not evidence for evolution. For even today we can find similarities in numerous animals that walk the earth. I have eyes and so does a crocodile. Does this mean I evolved from a crocodile?
The evolution belief is based on assumptions that can not be shown to be true, nor do we find any clear proof of evolution in the fossil record. It appears believers in evolution want us tho believe evolution occured. Yet when you ask for that inbetween fossil, the one that would show two species, let us say at that 50% change. All I hear is evolution does not work that way. And yet, it would have to work that way. You cannot have a four legged animal one day, and a whale the next. There would have to be some pretty strange looking animals out there. And such animals never find there way into the fossil record. Why is that?

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.

Power Point Paradise #fundie powerpointparadise.com

Just last week an article turned up at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, “The bacterial flagellar motor: brilliant evolution or intelligent design?,” by a biophysicist named Matt Baker, claiming to refute irreducible complexity. Has Baker finally solved the riddle of answering Behe’s challenge to Darwinian evolution? No, it’s pretty much the same stuff we’ve heard before, with maybe a variation or two that are original to Matt Baker.

Well, since these perennial objections are indeed perennial, I would like to answer them again, using Dr. Baker as my example. We’ll see that IC remains as potent a weapon in ID’s arsenal as it was in 1996.

The article purports to explain how the bacterial flagellum is the result of Darwinian evolution rather than intelligent design. But the author badly misunderstands both how we test for irreducible complexity and what it means to provide a Darwinian explanation. He is also apparently unaware of the many reasons why the Type III Secretory System could not have been a precursor to the flagellum.

The article’s first error comes in the sub-headline, which states:

"Luckily, individual components of the bacterial flagellar motor have indeed been found elsewhere. And they work. So the motor is ‘reducible’, and certainly not ‘irreducibly complex’."

First of all, it’s not the case that all “individual components” of the flagellum have been found elsewhere. But even if they had, that would not necessarily mean that the motor is “reducible” and “not ‘irreducibly complex.'” In any case, Baker goes on to state:

"A central tenet of this theory is the notion of ‘irreducible complexity’. This asserts that some biological machines — like the flagellar motor — must be the product of design, because if you were to remove one or two components from the motor it would not function properly, or at all. The logic being, this motor was designed as a whole construction — it didn’t evolve through a series of steps, so the individual parts of the motor would serve no purpose on their own.So the creationist argument relies on us finding no evidence of individual parts of the motor having a role outside of bacterial flagella."

Ignoring the gratuitous “creationist” jab, his argument is self-contradictory. On the one hand he says (correctly) that irreducible complexity means that a system “didn’t evolve through a series of steps.” But he then wrongly claims that this implies “the individual parts of the motor would serve no purpose on their own” or that irreducible complexity “relies on us finding no evidence of individual parts of the motor having a role outside.”

The former claim is a great description of irreducible complexity; the latter is a straw man test, which has nothing to do whatsoever with the concept. Dr. Baker should read my article “Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum,” which addresses this common misconception. I explain there that Michael Behe formulates irreducible complexity as a test of building an entire system in a stepwise manner. IC relates to the functionality of a collection of parts, not the function (or possible functions) of each individual part. Even if a separate function could be found for a sub-system or sub-part, that would not refute the irreducible complexity of the whole, nor would it demonstrate the evolvability of that entire system. Here’s how Behe defines IC:

"In The Origin of Species Darwin stated:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

A system which meets Darwin’s criterion is one which exhibits irreducible complexity. By irreducible complexity I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.(Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, pg. 39 (Free Press, 1996).)"

According to Darwin himself, Darwinian evolution requires that a system be functional along each small step of its evolution. One could find a sub-part that could be useful outside of the final system, yet the total system would still face many points over its “evolutionary pathway” where it could not remain functional through “numerous, successive, slight modifications.” Thus, Baker mischaracterizes Behe’s argument as one that focuses on the non-functionality of sub-parts, when in fact, Behe actually focuses on the ability of the entire system to assemble in a stepwise fashion, even if sub-parts can have functions outside of the final system.To further understand how Baker’s test fails, consider the example of a car engine with its nuts and bolts. Car engines use many kinds of bolts, and a nut or a bolt could be seen as a small “sub-part” or “sub-system” of a car engine. Under this logic, if a vital nut in my car’s engine might also perform some other function — perhaps as a lug nut — then it follows that my car’s whole engine system is not irreducibly complex. Such an argument is obviously fallacious.

In assessing whether an engine is irreducibly complex, one must focus on the function of the engine itself and whether it can be built in a stepwise fashion, not on a possible function that one particular sub-part could have elsewhere. Of course a nut or bolt could serve some other purpose in my car. It could probably serve many purposes. But this does not explain how a variety of complex parts such as pistons, cylinders, the camshaft, valves, the crankshaft, sparkplugs, the distributor cap, and wiring came together in the appropriate configuration to make a functional engine. Even if all of these parts could perform other functions in the car (which is doubtful), how were they all assembled properly to construct a functional engine? The answer must be intelligent design.

To offer another analogy, consider how you would build an irreducibly complex arch (Figure A):

image
Figure A: An arch is irreducibly complex: If one removes a piece, the remaining pieces will fall down.

According to Baker, if we can find a function for some sub-piece, then a system is not irreducibly complex. Now, let’s now break this arch into sub-pieces:

image
Figure B: Here an arch has been broken up into sub-pieces.

Baker has apparently found a flagellar sub-piece (the T3SS) that can perform some other function. The T3SS comprises no more than a quarter of the total flagellar parts. Similarly, in this arch, there is one large sub-section (labeled “S”) that comprises approximately a quarter of the total arch. Sub-section S can have a function outside of the arch (i.e., it can stand on its own). However, this exposes the fallacy of Baker’s test: the ability of sub-section S to stand on its own does not therefore dictate that the arch is not irreducibly complex. If one were to remove the top piece (t), the arch crumbles, even if sub-section S remains standing (Figure C):

image
Figure C: Even if sub-section S can have a function (i.e., if it can stand) outside of the arch, this does not imply that the arch as a whole is not irreducibly complex — capable of being built in a step-by-step manner.

Thus, we see that a system does not become “reducibly complex” simply because one part remains functional outside of the final system, and Baker has followed many others in proffering a straw-man test of irreducible complexity.

So can we properly test the flagellum to show that it is irreducibly complex? Yes, we can. Scott Minnich’s genetic knockout experiments on the E. coli flagellum have shown that it fails to assemble or function properly if any one of its approximately 35 structural parts are missing. That’s prima facie evidence that it’s irreducibly complex, and it’s a proper test of the model.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party
By Frances Rice

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Mr. Conservative #conspiracy tellmenow.com

According to reports, a massive protest was scheduled to happen in Washington D.C. today called “Operation American Spring.” However it appears as if it’s been stopped dead in its tracks, and so far the culprit appears to be FEMA.

According to RawStory, conservative commentator Mark Connors is just ten blocks away from the proposed rally, broadcasting from his tour bus on a live feed. However other than that, there’s no evidence of the event which was supposed to draw between 10 and 30 million people.

Connors spoke with the leader of the group, Ret. Col. Harry Riley, this morning about rumors that the Federal Emergency Management Agency was going to meet the protesters with force and remove them before it became out of hand. Riley tried to play off the rumors and explained that none of the demonstrators would be armed for the event, however it appears as if the rumors may be true.

Several sites are trying to host a life feed to the event via USTREAM, however the feed was cut off this morning just as Riley was about to address the crowd and hasn’t been online since. In addition to the feed being down, the group’s Facebook page doesn’t have a single new post on it since May 14, and one would think they would want to remain engaged with their followers throughout the event. Unless of course they couldn’t.

What’s even more troubling about the sudden silence about the event is that there’s not a single verified photo or video that has come from it. Again, with the popularity leading up to it and the support that it had already received, one would assume that the people there would want to show the nation that they’re taking a stand against the many tyrannies we face, unless of course they can’t.

