www.patheos.com

Dave Rubin #crackpot #wingnut patheos.com

... But I would say this, that consistent with me talking about sort of what’s happened with the post-modern left, with the progressives – and we see this now where there’s sort of nothing that’s empirically true and any given day you can feel anything about any particular topic – there’s a reason for that. And the reason is they’ve disconnected everything; their whole worldview is disconnected to anything that came before them. So that can be God or a religious set of ideas or something like that.

Who are the most intolerant people in society right now? It’s the people that are constantly telling you how tolerant they are; that’s the irony – it’s the people that tell you you’re a bunch of racists and bigots and homophobes and the rest of it. And that’s the real bizarre flip that we have happening in society, and I think that is linked to – however you want to phrase it – either a post-Christian world or a post-Judeo-Christian world or a post-modern world, however you want to define that.

We’ve removed God from the equation and what do we get? We get government. And they now pray basically to government. They think that they can figure out somehow by sitting in a room with a bunch of other politicians and bureaucrats.

Dave Rubin #crackpot patheos.com

[On why he is no longer an atheist]

I do this off the grid August thing where I literally lock my phone in the safe and I don’t look at any news or television; I’m completely offline and I really disappear and I try to let my brain reset. And two years ago when I did it, one of the thoughts that I kept having sort of in my peace was that: I’m not an atheist. And I came back and I said it in a very casual way, and I just did this live stream where I just sort of said it very flippantly, that I just don’t like the word atheist – it doesn’t fit what I believe. I do believe in something else, even if I can’t completely articulate what it is. I think Jordan (Peterson) has gone a long way toward articulating the type of thing that I believe in.

Jordan and I did about 110 stops in one calendar year and about 20 countries – it was pretty amazing – and when you spend that kind of time listening to a true innovative thinker – I mean, truly the guy that I think is the world’s most important public philosopher, let’s say – talking about his biblical lectures and talking about his perspective on life, and that there has to be a bedrock of something that is real and true, outside of us. And then how he relates that through the biblical stories – it moved me; it moved me over the course of the year that we did this together. So, I would say I’m secular basically in my life, but I definitely in the last year have found that there has to be something outside of us; the rest of this makes no sense.

Doug1943 #racist patheos.com

Of course, Tucker Carlson is absolutely right. The phrase "white supremacist" has become the Left's equivalent of the term "commsymp", used sixty years ago by McCarthyites to smear liberals. ..the McCarthyite mentality is reproduced by progressives.

Why, if someone reported that, while walking down the street at night, they heard footsteps behind them, turned around ... and were relieved to see that the people behind them were white .... the Left would label that person a white supremacist. But of course everyone now reading this would have the exact same reaction.

Nelson McCausland #homophobia patheos.com

NELSON McCausland, above, a board member of Northern Ireland’s Education Authority, opened up a huge can of worms on Monday when he tweeted about an American who, in 2009, ‘stopped being homosexual’ after encountering a bunch of Bible-thumpers in a Los Angeles cafe.

McCausland wrote:

A powerful testimony of a life changed by God and some important insights into the whole ‘gay movement’ from someone who has been there.

Douglas Wilson #sexist #psycho patheos.com

Say a woman — for some egalitarian and very foolish reason, declines to have her dinner date walk her back to her car in some urban center after dark. Let us say she is raped and murdered. According to what RHE says, my response is going to be some variant of “served her right.” Now you would have to be a fool not to see the connection between her refusal of an escort and what happened to her, but you would also have to be pretty vile to say that walking to your car deserves the penalty of rape and murder. You would also have to be pretty high up among Obama’s advisers to falsely accuse someone of being that vile.

One consequence of rejecting the protection of good men is that you are opening yourself up to the predations of bad men. I fully acknowledge that this is not what such women think they are doing. They think they are rejecting the patriarchy, or some other icky thing, but when they have walked away from the protections of fathers and brothers, what it amounts to is a tacit (implicit, in principle, not overt) acceptance of the propriety of rape.

Does this mean they deserve to be wronged? Of course not. Does John Piper deserve to be mugged because he won’t carry a gun? Do I deserve to have my truck stolen because I left it unlocked? Did the oysters in The Walrus and the Carpenter deserve to be eaten because they were so stupid?

Brittney Kara #fundie #quack patheos.com

I just decided to just Google aaah… what the Bible says about vaccinations. There’s nothing in the Bible that talks about vaccines. So I just want you guys to think about that. So if God knew in the future that he was gonna create these amazing things that were gonna just change our health and be the best, you know, scientific advancement, it’s just “Oh my Gosh, they’re so great, it’s like wow,” why isn’t there any thing, any inkling, of talk about these things called vaccinations coming into being later to save people? If that was really God’s plan and they’re so amazing, they why isn’t it in there at all? Maybe there’s a chapter where they talk about something like it like injection, like this health injection, right, like why didn’t God talk about that if he knew it was gonna come and save the world?

I really believe that believing in vaccines is a mental disorder.

Jonathan Waller #fundie patheos.com

(commenting on Bob Seidensticker’s article “And God Is Not Good, Either”)

Hi Bob. Thanks for your in-depth study about the goodness of God.
You have certainly done your research. However, your entire premise has
one major flaw. None of us can agree on what "good" actually is. Every single person has a different definition of what "good" is.

For example, one person might say it's not "good" for two men to marry. Another person might say that it's not "good" to try and keep two people who love each other apart. Thus, the definition of "good" is relative depending on whom
you're talking with. Because of this discrepancy, like it or not, we have to go to the ultimate authority on what is "good".