The only video that has supposedly come from the event shows a group of people gathering in front of the Washington Monument. Oddly enough, the only traffic camera that would show a crowd in that area doesn’t seem to be working right now and only broadcasts a snowy picture, as you’ll see in the embedded screen shot below.

With the DHS and FEMA both working in harmony to marginalize and paint targets on the backs of Christian, conservative Americans, along with the embarrassing defeat the federal government experienced with the Bundy ranch incident, it’s highly likely that Obama sent his minions to silence the voices of dissent. After all, they went to Washington to demand the impeachment of Obama and the removal of every other tyrant in Congress and you know damned well that none of those people would allow such a thing.

The mainstream media has chosen to ignore this story and there’s a good reason why, this is more than likely the start of the silencing of dissent so that our leaders can continue with unchecked power. We saw the start of it in Nevada but there were too many cameras. This time they’ve been much smarter, and that’s something we should all be worried about.

Neither Connors nor the representative for Operation American Spring returned requests for comment.

Freesu-san #fundie deviantart.com

For starters, is marriage very important? Of course it is. It is certainly not a toy in which people use and dump. Some say it is "a union between two people" or "it's all about love and romance". But is that really it? Is there really more to marriage than the two mentioned above?

When you hear the word marriage, its earliest use of that very English word dates back to the 13th century. However, this beautiful union is more valuable than we can ever think. Having said so, there is indeed more to marriage than just "love and romance" as the world so claims; but unfortunately, many seem to deny that.

Who created marriage in the first place? God did. In the book of Genesis, highlights God's plan for marriage as it says:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." ~ Genesis 1:27-28
Now some in today's world may ask "If God is the author of marriage, did He create/encourage same-sex 'marriage'?" Of course not. Why would He encourage such sodomy practice in the first place?

As we are all aware, this is a major issue that has been debated across the globe. When it comes to homosexuality, the Bible does clearly forbids it. In countries such as Spain and Argentina that have allowed this practice, it has created a great deal of damage, to the point it even destroyed many families, and it is a very grave injustice to equality. Even in Netherlands, there has been a significant fall in the marriage rate since the day marriage was redefined. In France, there have been continuous large scale protests against this practice, even after the law was passed. In this century we live in, homosexuality is considered normal by many people. Whenever it is mentioned, it is not uncommon to hear someone ask "What's wrong with two people of the same gender falling in love? Isn't it normal?" The answers to these questions can be found in none other than the Bible.

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

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

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

If anybody has ever attended a wedding, notice that the minister says:

We have gathered here in the presence of God, to witness the union between this man and this woman in holy matrimony.

Now that is acknowledging that God is the author of marriage! Not the people, not the government, but God alone. He joined the very first couple as husband and wife, and that couple was Adam and Eve. And so marriage, being a union between a man and a woman is perfect, unique, and beautiful.

As for same-sex 'marriage', this practice now itself has consequences in three perspectives:

Equality-wise, the bill itself has no respect for equality whatsoever, as it will only not only destroy the true meaning of marriage. It will has no respect for freedom of conscience, and harsh restrictions of freedom of speech. An example of this, is the case of an evangelist named Tony Miano, who was arrested in London for using "homophobic" language whilst preaching from 1 Thessalonians 4:1-12, where it speaks on sexual immorality.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2vu9C… (In the video the police arrive at 25 minutes and 37 seconds and Mr. Miano was arrested at 38 minutes and 11 seconds)
Social-wise, it will promote more adultery, more child abuse, encourage more divorces among heterosexual married couples. Having mentioned of child abuse, is the case of a small boy who was abused by two homosexual men: christiannews.net/2013/07/06/h…

Children are one of the greatest gifts from God, and are also the heart of marriage. It is important for them to be trained in the right direction, the way of the Lord. The Bible says in Proverbs 22:6 "Direct your children onto the right path, and when they are older, they will not leave it." But in today's world, they are forced to watch this horror happening in their lifetime, just like what happened to that little boy who got sexually abused by the two homosexual 'dads'. At worse, they are being taught that this sodomy practice is okay, when clearly it's not. Its abnormal, and this false teaching will lead children to Hell. And each child deserves a mother and a father, and gay parenting denies such a gold standard, as the new law does nothing but fulfill the selfish desires of the adults, instead of the well-being of the children.

If two men parent a child, they are discriminating against the mother. And if two women parent a child, they are discriminating against the father, cos the child is entitled to his/her biological mother and father.

SEE: www.thepublicdiscourse.com/201…

AND: gnli.christianpost.com/video/1…

AND: fcu777.deviantart.com/journal/…

In case you haven't noticed, families will be badly affected in every single way possible, since homosexuality is also a marriage destroyer. With that being said, a recent case of a woman whose heart is now broken and devastated when her husband, not only divorced her for his homosexual "lover", but also took THEIR two children with him by force, to the point that they are even suffered identity issues: www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/m…

And linked to social-wise, spiritual-wise, having mentioned of the increase of more child abuse, adultery and divorce, they are classified as sins. The practice itself will even promote more sin, such as lust, incest, polygamy, bestiality and immorality, turning the 21st century into Sodom and Gomorrah all over again, and eventually lead this very nation to Hell fire (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). It will even surprise you that recent studies show that children living in gay-affirming countries are extremely likely to be sexually molested by homosexuals: www.lifesitenews.com/news/posi…

But then again, same-sex marriage is a sin in God's eyes, regardless of man's laws.

As this sinful nature demands acceptance and inclusion, it does nothing but destroy the nation as a whole.

The Bible even says that the devil is there to kill, steal, and destroy. By introducing same sex 'marriage', it is one of his many devious attempts to crumble down a nation, and to shut up the Truth. But one thing most people forgot is that the Word of God still stands, whether they like it or not. And its funny how the LGBT activists like to take the Bible out of context and twist it to suit their sins, to the point they even claim that the verses that clearly speak against homosexuality are "being misused" or "taken out of context", which is clearly a flawed and hypocritical argument, that is only based on man's desire for them to be comfortable with their sinful lifestyles. Some of todays Christians will even deny that Jesus clearly said that marriage is indeed between one man and one woman.


Marriage is, and always will be, a marital devotion between two parties; a man and a woman to be exact, and that's what marriage should be. That is the true definition of marriage. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

What is really disappointing and sickening, is that most of today's churches are watering down the Truth, to the extend that some are even accepting what is a sin before God as 'normal' all in the name of 'equality and acceptance'. Some are even too afraid to even speak out the Truth, coming up with the "We don't to offend anybody" excuse, only to be 'appealing' to the world and not to God (Luke 9:26).

But then, as these signs of the end are happening around us, we believers must not remain stagnant and idle about it. Its time to put it to action!

It's time we take a stand and speak out the Truth of what marriage truly is, which is defined by God, as a union between a man and a woman!

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Who's paying PR firms to shill Sandy Hook TWO YEARS & counting?

Really? Like, who would pay for TWO SOLID YEARS to shill Sandy Hook?

That's a pretty long term interest, wouldn't you say? And some pretty deep pockets?

I seriously, seriously doubt they thought they'd have to be paying people in 2015 to sit at those consoles, typing away on GLP. But--they're paying. No one shills for free.

I believe there are truly dedicated individual citizens who remain on this topic because it's important to them. No doubt. We know Sandy Hook is a lie one way or another and we're still here because we care. I really don't think that, on the other side, there are passionate supporters of the official story who have made it their personal goal to defend it, but I guess I'll allow for a small possibility. Why would they need to, though? The official story has won, hands down. What is there to be passionate about? The shills posing as "official-story citizens" tried to create this whole "we will oppose the evil truthers!!" astroturfing meme but obviously that's a sham and no one bought it.

But I feel very, very strongly that Robert Riversong, for example, is an example of someone paid to respond to every Sandy Hook post in his work sphere (and you can tell he is more than fed up with it). There is no question in my mind that he is paid to do this, none. So he's an example of someone that I know in my gut is paid by someone for his efforts.

Paid by WHOM?

Who would give a flying you-know-what two years later?? The public has already bought the official story, the school is torn down, Sedensky et al have gotten away with making a mockery of the justice system, and an apathetic, unhtinking public doesn't give a damn. it's over. So who in God's name feels they need to continue to "guide public opinion" on this topic??

Why on earth do they care what some subsection of the public thinks anyway?

Is there some formula or statistic that shows that if a topic is under discussion by citizens--citizens who for the most part are spinning their wheels in frustration but not getting anywhere legally--that under these conditions, someone who WILL do something about it is statistically likely to read about and do something?

Are there going to be jury trials? Do they think civil suit judges are going to be affected by GLP discussions??

Are they afraid we might slowly work out what really happened, and that the logic of it will be so self-evident that a pesky journalist will actually take notice?

At any rate, someone IS paying someone to shill Sandy Hook. What's kind of chilling to me is that the longer this is true, the more powerful and wealthy the entity paying for the shilling must be.

Who benefits the most from trying to convince people no one died?

I really want to believe that Sandy Hook is just a case of local coverup that snowballed, and I still do think that's the most likely scenario. But what's bothering me lately is that there is at least one scary option on the list of reasons for shilling Sandy Hook two years and counting, and that is if it really was a false flag.

"It was a hoax" was really just a gateway drug to "no one died," and that would benefit anyone conceived of and executed a false flag 12/14/2012. Maybe at the topmost level, or maybe someone like a Bloomberg or worse who decided it was worth slaughtering people to get gun control. If you don't believe me, watch how the false flag threads morphed into the no one died threads. Who benefits? Someone who actually pulled a false flag, that's who.

But it's a little murky, because "no one died" works nicely as away to reduce interest and concern and outrage--and I guess in the end that would benefit any coverup of a crime where people died.

So whether it's Washington trying to cover up a false flag, or an acutely embarrassing foreign terrorist attack, or a privately-conceived "for the greater good" slaughter, or Governor Malloy freaking out about state liability (but why continue to shill now?), or even just Newtown lawyers--the "no one died" meme benefits them all. And, finally, it also befits the Big Ammo/NRA/Vision for a Conservative America/whatever groups.

Because "no one died" means anyone on the above lists is "bad, but not that bad."

So we're left with the aggravating question: Who would pay PR firms good money to still be shilling Sandy Hook for over two years?? Who pays Robert Riversong to come out of hiding every time I say "the ambulances couldn't get in?"

Cui bono? Is it so hard to figure out because there are actually multiple PR firms shilling for multiple reasons?

Somebody somewhere is paying for this, and certainly out of all those people sitting at consoles, one of them must be willing to talk. Maybe we're going at this the wrong way--instead of chasing down the big guys, we need to find the little guys and ask them who the hell is paying them and why. Certainly at least one American has got to be saying to him/herself by now, "What the hell am I doing this for?"

YeshuMarine #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

Not one single contradiction eh? I have pointed out many self contradicting statements. You have failed to respond to them with an objection. Silence is acceptance. Therefore, you have agreed to many of the contradictions I have provided. And as such, since you have agreed to them, and now wish to turn around and disagree with them, you are refuting your own statement yet again.

And, if I wish to refute your Atheism thats simple. If all truth is relative, and that is absolutely true, all truth is not relative, and that is absolutely false. Position no. 1, Relativism is false.

Position no. 2 has been refuted with the Anti-Atheistic Argument, which is a refutation of the Objective position of Atheism. Hence your Atheism has been refuted.

Ann Barnhardt #fundie barnhardt.biz

Next, the sexual fetish revolving around excrement is not as uncommon as one would think. If one stops and thinks about anal sodomy, oral sodomy, and about the very common fetish among faggots for oral-anal sex (referred to as “rimming” or “eating ass”), one realizes very quickly that the consumption of excrement is common amongst faggots. In my Diabolical Narcissism video, I explain that all aberrosexualities, by definition, revolve around the demonic emotional palate of anger, hatred, jealousy and fear. Can you imagine the depths of the hatred faggots and other sex perverts must feel for their sodomitical partners, and for themselves, to ask others to do something so utterly vile as get fecal matter in their mouth? Can you imagine the depths of depravity of a human being that would consent to do such a thing themselves?

I first came across coprophilia when I read “The Pink Swastika”, a book about the homosexuality of Hitler and nearly all of the upper-level Nazis. Hitler was a sodomite, but like most sodomites did have sexual encounters with women. In Hitler’s case, there were four women that he had sexual encounters with (and Eva Braun was not one of them), and each of the four went on to attempt suicide. Two were successful in murdering themselves, two failed. What would cause women to attempt suicide after sex? Having Adolf Hitler defecate into their mouths.

I'm nothing with out you #fundie forum.myspace.com

[If I were God for a day...]

first I would take my dyslexia away, big one there.... then I would make it so every class I'm in, I get an A+ every time... then I would have famliy guy be on 24/7 on its on channel for all people and be free too..... I would make my self the CO of wal-mart, I've puched carts for them long enough.... get my self a Nissan 350Z Touring, Subaru B9 Tribeca, Infiniti G35, and one more scion XB, and make it so gas would never run out, and be $0.25 a gallon, no FREE GAS, thats better, lol :P, .. but in the end I would just want to see things the way, God does... so I know why things happn the why they do....

Tyson Fury #fundie bbc.co.uk

In the aftermath of his win in Dusseldorf, Fury had said: "I'm not sexist. I believe a woman's best place is in the kitchen and on her back. That's my personal belief. Making me a good cup of tea, that's what I believe."
He has also drawn criticism for saying that fellow SPOTY nominee Jessica Ennis-Hill "slaps up well".
But Fury, who refers to himself as the 'Gypsy King' because of his Irish traveller heritage, told BBC Radio 2's Jeremy Vine programme on Monday: "I love my women and what I said goes for my wife alone. She knows her place, I know her place. That's our culture of people.
"That's nothing to do with the world or anybody else and if I was a normal person, I wasn't in the spotlight, no-one would be making a scene about what I say to my wife."
The new world champion has also previously said it would only take the legalisation of paedophilia in addition to the decriminalisation of homosexuality and abortion to see "the devil come home".
In an interview he said: "There are only three things that need to be accomplished before the devil comes home: one of them is homosexuality being legal in countries, one of them is abortion and the other one's paedophilia.
"Who would have thought in the '50s and '60s that those first two would be legalised?"

CARM's apologetic page #fundie carm.org


How many children did Abraham have,
one or two?
Genesis 22:2; Hebrews 11:17 and Galatians 4:22
1. One son
A. (Genesis 22:2) - "And He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you."
B. (Hebrews 11:17) - "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son."
2. Two sons
. (Galatians 4:22) - "For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman."
The answer to this apparent contradiction is found in understanding the typological representation of Isaac, Abraham's second born son, as a type of Christ. Abraham had Ishmael by the handmaiden Hagar. But Isaac was the child of promise, not Ishmael: "But God said to Abraham, "Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants shall be named,'" (Gen. 21:12).
If you look at the chart below, you will see the similarities between Isaac and Jesus. In other words, Isaac was a prophetic representation of Jesus. This is why Jesus said, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad," (John 8:56). Abraham had, in a very real sense, seen the gospel presentation in the offering of his son, his "only begotten." So, we see here that the term "only begotten" is in reference to the unique son of God and Isaac was acting out the sacrifice of Christ, prophetically.

Rich #fundie forum.myspace.com

(I have had two abortions. One almost two years ago, and one last September. The only side effects I ever had were mild, temporary, and physical.

Actually, when I went nuts was after my miscarriage, not after my abortions.)