God might not fit your mold of what is "good", but the beauty of it all is that He doesn't have to. God is sovereign; meaning God has authority over you, not the other way around. You will answer to God, God will never answer to you.

I would challenge you to carefully consider what it will be like when we all stand before judgment. If you think you will have an opportunity to accuse God of anything, you are mistaken. Every time someone in scripture comes in contact with God, they fall on their face and tremble in terror. They can't even move unless God gives them permission to do so. There won't be a time when God is on trial.

I don't like several laws that I have to obey. I don't like having to slow down to 35 miles per hour in a school zone when the school is 4 blocks away from the highway where the lights are flashing. But, if there is a sign posted and lights flashing, I'm still subject to obey the law, whether I agree with the law or not.

God is good, all the time and all the time God is good. Not because we say so, but because He says so. The sooner you realize that, the better off you will be.

Maybe you have a hard time submitting to a God that doesn't answer to your set of moral standards. If you've read the book of Genesis, you know that's exactly what happened to Adam and Eve. They didn't feel that it was "good" that God withheld from them what they wanted. That, sir, is why we have to deal with injustice in the world. Man is imperfect because God gave them a choice as to which tree they would eat from. The tree of life, or the tree death. They chose death. God could have stopped it, but he didn't. He chose to give us free will. In other words, God gave you the choice to accuse Him of all the things you're accusing Him of. Don't you think that's "good"?

On several occasions, I've sat and wondered why in the world Adam and Eve chose to disobey God. The Bible says they walked with God daily in the garden. What an incredible opportunity! Yet they still disobeyed God and tasted the forbidden fruit. But then again, You and I are guilty of the same thing. God has set before us the tree of life, and the tree of death. We can choose to accept Christ and live, or reject Christ and die. In short, we have an opportunity to walk with God in the garden to. Unfortunately, many people reject this opportunity because God isn't they way they want Him to be.

Which, on a side note, you most likely don't agree that Adam & Eve were real people, however, Jesus himself believed that they were. And, if a guy can raise himself from the dead, I'll believe everything that guy says. If you don't believe this either, you should do an in-depth study on this topic with former atheists that tried to disprove it.

In conclusion, instead of spending time researching how God isn't good, you should have spent time researching how God isn't fair. If you want to spend time researching this topic you will have more than enough evidence to make a solid point. If you need help, let me give you a point of origin for your study. Start at the foot of the Cross where God sent his son to die for your sins. That certainly wasn't fair. But then again, God is God, and he can do whatever he wants. Including raising from the dead three days later.

Bishop Neophytos Masouras #fundie #homophobia patheos.com

Homosexuality is usually a problem transferred to a foetus, when a pregnant woman has anal sex and enjoys it.

It happens during the parent's intercourse or pregnancy.

It follows an abnormal sexual act between the parents. To be more clear, anal sex.

[Saint Porphyrios] says that when the woman likes that, a desire is born, and then the desire is passed on to the child.

Cindy Jacobs #fundie #god-complex patheos.com

We’re going to decree that the coronavirus will cease worldwide. Now what’s gonna happen? I don’t know if everybody will get healed. I don’t know… we’re praying. We prayed for vaccines. We prayed for Israel… They had vaccines. We have people interceding across the face of the Earth. Listen: Intercessors have been going to Wall Street! I mean… all over! I have to tell you: Intercessors are on this! I just want to thank you, intercessors of the world. You haven’t slept through this. You have been very, very active, and we’re gonna ask… God to heal those affected…

… Father, in the name of Jesus, You have promised we have all authority, not some authority! You have promised that we are seated with You in heavenly places, so we take Throne Room authority, and we bring that into the situation of the coronavirus, and we say in the name of Jesus, “Virus, you are illegal! This is God’s Earth!

Salvator Anthony Luiso, Patheos #fundie patheos.com

Salvatore Anthony Luiso: Thank you for this article, which was difficult for you to write. I respectfully disagree with the notion that "the one without a true conception of God cannot genuinely love". I would say that no one, other than God, can love perfectly, and that the better one's conception of God, the better one can love--although not necessarily the better one will love. Although I agree that "God is the One Scripture declares is love", I do not agree that "love is God". That said, I much appreciate your willingness to criticize Rachel Held Evans and her teachings so soon after her death, and to warn about them. Despite the fact that she died only a few days ago, I do not believe it is improper to criticize her and her teachings now. To the contrary: With so much undue respect and praise flooding out for her, the time calls for standing for the truth amid the flood. Whatever her intentions, however good they may have been, Evans was a dangerous, deceitful, and destructive author. However good her personality, character, and skills may have been, they do nothing to mitigate this fact. The fact that her writings were so highly regarded, admired, loved, and influential during her life should have been troubling to anyone who was familiar with them and who regarded and loved the Scriptures as God's word. One should be saddened by her death, and yet still abhor the dangerous falsehoods about God, sin, sexuality, and salvation which she spread. One should be sympathetic toward her family, friends, and followers, and yet deplore the popularity and pernicious influence of those falsehood. One should be sympathetic, too, toward those who are and will be deceived by them. I'm surprised and dismayed by the number of positive assessments of her that have been published in the so-called "Evangelical" section of Patheos since she was put into a medically-induced coma last month--although I know that one need not be an evangelical to have a blog there. I'm not surprised, but dismayed, to see that Mark Galli, editor in chief of Christianity Today, ended his apology for the publication of John Stonestreet's tribute by referring to Evans as "this dynamic sister in Christ". These are signs of the confusion and carelessness about sound doctrine among self-identified evangelicals in America.

Sarah Flood: If Evans was deceitful (and that would assume you know her motives and that they were bad; one may be unintentionally mistaken, but deceit is intentional), how exactly could she have "good character"? Do you have evidence of this deceit or are you just assuming she actually thought differently than what she said and lied to people intentionally? I didn't agree with Evans on everything (for different reasons than you), but she never struck me as anything but honest. Honestly mistaken, perhaps, but honest.

Salvatore Anthony Luiso: Among Merriam-Webster's definitions of the word "deceive", this is the first: "to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid". I believe an honestly mistaken person can unintentionally deceive others. Regardless as to whether Evans was honestly mistaken, or dishonest, I believe she deceived others through her writings. I do not need to know her motives to believe this: I can simply know that she promoted falsehoods which misled her readers

Redboyds, Patheos #fundie #wingnut patheos.com

(=The death of Rachel Held Evans=)

It's very telling that the Friendly Atheist website posted an effusive eulogy for Evans, in particular praising her hostility to "right-wing evangelicals." After reading the article, I asked myself: When I die, do I want to be praised by atheists? Would the apostles have been pleased to know that they were praised by people who openly despise the religion they sacrificed their lives for? Would a "good and faith servant" who had 'fought the good fight" take any pleasure in being lauded by atheists? Had the apostles conformed to the pagan culture, there would have been no martyrs, and Christianity would not even exist today. Had Paul written "Do your best to fit in with unbelievers and make them like you" instead of "Be not conformed to this world," Christianity would not exit.

One thing we know about progressive Christianity: it has never attracted or converted atheists. C. S. Lewis made the astute observation that when an atheist or agnostic converts, he "goes all the way" to traditional, orthodox Christianity, not to the progressive variety. Lewis, an ex-atheist himself, had no use for the Christian left and was pained to see the growing liberalism in the Church of England of his day. As the Friendly Atheist article shows, atheists have a favorable view of the Christian left for the obvious reason that they see such people as Evans as being on their team, not the Christian team. I have never yet heard of any atheist who was converted by the writings of Evans - or of anyone on the Christian left. Her fans are people like herself - people raised in conservative Christianity but no longer comfortable with it, but not quite ready to let go of the Christian label. There are no converts from atheism joining the liberal churches today - just people like Evans, disgruntled ex-evangelicals. They are far outnumbered by people moving in the opposite direction - members of liberal churches who finally had enough of their trendy, post-Christian, world-conforming churches and left to find a traditional, Christ-centered, Bible-believing church home.
"If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you" (John 15:19).

Ginny Bain Allen #fundie patheos.com

[in reply to an opinion article, "Brett Kavanaugh is an Entitled Narcissist in Opening Statement", about the Senate hearing where he was accused of molesting three women]

Kavanaugh was authentic in his opening speech. He is a human being with feelings -not a zombie - and rightly outraged over the unfathomable way he and his family have been egregiously treated. It’s exceedingly shameful, unconscionable and yes, evil, how he’s been maliciously slandered, and his life has been devastated.

Rick Wiles #fundie patheos.com

… If you don’t serve Jesus Christ, you’re automatically Satan’s child. If you’re not a Christian, then Satan is your father. Whether you like that or not, that’s just the facts. The only way to get away from him is to renounce the works of the Devil…

Ray Myers #racist patheos.com

Another openly racist Republican: Ray Myers, a member of the powerful Texas GOP platform committee, says he’s proud to be a white nationalist.

Myers, a prominent Texas Republican and former delegate for Senator Ted Cruz’s presidential run, publicly announced that he was an out and proud white nationalist via social media last week, declaring:

Damn right, I’m a WHITE NATIONALIST and very proud of it.

And while Myers is proud to be a white nationalist, he doesn’t want you to think he is a racist. Myers told the Texas Observer:

I am Anglo and I’m very proud of it, just like black people and brown people are proud of their race. I am a patriot. I am very proud of my country. And white nationalist, all that means is America first. That’s exactly what that means. That’s where the president’s at. That’s where I’m at and that’s where every solid patriotic American is. It doesn’t have anything to do with race or anything else.

John Beckett #fundie patheos.com

The high strangeness continues. The rational world – if such a thing ever existed except in the minds of a few intellectuals and atheists – is in tatters. Whether our current political and environmental disasters are its cause or its symptom is a matter of debate, but what is not up for debate – except by those who refuse to see what’s plainly there – is that we are experiencing Otherworldly phenomena at a rate and intensity not seen in generations and possibly in millennia.

I’ve experienced some of this myself. And because I write publicly about this and related issues in a respectful manner, I get comments and questions from others who’ve experienced it too, or who want to experience it for themselves.

Lately I’m getting questions about the fae.

The fae, the sidhe, the fair folk, the gentry, the good neighbors, the Aos Sí – there are many names for them. Some say they’re nature spirits, some say they’re lesser Gods, some say they’re the people who occupied these lands (especially the lands of Northwestern Europe) before our ancestors arrived. I see them as a wide range of spiritual beings who mostly keep to themselves but occasionally wander into the ordinary world for one reason or another.

The Fair Folk are not my area of expertise. If you have any interest in them at all I strongly, strongly encourage you to do some deeper reading.

Start with The Fairy-Faith in Celtic Countries by Walter Yeeling Evans-Wentz. It’s a survey of encounters with a variety of fae in the Celtic lands. It was first published in 1911 – most of the stories in it are from the 19th century. It’s a book that likely could not be written today, in part because most of the believers in the Otherfolk have died off, and in part because no serious academic today could dare write a book so sympathetic to the supernatural without killing their career.