That should worry you.... These side effects are due to conscious-God-given warnings. If you didn't have a problem with killing Your Baby-His Creation; You are in danger of loosing your eternal soul in Hell..... Think about it, I'm Not condemning you. Please ask God for forgiveness-Repent. Seek His will for your life and you'll find a new life that you can flourish in.

Accepting Abundance #fundie acceptingabundance.com

I am a Catholic stay-at-home mother of seven, and I live in the state of Massachusetts where "gay marriage" has been legal for seven years and it's just one aspect of the larger secular agenda. Because we have so many little children, it takes a phenomenal effort to go anywhere. We have only filled our truck with gasoline twice this entire summer vacation. We go to Mass and we go two miles up the road to a small outdoor swimming pool. That's pretty much it.

At the pool this summer there were homosexual couples with children and, while I was polite as my own young daughters doted on the baby with two "mommies", I also held my breath in anticipation of awkward questions - questions I'm not ready to answer. My young daughters are all under the age of eight and they are not old enough to understand why a baby would have two women calling themselves "mommies".

When there were two men relaxing at the side of the pool unnaturally close to each other, effeminately rubbing elbows and exchanging doe-eyes, I was again anxiously watching my children hoping they wouldn't ask questions. They don't see Daddy do that with anyone but Mommy. We haven't been back to the pool for a couple of weeks, except once but it rained. The truth is, now I don't really want to go back.

So what am I harping about?

Today we decided to go to the park. We live near a nice park that is safe, clean and quiet. Two of my daughters were in the sandbox, one on the slide, the other on the swings, and as I lifted the baby out of his stroller I looked up to see four women laughing at a baby boy as he was swinging in one of those bucket baby swings. That seems harmless enough, but I'm so sensitized to the strangeness in my community that I've developed this ever-present jumpiness whenever I'm in public. Sure enough, two of the women, so happy to see a baby boy laughing, embraced and remained standing there rubbing each other's back in a way that was clearly not just friendly affection.

This is my community. I find myself unable to even leave the house anymore without worrying about what in tarnation we are going to encounter. We are responsible citizens. We live by the rules, we pay our taxes, we take care of our things. I'm supposed to be able to influence what goes on in my community, and as a voter I do exercise that right. But I'm outnumbered. I can't even go to normal places without having to sit silently and tolerate immorality. We all know what would happen if I asked two men or two women to stop displaying, right in front of me and my children, that they live in sodomy.

dogartdog #fundie forums.ebay.com

Jesus fulfilled 126 Old Testament Bible prophecies about Himself in his short 33 years on earth.

The Mathematical Odds of Jesus Fulfilling Prophecy

The following probabilities are taken from Peter Stoner in Science Speaks (Moody Press, 1963) to show that coincidence is ruled out by the science of probability.

Stoner says that by using the modern science of probability in reference to just eight prophecies, 'we find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 1017."

That would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. In order to help us comprehend this staggering probability, Stoner illustrates it by supposing that "we take 1017 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep.

"Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one.

What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man."

Stoner considers 48 prophecies and says, "we find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10157, or 1 in

100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

The estimated number of electrons in the universe is around 1079. It should be quite evident that Jesus did not fulfil the prophecies by accident."

SEVENTH HEAD #conspiracy #crackpot godlikeproductions.com

IT'S JUST ALIENS! (coming in the next weeks).

Maybe some of you already know me and my story.

Mid-JAN 2020, when the covid-19 just popped up in the threads and news, I announced on GLP something BIG coming. Here we are with the worldwide pandemic and the start of the world economic collapse.

Since years, when many wrong assumptions about the biblical end times were debated, I said that the Anointed One, the ruler, would come before early MAY 2020, deadline for the 1,260 days Two Witnesses' ministry to begin, one of them being that Anointed One (not Christ who, however, comes with him).

I also repeatedly said that the angels of God are benevolent aliens who will take us two (Eve and myself) at Orléans, France, to later become William and Kate in UK as the future Two Witnesses.

One of the main ET intel (mid-2009) mentioned something BIG starting on 'Sunday from 16:00 / 16:30' beyond which we will be provided with a triple reward once back on earth.

It happens that we have a major 'May cycle' (a yearly period starting on May, with a longer cycle of 7 years). The same way Sunday is the 7th day of the week, the period MAY 2019 - APR 2020 is the seventh year of that longer cycle, with a year being a 'day' for them, and major turning points occured in MAY 2006 and MAY 2013.

With a 'day' being a year, an 'hour' is a fortnight (15 days). On JAN 1st 2020 it was '16:00' of that 7th cycle / 'day'. The covid-19 story started to pop up, as induced in that vision, between '16:00 and 16:30' (first half of JAN 2020).

So, once the earth will fully struggle with this virus, and that the world economic collapse will be inevitable, the aliens will enter the place in APR 2020 throught the Cambridge family, as the new William & Kate (future Two Witnesses), the new George (Christ returned) and his two siblings, Charlotte and Louis (two angels), LEADERS OF THE BENEVOLENT ALIENS, coming to fight the future antichrist (Harry once Satan is hurled down in his body in 3.5 years from now) and his minions (fallen angels).

So, technically speaking, the end times, from the Bible perspective, will start in APR 2020!

We expect, without certainty, however, the Orléans UFO event to take place next FRIDAY 13, still 3/13/20 in one of the US time zone.

From that moment on, the earth will start to count the UFO cases like it counts the covid-19 cases. First slowly, then with clusters, then with massive appearances.

GLP is always ahead of events, indeed.

Aaron #racist baptistboard.com

Millions of Christians believe in two covenants, one for the Gentiles and one for the Jews. They, therefore, believe in two means of salvation. One through faith in Christ and the other by lineage.

Is there any other nation who collectively asserts that Christ was a lying, bastard son of Mary, that millions of Christians assert to be the "apple of God's eye?" In every way Judaism is the enemy of Christian faith, yet it is esteemed by many to be the special beneficiaries of the blessings of God.

A very dangerous enemy indeed.

EdwinWillers #fundie christianforums.com

What would happen if same-sex marriage were legalised?

"Population Growth" would become a thing of the past.
Abortions would decrease.
Planned Parenthood could finally change their name to Planned Promiscuity.
The ideal "masculine man" would speak with a lisp, sport limp wrists, wear sleeveless Ts and leather short shorts.
The ideal "feminine woman" would sport crew-cuts, plaid shirts, and a pear-shaped body.
The Super Bowl would move to large urban airport restrooms.
The Sports Illustrated Swim Suit edition would feature two Teds, one Billy, and an angry Bertha.
The "battle of the sexes" would become a "battle for sex."
More men holding men's hands in public; more men kissing men in public.
More women kissing women in public.
"Tolerance" will continue to spread.
Perversion will continue to increase.
Men with men committing indecent acts will continue to increase.
Women exchanging the natural function for the unnatural will increase.
Men and women will increasingly see it less fit to acknowledge God.
Depravity will continue to increase.
Hatred of God will continue to rise.
.
.
.
And opponents will be labeled bigots by those more "tolerant" than they.

majinsoftware #racist resistance.com

(In a topic asking why white women marry outside of their race)

I think i have a idea why white women would like non-white men. It probley comes down to them feeling better about them selfs and having more contol. How easy would it be to feel good about your self when your always with some one that is less then your self (being non-white). If they were with a white partner they would be more equal and have more expected from them.

Well it is sort of the same for my friends brother who has a non-white girl friend. I asked him why and he said because she is easy to control and doesnt expect as much of him as any of his EX white girl friends.

Pastor Ken Hutcherson #fundie thinkprogress.org

[Pastor Ken Hutcherson testifying against a bill in WA to legalize same-sex marriage]

I think that you are saying, as a committee and as a legislature that you know better than God, since you think that it is a very minded, bigoted, not understanding and loving thing to limit marriage to one man and one woman…If you pass this bill you’re just as narrow minded, you are just as bigoted and you’re just as unloving to everything and everyone who wants to get married outside of one man and one woman, two men and two women. But since you think God is not smart enough to make it fair, you’re saying that you’re smart enough to make it fair.

homosexualityexplained #fundie homosexualityexplained.com

Homosexuality is not natural, and it deviates from GOD’S OBVIOUS DESIGN. If the laws of nature started mimicking homosexuality, and positives were attracted to positives, the entire universe would collapse! I’m showing you that male and female is a concept that permeates everything we are, even to the way charged particles operate! It is the Law, established by the all-knowing Lawgiver.