A quote:

The great majority of men in cities are apt to pride themselves on their own exemption from ‘superstition’ and to smile pityingly at the poor countrymen and countrywomen who believe in fairies. But when they do so they forget that, with all their own admirable progress in material invention, with all the far-reaching data of their acquired science, with all the vast extent of their commercial and economic conquests, they themselves have ceased to be natural.

After that, get Morgan Daimler’s book Fairycraft: Following The Path Of Fairy Witchcraft, particularly if you think you want to “work with the faeries.” I did a brief review of it last September and I highly recommend it.

This is not a “what are the fae?” post, but I will say this: everything Disney taught you about faeries is wrong, and dangerous. They are not small, cute, and harmless. They range in size from tiny to giants, and while some are creatures of amazing beauty, others are the stuff of nightmares. As with humans, outward appearance is no guide to inner qualities. Some see us as occasionally useful simpletons, some as entertaining playthings, and some as lunch.

Almost all the legends and tales say they either cannot lie or will not lie, but they can and will twist the truth so grotesquely you’ll think up is down. If you deal with them, pay careful attention and be scrupulous with your word. Do not promise what you cannot, will not, or do not want to do.

I say the Fair Folk are re-emerging in the ordinary world (do not call it “our world” for it was once theirs, and they have not forgotten this), but they never really went away, not entirely. Perhaps they came into this world less often, but mainly we stopped noticing them, and we ridiculed those who did.

Now we’re seeing them, hearing them, and feeling the impact of their presence on an increasingly frequent basis. Maybe it’s because the Veil Between the Worlds isn’t what it once was. Maybe it’s because there are too many open portals. Maybe the Good Neighbors themselves are opening them. I don’t know why, I just know this is what we’re experiencing.

We’d best pay attention.

Given what our ancestors thought of the fae, why should we deal with them at all? Why not just ignore them when we can and placate them with whiskey and cream when we can’t?

Because there is much we can learn from them. Now, do not think for a minute they are here to be our teachers. If they are in this world, they are here for their own reasons, not to “help us learn and grow in love and light” or anything naïve and self-centered like that. That’s one of the things we can learn from them – to remember that life isn’t all about us and to respect the sovereignty of all beings. We can learn to be true to our word, and we can learn to be so precise in our language that our magic improves because we’re always working for exactly what we want.

We should interact with the Fair Folk because we have common interests. Again, do not think for a minute they are “on our side.” They are on no one’s side but their own – forget that at your peril. While certain fae would be quite happy if we drove ourselves to extinction, we share this world with them, or at least parts of it. And if the Earth becomes inhospitable for us, it is likely to become inhospitable for them as well. We have a common interest in caring for the Earth, or at least not screwing it up even worse than we already have.

Mainly, though, we should deal honestly with the Good Neighbors because they are our neighbors. If we treat them like good neighbors, then good neighbors they will be. If we treat them condescendingly, dismissively, or aggressively, then they will be our enemies and they will make our lives far more difficult and unpleasant than they need to be.

The virtues of hospitality and reciprocity apply to all our neighbors.

I cannot tell you how to see the fae or how to contact them and I would not if I could. Too many people have too many silly Disneyfied misconceptions about who they are and what they want and I will not be responsible for you getting yourself locked in a fairy ring to dance until you die.

But our world is changing rapidly and not for the better. We need the help of all our allies, which means we need to be allies worthy of help. The Fair Folk are re-emerging in the ordinary world. Take the time to learn a thing or two about them so they will be more likely to see you as an honorable person who they can deal with honorably.

CruisingTroll #fundie patheos.com

So, the notion that there can't be any link between race and intelligence is about as anti-scientific as one can get. But hey, once they were willing to throw up that wall, then moving to the current gender madness was almost inevitable.

btw, I think one reason why the science community was so quick and willing to go along to with the "disfavoring" of research on race and intelligence isn't even a case of anti-intellectualism OR knuckling under to the attacks of "anti-racists." No, I think it was fundamentally more personal than that. For scientists and most within the "science community", intelligence is a core component of personal worth. It is an oft noted flaw among scientists, being jerks to the "less intelligent" simply because they're less intelligent. They, understandably, didn't want to consciously be party to something that would potentially cast vast swaths of humanity as "inferior." For most secular, hard core materialist scientists, it was even more difficult, because engaging the question of "human value" is mighty difficult when there is no soul of infinite worth. Best to avoid the matter entirely, which also means enforcing the avoidance upon others. The distinction between generalizations of race based on statistical aggregations versus the discrete characteristics of a single individual is cold comfort to those who with any awareness of history.

After all, the eugenics movement was "based in science."

This is why almost invariably the first and most frequent line of attack that the anti-intellectuals on the Left take against science that raises uncomfortable questions about humans and human nature is "you're attempting to dehumanize them, to denigrate them, etc". They take that line because that's what the possible conclusions say to THEM. Less intelligent = less of a person. Mentally ill (transgender) = less of a person. They KNOW this is the "logic" of their worldview, because they'll ardently articulate it when it comes to aborting a child with Down's Syndrome or some other birth defect. Combine that with their having gone all in on collectivism, and they recoil at the implications of research that would indicate any of their "favored" groups is flawed. This is why you'll see plenty of research, both real science and more commonly pseudo-science, into the collective flaws of men (toxic masculinity, anyone?) or "whites" or Christians, but rarely other groups.

For society, the continued rejection of reality is going to come at a high cost. For Christians, the foundation of scientific inquiry should be the fact that God created it all, and that each human soul is of infinite value.

Christopher Hubbard #fundie patheos.com

(Context:This is from a lengthy conversation that has since been deleted because of how bad it got. Highlighted talking points are brought up by this fundie in an attempt to avoid TLDR)

No! We shouldn't be encouraging others to follow sin, we are supposed to help them and educate them...properly...

(*show pictures of raunchy gay stereotypes, namely from pride parades*)

This is unhealthy.

(*Shows picture of a happy strait couple*)

This is healthy.

(*Shows pic of another raunchy gay stereotype*)

Unhealthy.

(*Another pic of a strait couple*)

Healthy.

(*Extremely raunchy gay picture from a pride festival*)

Unhealthy.

(*Shows a pic of an outgoing*)

Healthy...and happy.

(*Another commenter shows a pic of gay parents raising children, saying they are also happy and healthy*)

Where's mommy ? (*Another pic of that same variety*) Where's daddy ? You are proving my point for me.

(*Gets asked hypothetically if it would be better for a lesbian to raise a child with her rapist or a man that abuses her and the children, than female lover*)

The studies at Focus on the Family show that children are better in stable homes...raised by biological parents.

(*Gets a link of studies that show gay families are just as good as strait families*)

All this is nonsense that has been completely debunked by experts

(*links several Focus on the Family pages, and other such studies*)

Men cannot mother...race doesn't matter. Gender does.

(*Gets asked a question that implies of he would try to abduct a child raised by gay parents if they moved near him*)

Uh huh.

(*Gets asked what motivates them and is informed one of the people he's talking to is gay*)

Peace and serenity my friend *smile emoji* peace and serenity...if you are struggling with this, I suggest you work under the care of Dr. Nicolossi.

(*Is informed of what he's endorsing*)

No, it doesn't torture people. On the contrary it fixes them. Getting over our orientation is just a part of growing up.

(*Gets asked if he'd rather children of be orphaned if it meant that gay couples couldn't raise them*)

No there's also adoption, and grandparents. Bless grandparents.

(*Is told that the children of gay parents are just fine and don't care who raises them/aren't agonizing over separation of a surrogate parents/the surrogate isn't agonizing over letting their child be raised, etc*)

Like hell they don't care! I can't help but imagine them crying themselves to sleep over night over separation from their parent or child, it's absolutely heartbreaking!...I want you to do something; go to YOUR parents and ask them if they could do the same job raising you with a partner of the same sex. I'm sure you would offended them or break their hearts! You are such a delusional mess I can't believe it! #TheEnd

Dan Carollo #fundie patheos.com

Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon practiced polygamy because that was part of the ancient, near-east culture they came out of. God chose a people, with their in-grained culture -- warts and all -- but that doesn't mean God actually endorsed it. In fact, every place this polygamy occurs, there are always consequential problems with it.

Chris Schene #fundie patheos.com

Chris Schene: Progressive churches, such as the Episcopal and Methodist, are nothing more than friends of common culture and all its perversions,
They are enemies of Jesus Christ and of His church.
Progressive "Christian" churches are more dangerous than Satanism to people: Satanism is obviously not Christian but the progressive and emerging churches present their Pagan idolatry as Christianity and the unchurched would not know any better.
Hey, many of these Churches are great social clubs and places where fellow Pagans get together, enjoy each others' company, enjoy good food and make great friends. Most members are just not followers of Jesus.

Theodore A. Jones: Since there are only a few that find the gate to become a Christian, according to Jesus, actually encountering a Christian is slim.

Chris Schene: I my local company office of 175 or so people, only 5 self-identify as Christian----roughly 3%. They have "gay pride" celebrations from time to time, which I excuse myself from. I was somewhat encouraged that only a few people attended and the attendance was so bad, they had to reschedule it 3 times.
In the churches I have attended, they would defrock a pastor or leader for so much as attending a gay pride celebration or wedding.
If a propagandist lie, such as "gays are born that way", over a period of time those with no moral framework will start to repeat it and believe it In the same way they say they are born that way, a very lustful man could offer that same reason for "sleeping around" with many women.
It's nonsense: The behavior is a choice and inappropriate for a Christian: repent, ask for forgiveness and stop.
And so I know what the classical response will be "What about greed, divorce, etc". Sins of the spirit (Greed, lust, pride, covetousness, ...) are really hard to identify and know for a certainty and often even unknown by the person guilty of them. Sins of behavior are the only things that were even punished in the OT or disciplined in the NT because they are obvious: you know if you are committing adultery or having sex with member of the opposite sex you are not married to. In most cases we know if a divorce is unscriptural, and some churches will expel a member for such sin.

Maxximiliann #fundie patheos.com

"It appears you missed the thrust of my rejoinder. Consider, then, the following-

(1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties don't exist.
(2) If evil exists, objective moral values and duties exist.
(3) Evil exists.

(4) Therefore, objective moral values and duties do exist.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
(6) Therefore, God is the locus of all objective moral values and duties.

(7) Atheists insist God does not nor cannot exist.
(8) Therefore Atheists are amoral."

image


Others point out that most atheists are not serial killers, he answers

"A better question is, why do atheists murder while Christians don't?"

Others site examples of Christians murdering people

"Really? Can you take a moment and prove how these are compatible with murder?
1 Peter 3:11
Colossians 3:8,9, 12-14
Matthew 6:34
Matthew 5:43-46
Proverbs 20:11

Michael Snow #fundie patheos.com

(=Regarding the World Vison regarding homophobia and sponsors dropping, the title being "When We’d Rather Let Kids Go Hungry Than Be Reasonable On Gay Marriage"=)

How do you characterize a headline that is not true? World Vision does not have a monopoly on helping hungry children. I read many comments there. No one was saying they were stopping feeding children, they were just changing the charity through which they will do it. And there are better choices, e.g.