Men having sex with men means positive with positive (male organ to male organ), and where is the organ built to receive? Women having sex with women means negative with negative (female organ with female organ), and where is the organ to give? Do you see this? It doesn’t matter how many degrees a person may have. To deny this simple wisdom that even a child can understand, is rebellion. Rebellion is the root to blindness to God and His obvious principles.

A man with a man is confusion. A woman with a woman is confusion. There is no organ built for it. No children can come of such unions, unless man plays scientist in these matters. No life comes from homosexuality; it is lifeless. It can bring forth no children. It also makes the homosexual lifeless. It is not in line with life-after-death (according to scripture, homosexuals do not go to heaven...it’s a blanket statement). Isn’t it odd, that if two males are together, one inevitably becomes a female: female mannerisms, speech, etc. If two females, one of the two takes on masculine facial features as if on testosterone. Is this, too, a mark of judgment? A better way to look at this is: if you tell God no, you inevitably tell the devil yes.

HP Mageson666 #fundie ancient-forums.com

In Buddhism the only being that makes any sense is Mara. He is the god of desire and fulfilments of material existence. Buddha just states have no desire's so that the energy of the elements that forms you will dissipate so when you die the psychic aspects of the elements will fizzle out on the astral and you will cease to exist as its desire that holds them together and gives them meaning. As Buddhism preaches you have no soul, no Atman. Thus you don't actually exist as a soul consciousness. What you perceive as yourself is illusion. Your just a recycling of five elements nothing else. When you realize this deeply its suppose to cause a psychic wave that releases the power of the elements causing the dissolution of existence upon your death. This is the meaning of enlightenment in Buddhism.

Nirvana in Buddhism means literally extinction. Buddhism states EXISTANCE is suffering and that EXISTANCE has an END. That end is EXTINCTION. So if you obtain Nirvana you literally cease to exist. Lights out forever. Mara is the god of existence and life. Buddha is the god of death and annihilation. Buddhism exists to bring death, destruction, demoralization and annihilation on all life. Buddha is actually an evil character that preaches hatred for all life and the purposes of life. Buddha preached an evil doctrine that is identical to the evil doctrine the fictional Nazarene preaches on the mount. This has been noted by scholars. There is nothing spiritual about Buddhism, its annihilationist nihilism.

This is why having Buddha statues is heretical in Buddhism the form of Buddha that of Gautama is actually Mara. Because its an existing being thus the realm of Mara. MA...water....RA...fire, the two elements that generate all existence forever. The actual Buddha is literally nothing, total extinction. Theravada Buddhism is stated to be the original sect and doctrine of Buddhism. What is obvious is there is a lot of talk about Buddhism and its becoming the new trendy, trend. But no actual mention of what Buddhism is as the core of its system and meaning. Just buzz words. The Buddhist Theocrats are also purposely pushing the trendy buzz words and feel goodism. Without telling anyone what Buddhism actually is. Read on to understand why.

Its simple Buddhism states existence is suffering and suffering has an end which sums up its four noble "truths." Which sums up the whole system. Suffering is existence....what is the opposite of existence? Extinction, what does Nirvana mean in Pali: EXTINCTION. Buddhism states there is no soul nor eternal I or self. The person is a collection of only five aggravates or elemental forces of a consciousness that simply reform into each new incarnation according to what karma has ripened a restacking of the same deck. These forces are held together by a karmic glue and desire is what causes karma to continue on and solidify the aggravates together keeping one in the wheel of suffering which is existence.

The Buddhist meditation system is basically void mediation and nothing else. Its a form of introspection that allows one to trace the roots of desire and dismantle them within the psyche. So that eventually when they die. The five aggravates will dissipate and they will cease to exist and become totally extinct. This is obtainment of Nirvana which means EXTINCTION. Buddhism states the biggest illusion and desire that causes one to stay in the cycle of existence thus life. Is the belief one has a soul an eternal I that goes on. Enlightenment in Buddhism is totally accepting the ridiculous belief that there is no self and one does not exist. Ones existence as a self is maya. This belief acceptance is believed to be the switch hit that dissolves the karmic bonds totally and allows for them to reach total Extinction, Nirvana upon death.

Buddhism is a materialistic, annihilationist death cult. That preaches a strange sentimental, radical egalitarianism which is why the current Liberal West finds it so appealing. The ideology preached in the Buddhist Dhammapada is identical to the Sermon On The Mount of Christianity. Which is an enemy program. Which points to who is behind Buddhism. Who benefits from removing spiritual knowledge and replacing it with a paleo, Communistic system. Now the Buddhist system furthered laid down the following. The science of mantra and astrology was banned. And the practices of Yoga [Kundalini Yoga is Yoga] where also banned from being taught. The original eight fold path which survived in Tantra which is the esoteric knowledge of the Veda. Was replaced by the Jainist eight fold path. Which leads to nowhere spiritual. The Tantra texts uniformly agree Mantra is the number one most important tool for enlightenment which Buddhism by order removes.

Its obvious what went on here. They removed the actual spiritual knowledge needed for enlightenment which is defined in the East and West as the ascension of the serpent [Kundalini Yoga] a large part of the Magnum Opus is based on astrology which in Vedic means the science of light. And replaced it with meaningless materialistic nonsense which leaves a person trapped in the cycle of suffering and does not free them from anything. They stay in a spiritual dormant state and hope for extinction of their being from all existence. As Nirvana. With the technical or symbolic language of Buddhism its stolen from the original Vedic tradition and corrupted into the opposite meaning. They changed the wine but kept the bottle. Its well established Siddhartha never existed. He is a stolen and rewrote Sun God.

Unnamed men #fundie telegraph.co.uk

A waitress in a cafe in central Nice has filed a police complaint after she was allegedly assaulted by two men because she refused to “stop serving alcohol” on the first day of the holy month of Ramadan.

The alleged beating in the French Riviera town historically famed for its sun, palm-fringed beach front and quality of life, has prompted a heated political debate over whether the country is increasingly becoming prey to “religious fundamentalism and ghettoised communities”.

The issue has become increasingly fraught less than a year before presidential elections and just six months after Islamist attacks in Paris killed 130.

The incident took place less than a week before football fans descend on the sun-kissed town for Sunday’s Euro 2016 football match between Poland and Northern Ireland.

The waitress, a French 30-year-old of Tunisian origin, said she was serving drinks at Monday lunch on the terrace of the Vitis Café on Nice’s rue Lamartine, near the rue d’Anglais, when two men started haranguing her, insulting the young woman because she was serving alcoholic beverages to customers.

“I was all alone in the bar when two passers-by suddenly appeared. They pointed to the bottles of alcohol behind the bar, then one of them told me in Arabic: ‘You should be ashamed of yourself serving alcohol in the Ramadan period.’

Ramadan traditionally begins the morning after the sighting of the crescent moon. Marking the divine revelation received by Prophet Mohammed, the month sees Muslim faithful abstain from eating, drinking, smoking and having sex from dawn to dusk.

They break the fast with a meal known as iftar and before dawn have a second opportunity to eat and drink during suhur. The month is followed by the Eid al-Fitr festival.

The waitress said one of the two men then shouted: “If I was God, I would have hung you.”

Unfazed by his threatening behaviour, the waitress shot back: “You’re not God to judge me.”

The men launched into a tirade, calling her a “dirty whore” and left the cafe in a hurry. A few seconds later, however, the venue's CCTV footage reportedly shows the two men turn round abruptly and one of them rush towards her and violently slap the waitress in the face, knocking her to the floor.