Mark Jones #fundie patheos.com

Sophotros is completely wrong about atheists winning the culture war and recent setbacks not indicating a long term trend. I say that due to the powerful demographic trends (and other trends} atheists activists (especially secular leftists) are up against. Please see my recent post above as I provide additional data.
Secular leftists have used the power of the state to get their way - particularly the courts. But now religionists and right-wing populists are sweeping them out of power around the globe. And the power of the state is decreasing due to: overburdened welfare states facing aging populations, the internet making it difficult for governments to control the political narrative, etc. etc.
Consider:
According to the University of Cambridge, historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power." source: http://web.archive.org/web/...
Could a WWIII happen? Of course. Yet that doesn't negate the powerful demographic, political and other trends that face atheist activists both now and in the future.

Mark Shea #fundie #homophobia patheos.com

Oh, and let me add…

People who say, “Sodom and Gomorrah were condemned, not for homosexual acts, but for lack of hospitality” really need to retire that ridiculous meme. The biblical text is pretty obvious. When the angels come to visit Lot in Sodom, he takes them in. “But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”

“Know” is the Hebraism for sexual intercourse. The story crackles with the menace of gay rape. The mob (whom the writer repeatedly emphasizes were men) “pressed hard against *the man* Lot”.
As Scott Hahn points out, the threat of homosexual rape is a particularly acute form of “inhospitality”.

So don’t kid yourself. Homosexual intercourse was regarded as gravely sinful in the Old Testament and Christianity receives that from the Jewish tradition. Few things are more tortured than the attempt to make the Bible a document in support of gay sex. It just ain’t. Tertullian, who had his own issues, was at least perceptive on this score when he said “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” Like it or not, the Christian tradition teaches that homosex is a grave sin.

CL #fundie patheos.com

1. Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay ‘Marriage’ in Federal Court
Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent
New York Times Ignores Children of Gay Parents Who Want a Mom and Dad
(especially before you go calling people uneducated, bigoted, or hateful.... I have no hate, I am well educated, and I won't even talk about the way the word bigoted is thrown around)

2. Greetings Kim, Just because it occurs in the animal kingdom does not make it natural does it? and we are not animals are we?
even if there is unnatural attraction in the animal kingdom, animals do not find a way to act on those unnatural attractions do they? other than dry humping the wrong sex
The aberration remains an aberration.

3. I'm not 'putting anyone down'.... I am trying to lift them up.... up to where they belong.... with their Creator. Ignoring His will and His design is not going to get them there.... that is Truth with Love. <3

Rick Wiles #conspiracy patheos.com

Christian broadcaster Rick Wiles is really going all in on this idea that Democrats are going to murder Republicans.

A couple of weeks ago, he claimed the purge would occur before 2020 to stop the GOP from voting. This week, he used the “extermination” conspiracy to get money from his followers.

Now he says that MSNBC host Rachel Maddow has given the instructions for an all-out decapitation of Donald Trump and his family.

Here’s what Wiles said Tuesday night on his TruNews show:

… Wiles declared that a recent segment in which Maddow argued that this nation must begin to prepare for “the worst case scenario that Trump is compromised by Russia” was really a signal that a leftist revolution is imminent.

“She was spewing out, last night, calls for revolution,” Wiles said. “She was telling the left, ‘Take a deep breath, we’re at the moment, it’s coming, we’re almost there, we’re going to remove him from the White House.’”

“We’re about 72 hours — possibly 72 hours — from a coup,” Wiles warned. “Be prepared that you’re going to turn on the television and see helicopters hovering over the roof of the White House with men clad in black repelling down ropes, entering into the White House. Be prepared for a shootout in the White House as Secret Service agents shoot commandos coming in to arrest President Trump. That is how close we are to a revolution. Be prepared for a mob — a leftist mob — to tear down the gates, the fence at the White House and to go into the White House and to drag him out with his family and decapitate them on the lawn of the White House.

Mo #fundie patheos.com

Benson: Have fun going down in the wrong side of history and have the people
of tomorrow mocking you, just as we do now with the people who opposed interracial marriage. Also, could you people stop pretending that private "pretend" ceremonies equal equality? There have been several absolutely
heartbreaking stories of same-sex couples in which a partner was forbidden from standing at their beloved's deathbed because they were
not married -- the tip of the iceberg. Willfully short-sighted creatures, you folk.

Mo: "Have fun going down in the wrong side of history and have the people of tomorrow mocking you, just as we do now with the people who opposed interracial marriage." Can you tell me what equality there is between skin color/race and deviant sexual acts? How dare you compare my race or anyone else to deviant sexual behaviors.

Houseman #fundie patheos.com

(=A respone to a homosexual interpretation of the centurion and his servant=)

he account takes all the things stated by the comments into account, but all forget one thing..Jesus! Jesus knew what he was doing, not snookered by the elders or the centurion. He knew the Mosaic law about homosexuality he knew the authority behind it, his Father. so if what is being said he healed a gay man, this is incorrect. In each example during his 3 and a half year ministry Jesus never once was in accomplice in ones sins but told never to do it again. forgave them and directed them toward another path. Never to keep something sinful going. Jesus knew the heart of the centurion and if what is being said, Jesus would not have healed the 'pais', it would have been against everything he stood for, even the love his own Father is. Ones want love to continue to cover all sins, even while we keep doing them, but the time will come when God will not cover us with mercy and love but remove evil, wickedness and sin from this earth. That is love, not keep picking us up, but truly teaching us how to walk without falling. Not feeding us crumbs, but teaching us how to feed ourselves fully. This is true love!

In His Service #fundie patheos.com

(=Response to a Progressive Christians's post about homosexuality, specifically the following paragraph=)

John Shore: "But you take the Bible out of the equation, and what grounds is there for determining that homosexuality is wrong? Whom does such love hurt? When two men are affectionately holding hands, who is getting hurt? When two women are snuggling together on their couch, who is getting hurt?"

In His Service: Who does it hurt? It hurts the ones who love you the most and it hurts God who created you for His predestined purpose.
I cannot pretend to understand what sin everyone is born with, but no one is perfect. This Earth is a testing ground to see where we will spend eternity. If it weren't for the Bible telling me that we are all sinners ( no matter which sin we are assigned on Earth) and we all need a Savior, then I would agree with you that it is ok to continue to sin. Bottom line, we are all sinners, we are all tested, we all need a Savior.

Laura Lowder #fundie patheos.com

(=Additional qoutes against Chuck McKnight and his support for Polygamy=)

Laura Lowder: This is where I want to take a DEEEEP breath and deliver a lecture on the Theology of the Body and the profound significance of monogamy --- heterosexual monogamy. But it would fall on deaf ears.
BUT there is no such thing as a "Faithful Christian" who practices polyamory. Theologically impossible

Mike Spencer: What a tragic and sickening betrayal of Christ. You are going to hell and taking others with you. Just buying millstones for your neck at the moment.

Matt Kellon Robinson: What a tragic and sickening betrayal of Christ. You are going to hell and taking others with you. Just buying millstones for your neck at the moment..

Richard Williams: It's time for the writer of this article to realize that their beliefs and the true Christian Church can not coexist as one because they are advocating for sin to be accepted.

Ray D: This is great satire. Oh, wait, it's not satire. Someone actually believes this load of B.S.

Paul Abeyta #fundie patheos.com

(=A response to the article "Broken Promise of Biblical Innerancy"=)

Paul Abeyta: The fact that people are their interpretations of Scripture are not inerrant, has nothing to do with the nature of Scripture and it's inerrancy. As God is without error, and Scripture comes from him (verbal plenary inspiration), it is of necessity that Scripture is inerrant. The author here advocates for a low view of God in claiming in that inerrancy is farce.

Button: So what does it mean for Christians, from a practical perspective, if Scripture is inerrant but no man can be trusted to interpret its meaning correctly? How does the distinction between potentially-errant, and inerrant-but-we-cannot-inerrantly-understand-it, change the ways in which we apply Scripture to our lives?

Paul Abeyta: No man can be trusted to interpret it's meaning correctly? Only the progressivists are saying that. I'm not. I'd argue that men have long been able to interpret it correctly and when false interpretations have risen, right ones have been maintained against them - sometimes in the minority even. Man can certainly interpret it correctly. He can also interpret it incorrectly of course. But we have a rich history of people in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit who have pursued God and Godliness and we can compare conclusions along those lines. The authors of the NT even warn us of people who would twist Scripture. To me the distinction seems clear. If the text is potentially errant, than it doesn't even matter. It holds absolutely no authority and every person's hunch is equal to it. To say that we cannot inerrantly understand it is a bit of an over statement. We can get all of it, we must simply remain humble and able to weigh evidence against our position and be willing to change it should we be made to see that our position is in error. This though is not a bleak position. As I said earlier - we have over nearly 2000 years of saints who have worked with the text.

Button: "people [and] their interpretations of Scripture are not inerrant" Sounds like you saying no one can be trusted to interpret it correctly. Though perhaps the lack of clarity was on my part: in this context "guaranteed" would have been clearer than "trusted."

Paul Abeyta: In general, I trust many, but at the same time, I know that I am responsible myself and so it's not a total trust that I have in any person to rightly handle God's Word. In Acts 17, the Apostle Paul commends the Berean's for testing what he was saying against that which they considered special revelation from God - the OT. Interestingly enough - we can do the same with every claim from the NT. So, as people, we trust the Scriptures and they have shown themselves trustworthy

Mo #fundie patheos.com

(= Regarding a pastor and his support for polygamy=)

"The Holy Trinity is a polyamorous relationship. "

Nonsense. Where does the Bible remotely hint at the idea that the members of the Trinity are sexually involved? How truly sick and twisted such an idea is.

"JH: The only people who have responded negatively are church assholes that have no knowledge of God. "

Oh, you mean like Jesus, who affirmed the exclusivity of man/woman marriage?

That's as far as I read of this blasphemous article.

Oh, you mean like Jesus, who affirmed the exclusivity of man/woman marriage?

That's as far as I read of this blasphemous article.

Pluther #fundie patheos.com

(=Regarding LGBT Christians and LGBT affirming Christians=)

Sad. People want to want God, or at least heaven (with or without him), but don't want to deny their flesh, or the temptations of Satan (who only wants to kill and destroy them). Being "saved" or a Christian is not about the Law at all, ceremonial or otherwise. It's about giving your life over to God in Jesus Christ and letting him decide what is right or wrong for you. It's about a relationship of love, where you want what he wants for you, not what you want or think you want or what your flesh hungers for. The joy of a real relationship with Jesus far, far outweighs any sensual pleasure or sexual experience or relationship. You people who want God and also your homosexual lives don't really know God, and you are settling for hay and straw when he wants to give you gold.