“The whole scene was recorded by the security cameras that I transferred to the police,” said the bar’s owner, Nacim.

In shock, the waitress didn’t phone the police straight away and instead contacted the owner.

He persuaded her to file a legal complaint for “voluntary violence”. The two men have reportedly been identified. One of them is known to be an illegal migrant who is a notoriously threatening figure in the district, but both are currently at large.

Stephanie Relfe #fundie metatech.org

[I was about to submit this to CSTDT until I read the part after "What can you do?"]

At around 1 a.m. on Sunday, April 26th, two doctoral students at the Louisiana State University (LSU) were mysteriously found dead at the bottom of a swimming pool. 28-year-old Ishita Maity and 25-year-old Anton Joe were with the schools physics and astronomy department with Maity studying theoretical astrophysics while Anton was a 3rd-year graduate student studying theoretical gravity.

Maity was an author of one of the journal ‘New Astronomy’s’ most popular recent papers entitled “Black hole spin dependence of general relativistic multi-transonic accretion close to the (event) horizon”;

Joes’ most recent paper was … written for the European Organization For Nuclear Research, also known as CERN.

There is much more important information in the rest of this article is excellent. Please go here

The author Stefan Sandford points out that this part of CERN:

image

reminds us of the statue of Shiva, the god of destruction, which is outside CERN. Why would a so-called scientific establishment spend many thousands of dollars creating such a thing, and put lights around it to make sure you can see it at all times?

[...]

THE ABYSS

We would like to pay particular attention to this part of Sandford’s article:

“There are also several recent videos about the possible dangers of CERN including the 2nd one, a documentary from FBCFilms called “CERN: Opening The Abyss

That word “abyss” is most interesting, because the French Finance Minister used that same very word, when he made the really bizarre statement:

“We are on the edge of a climatic abyss. We have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Abyss:

1) A very frightening or dangerous situation, or one in which there seems to be no hope

2) a bottomless gulf or pit

And remember these guys are all lawyers and every word is important. Remember Bill Clinton when he said

“It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”.

[...]

THE POPE CONFIRMS SEPTEMBER 2014, 2015

The Pope confirmed that Sep 24 2015 (in the USA) is very, very relevant, because he made the bizarre step of telling us on Feb 5 that he will speak to congress about ‘climate change’ on Sep 24 2015! The same date! What has the pope got to do with climate change? With the USA government? Why did he tell us so such a long time in advance? Was this a signal to certain groups that something is getting ready to happen?

We know that many Satanists dedicate their lives to the Pope, because of what Svali told us.

Because no one believes anything the government says, would a final, last minute, “so long, pal” announcement by the Pope be what they have planned? If he finished his speech and it happened within the hour, no one would have a chance to react?

We know one thing – a giant meteor hit would certainly cause the climate to change! See what just a small meteorite can do

What can you do?

While we would like to believe that people are rising in their vibration, and that we are about to break free of this matrix, evidence is to the contrary. It seems more like we are devolving into Idiocracy and Sodom & Gomorrah. For example, how can we have a high and holy vibration when and one porn website in the USA gets 4.4 billion page views a month, and the United Nations said there are now 4 million child porn websites. [...]

It sure looks as though something is coming. We believe that for most people (that is, not the oligarchs), it will be fast and painless. [...]

We recommend you do these things:

1) Make sure you have enough food, water and supplies so you don’t have to leave your house for at least 3 weeks, if necessary.

2) Pray for guidance. Move if God tells you to.

3) Prepare for the next life. Especially pray for –

Forgiveness of anything bad you have done,

Family line curses and

Sins of past lives,

to ensure that if you have to come back again, it’s a whole lot better than this one.

Forgive anyone who has harmed you, to set yourself free, so that you can move on and don’t have to be with that person next lifetime.

4) Know that God loves you and does not blame you for the mess this world is in. The major blame is on Satan, the reptilians and the mind control and massive systems set up by the fallen angels. (For example, they drop aerosolized thought control vaccines on us, as shown by this video from the Pentagon).

Be happy. Have no fear. If we leave our bodies, it will be fast and painless for most of the people on earth. To learn more, learn about how great most people feel when they drop their body, during near-death experiences.

MOST IMPORTANTLY OF ALL!

Remember, if they send aliens to pretend to save you, remember they are just coming to stock up their freezers and torture chambers.

David J. Stewart and David Hyles #fundie godlovespeople.com

Psalms 11:7, “For the righteous LORD loveth righteousness; his countenance doth behold the upright.”

I very much admire the following words below, penned by David Hyles to address his army of internet critics; but first, let me give you some introduction. David is the beloved son of Dr. Jack Hyles (1926-2001), the legendary former pastor of the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana for over 42 years. It is no secret that all humans are sinners by birth, inherent to our nature. David Hyles' has been much criticized for his sins and bad choices in life, but he has repented openly and apologized. Yet, the diatribes (thundering verbal attacks) from David critics are relentless, merciless and saturated with hated.

The Bible teaches that some people's sins are open (known) beforehand here on earth (such as David's). But the Bible teaches that everyone else's sins will follow them and be revealed in eternity, causing shame and reproach...

1st Timothy 5:24, “Some men's sins are open beforehand,
going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.”

David Hyles' alleged sins are openly known beforehand, just as the Bible teaches; but every person who has ever been born is a sinner and our sins will be made open for all to see in eternity. No one will be able to retain a cocky and arrogant attitude toward others who have sinned when we stand in judgment before God. If the truth be known, everyone is a horrible sinner. People who are fortunate enough to live above reproach find it easy to condemn others who openly sin (or their sins become openly revealed). If all of our sins were known, no one would ever be able to slander, gossip or criticize others who sin. NO ONE is a shining example to be held up as the standard of perfection, except the precious Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the spotless “Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

In his own words, David Hyles appeals to his critics with God's love, pointing out five evils caused by their hurtful attacks...

“First you are hurting the lost. Several years ago I worked with a young man who knew I was a Christian. This young man was searching. He had dabbled into several religions in his search. He respected me and began to question me about Christ. God was working in his life and I felt he was very close to accepting Christ as his Savior. Someone, in an attempt to hurt my business began circulating an email through my workplace and he received it, anonymously, of course. He never again listened to me and eventually our paths parted. I pray every day for God to save him. It was not MY sins that turned him away. No, actually it was the evil spirit of those my accusers who claimed to be Christians. He wanted no part of that.

Secondly, you are hurting the fallen. Countless Christians have seen what you have done to me and to others who have fallen and decided to just disappear rather than being restored. I believe that there have been suicides and other tragedies that could have been prevented if a fallen brother or sister had felt there was hope. You diatribes on your filthy forums serve Satan’s purpose well.

Thirdly you are hurting those who I have hurt. Please hear me on this. Every fallen pastor or Christian leaves hurting people in their sinful wake. I did. I know that. It breaks my heart. David did too and his heart was broken. There is little we can do to repair the damage. Their deliverance must come from God and it will not come from revenge or retribution. It will come only from forgiveness. Please allow God to be God and to deal with his children as He will. Stay out of it and encourage those who have been hurt to find their peace from God not from your vigilante system of internet justice.

Allow me to elaborate on this just a bit more. People who are hurt by a sinner are destroyed by bitterness. No one’s sin can destroy your life. Our loving Father would not allow that. He stands ready as a loving Father to pick you up and mend your broken heart. Sinners (and that includes us all) do bad things that affect other’s lives. For all have sinned… However, if we get them to take their eyes off of the offender and place it on the Savior they can be healed. Closure does not come from our flawed idea of justice. It comes from letting God heal us even as He deals with the one who offended or hurt us.

Fourthly you are hurting you! The manure you are hurling fails to hit me but your hands sure do smell of the filth you have no business picking up. I am sorry for the pain that makes you feel that somehow you will gain some kind of satisfaction from trying to hurt me. I wish this book could give you the peace you are lacking but I sincerely doubt it will.