Christopher Thomas #fundie patheos.com

(=Regarding the homohpbic backlash of the World Vison fiasco back in 2014=)

Shall we compare and contrast the two articles?

This:

"...those bullies...bullies...latest convulsion of evangelihate...the whole hideous white evangelical army of hate they lead...gleefully reject 90 percent of what Jesus was about...bullying crusade that deliberately takes money away from starving children...the armies of hate...Muslim-hating, gay-hating, crusade of contempt for the poor...the sanctimonious contempt of the white evangelical bullies...the armies of hate are on the march..."

Versus this:

"As Christians, we believe with deepest sincerity that the embrace of homosexual practice, along with other sins, keeps people out of the kingdom of God. And if our society celebrates it, we can’t both be caring and not say anything....it is an oversimplification to say that Christians — or conservative evangelicals — are simply against homosexuality. We are against any sin that restrains people from everlasting joy in God....The issue is sin. That’s what we’re against...."

And this:

"Some would like to see this whole issue of homosexuality divided into two camps: those who celebrate it and those who hate it. Both of these groups exist in our society. There are the growing numbers, under great societal pressure, who praise homosexuality. We might call them the left. And there are people who hate homosexuality, with the most bigoted rationale and apart from any Christian concern. We might call them the right.

The current debate is plagued by this binary lens. Those on the left try to lump everyone who disagrees with them into that right side. If you don’t support, you hate. Meanwhile, those on the right see compromise and spinelessness in anyone who doesn’t get red-faced and militant. If you don’t hate, you support.

But true followers of Christ will walk neither path. We have something to say that no one else is saying, or can say."

And this:

"Distancing ourselves from both the left and the right, we don’t celebrate homosexual practice, we acknowledge God’s clear revealed word that it is sin; and we don’t hate those who embrace homosexuality, we love them enough to not just collapse under the societal pressure. We speak the truth in love into this confusion, saying, simultaneously, “That’s wrong” and “I love you.” We’re not the left; we say, this is wrong. And we’re not the right; we say, you’re loved. We speak good news, with those sweetest, deepest, most glorious words of the cross — the same words that God spoke us — “You’re wrong, and you’re loved.”"

And this:

"You’re wrong and you’re loved — that’s the unique voice of the Christian. That’s what we say, speaking from our own experience, as Tim Keller so well puts it, “we’re far worse than we ever imagined, and far more loved than we could ever dream.”"

And this:

"That’s our message in this debate, when society’s elites despise us, when pop songs vilify us, when no one else has the resources to say anything outside of two extremes, we have this incomparable opportunity to let the gospel shine, to reach out in grace: you’re wrong and you’re loved. We get to say this."

Bowie1 #fundie patheos.com

God's design for marriage is still one man and one woman no matter what people are tempted to do. I suppose you could call this wife swapping which I heard about when I was a younger man but it is still sin no matter what people may feel. Naturally I would assume there could still be jealousy that their wife is with another man even if they agree to an "open marriage". That's the natural response in most cases and the cause of many divorces.

Michael Gleason #fundie patheos.com

Here is my problem with this whole issue theologically. Biblical Marriage is picture of of how Christ loves the Church. Christ is monogamous to the Church and so the Biblical view of Marriage is Monogamy. In Christ loving the Church he is always faithful, he has eyes only for his Bride (the Church). There is one Church, One Bride. In the same way the Church is called to be wholly faithful to the one who redeems us. There are many passages in the old and new that talk about being unfaithfulness to God. God throughout the Bible condemns Israel for being unfaithful. So if Biblical Marriage is a picture of Christ and the Church the idea that Polyamory does not stand up to Biblical Scrutiny. If you plan to respond with the typical what about Abraham, David, Solomon...etc. You need to understand that the people in the Bible are flawed individuals that do no live up to the the Perfection of Christ. The ideal marriage in Scripture is 1 Man 1 Woman for life.

Seth D. Young #fundie patheos.com

(=On the Bible and Polygamy=)

God also 'permitted' divorce and allowed Moses to issue certificates of divorce, but it wasn't His desire. He did it because of the sinfulness of man. I can't think for God, sin is sin and it matters not the generation. Besides all that, Jesus reaffirmed for the people the proper, godly, and right understanding of marriage, condemning the divorce certificate for nearly all reason (except unfaithfulness), and reaffirming that marriage is for one man and one woman only. This is how it was in the beginning, sinful people screwed up (as we do most things), God permitted it and even used it for his own advantage from time to time, but then reaffirmed it in Christ.

Michael F Bird #fundie patheos.com

To be blunt, I regard Jesus mythicism as pure pseudo-historical dogma by a few cranky atheists. For them, the non-existence of Jesus is somewhere between the holy grail of unbelief (i.e. wouldn’t it be good if we could prove Jesus never existed?) and mental masturbation (i.e the sheer selfishly indulgent pleasure of thinking about it). Jesus mythicism is an unscholarly conspiracy theory and its adherents should be treated in the same way we treat climate change deniers: A polite chuckle, sip your martini, then avoid eye-contact, and slowly walk away.

I sit on the board of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, a board filled with people of all faiths and none, Evangelical Christians, mainline Christians, former Christians, Agnostics, Jews, and Atheists. Now we disagree on A LOT, but we ALL AGREE that Jesus existed. In fact, we had a great discussion on Jesus mythicism at our last board meeting. Larry Hurtado made a great point that Jesus mythicism is like a weird monster that rears its head about every fifty years and needs to be periodically and ritually destroyed. Maybe they’ll do an issue on it one day.

Otherwise, see my older piece: Yes, Jesus existed … but relax, you can still be an atheist if you want to.