Finally and most importantly, you are hurting the Father. I have news for you that is not going to please you, but here goes. GOD LOVES ME and I AM SAVED AND FORGIVEN! I fell but, you see, when a Christian falls we do not fall away from grace, we fall into it, hence the name of this book. I am in His grace and one day I will stand before Him clothed in the righteousness of His Son and not the sin of my own. Why would you dare try and hurt the heart of God? Is it because there is unconfessed sin in your life? Are you so far from Him that you have lost the sweetness of His mercy and grace in your own life? That is sad.”

We are all sinners. Who are you, me or anyone else to condemn someone for their sins. James 4:12, “There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?” God is our eternal Judge, and we are cautioned to be careful how we judge others, for the Lord will treat us the same way that we treat others (Matthew 7:1-5).

I love what David Hyles says about “Fallen Into Grace,” rather than “falling from grace” as Calvinists errantly teach. When the apostle Paul speaks of falling from grace, he simply means that a person who rejects Christ cannot be saved any other way. Galatians 5:4, “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” False teachers say that a believer loses their salvation when they sin. The Bible calls them liars. Being born-again is a birth (a spiritual, second, new birth), and is as irreversible as the first, physical, natural birth. If saved, always saved!

Some people are so filled with malicious hatred that they have decided that David Hyles could never be saved. The Bible warns in Matthew 7:1-5 that God will one day judge critics and scorners by the SAME measure by which they have judged others. So if you mistreat someone and condemn them without mercy, God will treat you the same one day unless you repent. I would 10,000 times rather be a humiliated big sinner in men's eyes, than to be a self-righteous hypocrite who's filled with hatred and scorn toward someone who has sinned. To point a finger of condemnation at anyone is to have three of our own fingers pointing right back at us.

When a Christian sins, we are not fallen from grace; but rather, we have fallen into God's wondrous grace. God's mercy is abundant. The Lord promises to forgive those who come to Him. 1st John 1:9, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

I also love what David Hyles says...

“I am in His grace and one day I will stand before Him clothed in the righteousness of His Son and not the sin of my own.”

David Hyles as a genuine Christian fully realizes that salvation is only possible through Christ's imputed righteousness, and not by any self-righteousness of our own. Christ bore our burden of sins upon Himself on the cross. There's no way that you nor I, nor anyone else, could ever bear the weight of our own sins. Have you ever found yourself looking at an impossible situation, wondering how your life could ever become so messed up, realizing that there's no way humanly possible to ever make things right? I've been there! But when I had those thoughts the Lord impressed a truth upon my heart, saying, “You're right, you could never make things right, no matter how hard you try. That's why I went to the cross and paid your sin debt... so I could make things right!” It's Jesus precious blood that He sacrificed for our sins that makes everything right in God's eyes!

Many religious people are trying to make things right in their own human strength, as did Adam with his fig-leaf religion. God rejected Adam's fig-leaves and killed an innocent animal instead, shedding its blood which represented the coming Lamb of God, the Messiah, Who would one day die on the cross for the sins of the world. Thank you Lord Jesus!

Conclusion

When the truth is known, ALL PEOPLE will be exposed as wicked and shameful sinners. When asked to give the name of the worst and most horrible sinners we know, most people tend to think of people besides them self. This is the hypocritical nature of humanity. This is why all gossip is sinful and wrong, that is, because we are just as sinful as the people that we criticize. James 4:12, “There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?” No one has any right to talk bad in public about Christians who have fallen. Satan always brings up past sins to discourage us, but the Holy Spirit only convicts us about present sins that need to be confessed and forsaken.

A person is never more like Satan than when they point a finger of damnation toward others. Revelation 12:10, “And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.” Satan accuses believers round-the-clock before the throne of God, continually pointing out the hypocrisy, sins and failures of God's children. Most gossip is true, which is what makes it so dangerous. Proverbs 11:9, “An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbour: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered.”

David's enemies will condemn him to his grave, as did king David's enemies in the Bible; but thanks be to God, only God can condemn a person to Hell and there is no condemnation upon Christian believers who have faith in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). The Lord showed me one day while reading the Psalms that the reason for king David's enemies was his sins of adultery, conspiracy and murder. The words “enemy” and “enemies” appear 103 times in Psalms. David's enemies condemned him to his grave, continually trying to destroy him, but God protected him.

The Lord knows that I have many enemies as a fighting fundamental preacher, and many people slander and say garbage about me all the time. I don't read gossip, so it cannot affect me. I don't know what my critics say about me. I'm too busy serving the Lord to stop and see how I'm doing or what critics are saying about me. The only opinion that matters to me is God's. Revelation 4:11 says that we were all created for God's pleasure.

Thank God for the gift of His dear only begotten Son, Jesus, the Christ. If it weren't for God's love, mercy and grace that sent Jesus to Calvary to shed His blood for our sins, we would all be doomed to eternity in Hell.

Ironically, the very scorners who accuse fallen Christians of not being saved are likely not saved themselves. The Bible teaches that hatred for others is a sign that we've never been saved. 1st John 3:15-16, “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.” Dr. Hyles often stated in his sermons that, “The Christian army is the only army in the world that slays its wounded.” This is because most believers are carnally-minded, walking in the flesh instead of the Spirit. Galatians 5:25, “If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.” Every Christian believer has the Holy Spirit living within their body (1st Corinthians 3:17-18; Romans 8:9). The Bible is saying in Galatians 3:25 that we ought to also walk in the Spirit Who indwells us. As Christians we continually have to decide whether we are going to walk in the sinful flesh or the Spirit of God Who came to live within us the moment that we were born-again (saved). It's a constant battle (Romans 7:14-25; 1st Peter 2:11).

All men and women are sinners. We are not sinners because we sin; but rather, we sin because we are sinners. Jeremiah 17:9 teaches that the human heart is desperately wicked and deceitful above all else. The Bible plainly teaches that all men are equally as guilty of sin in God's eyes. James 2:10, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” Committing even one sin is enough to send a person to the Lake of Fire forever and ever. That's why God sent His Son into the world to die on Calvary's cross to pay our sin debt.

So please remember, whoever you may be, that when we sin as Christian believers we don't fall from grace; but rather, we fall into God's grace because of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.

JohnR7 #fundie christianforums.com

[Replying to 'So which diseases does sin cause?']That would be part two, and we would need to go back into the teaching of Moses. But one thing that would be covered by Moses, is any disease that could be found in Egypt at that time. Ex 15:26... 'If you diligently heed the voice of the Lord your God... I will put none of the diseases on you which I have brought on the Egyptians. For I am the Lord who heals you.' My sister told me about a book written by a medical doctor called something like: 'none of these diseases'. He talks about Moses and a Bible approach to staying healthy.

The Real Nobody #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

We've Got Aliens With Proof

I figured it out. You can too. But it just depends with your level of connection with the Aliens. Up to about ten years ago I had a lot of communication going back and forth with what I would call Aliens. Not your conventional Aliens like Little Green Men or The Greys. These are Humans. But you can't see them visually except under very special lighting and the angles have a lot to do with it. Then it's possible to get a visual. But then again they are allusive and in complete control of the situation. Okay. The definition One Dimensional, Two Dimensional, and Three Dimensional. Picture a Cartesian Coordinate System. The vertical line = One Dimension, the horizontal and the vertical intersecting = Two Dimensional, and when they come off into space that = the Third Dimension in which we exist. Now why do I divulge what I'm going to tell you here and not in a book? Because they know who I am and it isn't secret. I also cannot tell you what the Aliens told me. So that's why no book. But the FBI already knows this stuff so meh. But... I can reveal the existence of the Aliens and I guess this will be disclosure for some. Hey! This stuff about the Aliens belongs to everybody so here goes. Carl Sagan suggested that things in the Fourth Dimension would not be visible to us except in one aspect. We would be able to detect the footprint of a Fourth Dimensional object but not the rest. Only shadows. Only the base. Well, these Aliens are highly intelligent. They are aware of everything that is going on here and I really cannot say with certainty that they select sides. They are Human. But they exist in the Fourth Dimension. Now I will tell you how they communicate. They can touch you if they want to. That's right. It's not a visual. They are projecting themselves into this World by actually touching people. Mine were nice. They warned me about my Cancer. Showed me where it was, so they got it in time. They wrote on me. They probably saved you guys. It's not happening anymore. But maybe somebody else now, is the Nobody. Don't be scared. It's not the Devil. But there are a few outlaw Aliens. You can tell the good ones and the bad ones apart. Some people may receive Disclosure and others may not. But you will know for certain finally if they decide to reveal themselves personally. It's a personal experience. Good luck!

various commenters #fundie independent.co.uk

Comments RE: Feminists join men-only swim in protest of proposed law to enable people to self-identify as male or female

(annabella77)
The trans movement rides on the back of the gay rights movement, appearing to be progressive whilst actually being totally regressive - it is misogynistic and homophobic to say that if you have feminine traits then you must be a woman, and vice Verda

(minagiller)
It is especially funny to watch the row in the Labour Party about this as ex-men invade women's only short lists.

(Monica Vieira)
Yes, it's so funny isn't it. I hope women see how much fun men are having with all of this. This will radicalize a lot of feminists and in the end women will have the last laugh.

(Johart)
So you're a misandrist. At least admit it rather than hiding behind feminism. Got dumped did you?

(Happytravelling)
Sunday Politics was a joy. Watching Labour representatives try to pretend when Milne and Corbyn tried to pretend Russia were not to blame for the attack in Salisbury they were really saying Russia was to blame.

Then, that women's short lists could contain those who self identified but was a problem. Then one of the panelists gave the helpful suggestion that one solution would be to get rid of the women's own list and choose based on merit.

(Monica Vieira)
If the choice was based on merit, males wouldn't be the majority of representatives, dear.

"one of the panelists gave the helpful suggestion that one solution would be to get rid of the women's own list"

Yes, the end goal of all of this is to destroy everything that women have fought for, like women's shortlists that only exist because of the historical discrimination against women in politics (and society in general).

Good luck with that.

(George__costansa)
we are getting to the point of the circle where feminists are realizing they are different to men. and need different treatment and protection... eventually theyll be demanding to stay at home doing embroidery. ... not that i am saying that would be better.... but they will never be satisfied.

(minagiller)
Feminism and identity politics are disappearing up their own ridiculous rear ends.

Hilarious to observe.

(SJW_Skeptic)
Love the way this is all men’s fault. The feminist lobby has pushed for “transgender” rights past the point of logic and to the point of absurdity. Now the predictable results are happening they don’t like the results. Lucky it isn’t getting gender equality in conscription laws just prior to a major war where the government wants cannon fodder.

(roughgouge)
Have these Self identification nutters ever heard of Perverts?

(busterahmed)
Those that believe in science understand that, apart from cases of genital ambiguity, a very rare condition, most cases of 'trans' are just wish-fulfillment.

(mark anthony)
I totally agree with them but I was not under the impression that it was men driving the law forward . It is transsexuals who want to claim what they see as their rightful pace in society who are demanding a law change and in this day of political correctness who is to deny them

(mynamewhocares)
Strange that they view the law from a purely female point. is that not sexist?

(Monica Vieira)
Men only see things from a male point. Are you complaining about equality? :)

Men are having fun watching women's sports being destroyed by males who claim to be women and females on testosterone who claim to be men but are not allowed to play against men (yes, this is happening too).

Men don't care about anything unless it affects them. What I really want is to see feminists doing stunts that actually harm men.

So if you think that women standing up for themselves is sexist, GREAT. Get used to it.

Lookismisreal #sexist reddit.com

In a just world, the government would hold mandatory charities every few months for Incel men who are suffering from Inceldom. They would group two kinds of charity workers who would voluntary offer their services: one being, virgin femoids. And the second being, used up femoids who have a partner count ranging from one to ten. The Incels who hold anti-degeneracy views, like myself, would hook up with a virgin femoid, while Incels who don't give a shit about it would hook up with an used up femoid. A femoid charity worker would then be expected to be with an Incel for ten days providing him with sex, validation and emotional connection that has been deprived of his whole life.

SmellyFed #fundie freeconservatives.com

It's quite possible that two homersexuals could raise a perfectly good kid and perhaps even a kid that was a right handed hitter... but taken as a whole, kids with a mom and a dad who are both loving and attentive are in a far better situation then kids with just one mom, one dad, or two moms and two dads.

If the FTSDT buttsuckers can't see the truth in this simple axiom, then they have their noses too far up their lovers buttcracks and need to back out for a macro view.

Linda Harvey #fundie rightwingwatch.org

I read with astonishment that JC Penney is advertising Father’s Day with an ad featuring two real life homosexual males who are in a home with kids. The ad says that a father is ‘a swim coach, tent maker, best friend, bike fixer and hug giver—all rolled into one. Or two,’ but actually no, only one person is ever your dad, the other parent is your mom. We need to keep repeating this unchanging truth. The pro-family group OneMillionMoms has called for a boycott of JC Penney and I totally support their position. A few months ago OneMillionMoms brought attention to JC Penney because they chose homosexual celebrity Ellen DeGeneres as their spokesperson, DeGeneres is a talented entertainer, but not the right person for a department store to feature. Not, that is, if they want to keep a strong customer base among American families. This latest ad was featured in the company’s June catalogue. OneMillionMoms is suggesting families return their catalogues marked ‘refused, return to sender.’

JC Penney also featured a pair of lesbians for a Mother’s Day promotion. Someone at this company evidently has a big fixation on the homosexual agenda. And they are not the only retailer going foolishly into sexual deviance. The Gap has a billboard ad currently posted in Los Angeles with the theme, ‘Be One,’ the photo shows two homosexual males closely embracing as if they are one.

…

Friends, fathers and males in general are under attack in this culture. There is not a war on women as claimed, but there does seem to be a war on men. Traditional males and fatherhood are under assault everywhere they turn. As we get ready to celebrate Father’s Day, let’s be sure to give extra attention and show our appreciation to those men, our fathers, husbands and sons, who are still, in spite of heavy pressure to be otherwise, faithful, loving and strong examples of the way God designed men to begin with.

Templar 331 #fundie mmo-champion.com

It's a double standard. Men are seen as sexual beast unable to control themselves and if a guy finds himself in a situation like this, this outcome is to be expected of him. Any other outcome would mean he wasn't really a man. Women on the other hand are seen as sexually in control. Both of themselves and of the man or men they are sleeping with. If one ever went on a sexcapades like this, banging two older guys at one time, she would be labeled a slut.

I see no problem with the kid banging his teachers. And it's not just because I'm a guy. One of the main reasons I see no problem with this is because the two women are physically, and hopefully mentally, mature. Meaning if a child were to come from this encounter, and let's hope that doesn't happen, they could properly raise it. If roles were reversed and a teenage girl was knocked up by two guys, she wouldn't be physically or mentally capable to deal with the child, at least properly. And I know this sounds weird, but in a way it was better that he had sex with older women than it would have been if he had sex with girls his age. I'm not saying he's not, and he probably is, but it seems less problematic.

PearlSand #fundie wearetherats.yuku.com

(Regarding two gay men who wanted to share a bed at a hotel she works at:)

I'm just so into marriage....man/woman...faithfulness & Christ/the Bride & all of that....how His plan is so wonderful in this regard pertaining to even our own sexuality and child-bearing/parenting etc.

Truth be known, if it were my hotel, I would have turned those two men away who wanted one room, just as quickly as I would have turned away a man or woman involved in an affair.

I just feel strongly about the good God created.