Show post

Brittney Kara #fundie #quack

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.

Show post

Salvator Anthony Luiso, Patheos #fundie

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

Show post

Redboyds, Patheos #fundie #wingnut

(=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).

Show post

Ginny Bain Allen #fundie

[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.

Show post

Rick Wiles #fundie

… 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…

Show post

Ray Myers #racist

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.

Show post

John Beckett #fundie

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.

Show post

CruisingTroll #fundie

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.

Show post

Christopher Hubbard #fundie

(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*)


(*Another pic of a strait couple*)


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


(*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

Show post

Dan Carollo #fundie

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.

Show post

Chris Schene #fundie

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.

Show post

Bob Shiloh #fundie

wullaj: From the video description: "Progressive churches demand that we accept refugees with open arms..." No. Jesus commanded that. Sorry if that sucks but maybe you should find another religion?

Bob Shiloh: No he did not.

Show post

Maxximiliann #fundie

"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."


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

Show post

Michael Snow #fundie

(=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.

Show post

Mark Jones #fundie

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.
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:
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.

Show post

Mark Shea #fundie

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.

Show post

CL #fundie

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

Show post

Rick Wiles #conspiracy

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.

Show post

Mo #fundie

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.

Show post

Houseman #fundie

(=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!

Show post

In His Service #fundie

(=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.

Show post

Laura Lowder #fundie

(=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.

Show post

Paul Abeyta #fundie

(=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

Show post

Mo #fundie

(= 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.

Show post

Pluther #fundie

(=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.

Show post

Christopher Thomas #fundie

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

Shall we compare and contrast the two articles?


"...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 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."

Show post

Bowie1 #fundie

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.

Show post

Michael Gleason #fundie

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.

Show post

Seth D. Young #fundie

(=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.

Show post

Michael F Bird #fundie

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.

Show post

Clayton Gafne James #fundie

(=Another regarding Chuck McKnight's support for polygamy=)

me guess, many of you 'Christians' already accepting the practice of
same sex sin didn't see this coming sooner or later for you to have to
accept? Let's see how long it takes for you to accept and affirm this
sin too.

You should do the wise thing, realize who
is behind this sex acceptance nonsense renounce same sex relations
especially for those saying they are 'Christian' and do what is good in
the sight of the God you claim to know.

You ppl are being influenced by Satan. And this article here should be more than enough for you to see it now

Show post

Zach W. Lorton #fundie

Homosexuality is sin.
Polyamory is sin.
Bearing false witness by claiming to be a gender other than what God desigbed you to be is sin.
How is ANY of this unclear?
The question is not whether anyone who practices these lifestyle choices can have a relationship with God -- of course they can. But to suggest. that this is something God smiles upon is ludicrous. I don't need to search my feelings on the Nashville Statement to come to that conclusion; I need only read the Bible.

Show post

Mr. Meow #fundie

(NOTE: This is gonna be part of a series of quotes directed towards/regarding pastor Chuck McKnight, a pastor who supports and practices polygamy)

LGBTQ, Trans, now Poly. I applaud the fact that you and Mrs. Chuck came out of the closet and publically declared your infidelity! Will you guys be wanting your own separate public toilets too?

"Additionally, there are many more faithful Christians who either feel that they are poly or feel drawn to see if they are, but they’re not sure whether it is compatible with their faith."
Newsflash Chuck: every guy on planet earth is "drawn" to polyamory or whatever you call it. That's why guys watch porn, stare at women with big boobs or wonder what it would be like to have sex with women who are NOT their wife, etc.. Christians are told in the bible all this is bad. It's called "fornication", "lust" and a bunch of other names.
Also, running around on your wife banging other chicks... that's called "adultery" Chuck. I'm pretty sure adultery or "defiling the marriage bed" is a sin.
So "exploring non-monogamous sexual relationships", isn't compatible with Christianity.
Finally, you should have a read of the bible Chuck. You'll notice it's loaded with all kinds of cautionary stories about guys who thought poly was cool and the unfortunate consequences of their shenanigans (unwanted children, infanticide, family feuds, murder and all that). Pretty eye-opening stuff.

Show post

Andrew #fundie

God never blessed polygamous marriage and you can quickly realize that by the destructive results that happened to those who practiced it throughout history. We have wars today because of the choices made by Abraham and Solomon thousands of years ago. Scripture assures us, our sin will find us out.

Show post

Mo #fundie

Sven2547: What, specifically, about my comment is ignorant? Do you DENY that Al-Qaeda wants war between a united Islam and the "West"? Speaking as a non-religious person, I find it hilariously hypocritical when Christians insist on a 100% literal reading of the Koran, while refusing to hold the Bible to the same standard. The vast, vast majority of the world's Muslims don't abide by every jot and tittle of the Koran any more than the world's Christians abide the Bible.

Mo: Not a word about what I said. You have no clue what that even means, do you?

Sven2547: Not a word about what I said. They're old terms for the "kingdom (house) of Islam" and the "kingdom (house) of war". Note that this is not actually a tenet of the religion itself, but a classification used by some early Islamic scholars during a period of violence in the 8th Century AD.

Mo: Googled it, huh? And yet it's Muslims who use these divisions because they are the ones who are at war with us, all over the world. They've demonstrated it over and over and OVER again - in NYC, in Madrid, in London, in Boston - over and over and over again they prove it. It doesn't matter how many bodies are piled up by those correctly following the teachings of Islam, does it? You are still going to deny it and even claim it's the fault of evangelical Christians. Remarkable Tell me, 1) what was your impression of the Koran's view of unbelievers when you read it and 2) what was your impression of the Koran as you compared it with your reading of the Bible? You can't answer that because you've not done either, have you ? Goodbye.

Sven2547: My question to you is: what do you propose? Making Muslims second-class citizens? Blanket violence against all Muslims? What conclusion should be drawn from your argument, other than "be afraid"?

Mo: How about starting with speaking the facts about Islam? How about everyone actually READING the Koran so that they know what they are talking about? But they refuse. You can't address a problem until you admit there is one. And we're not even at that first stage yet. How much bloodshed by Muslims will it take before we wake up?

Sven2547: The Bible embraces violence and hatred every bit as much as the Koran, yet almost Christian I know is a nice person. It's hypocritical to make the opposite assumption about Muslims. Again I ask: what do you propose? What does "waking up" entail for you? What's your plan? What's your optimal outcome? Repeating over and over "Islam is evil! Muslims are bad people!" isn't a substitute for civil discourse or sane public policy.

Mo: "The Bible embraces violence and hatred every bit as much as the Koran" And that's as far as I read of your comment, and the last I will be engaging in conversation with you. This is a flat out lie. There are no open-ended commands in the OT or the NT for Jews or Christians to commit violence against unbelievers or against anyone. You cannot produce any because they do not exist. Therefore, there are no Jews or Christians committing such acts, on a regular basis, all over the world, in obedience to any such commands. Period.

Butterfly: You have got to be one of the most poorly informed christians I have ever happened upon. Please don't tell me you actually believe that the bible does not contain commands from god to commit atrocious acts of violence against others... The christian god not only commands it multiple times, he promises his followers women and young girls as spoils of war in return for committing genocide. So they not only were told to murder, they were promised the right to rape others as a reward. I'm not going to bother posting the actual scriptures because some of the other folks here have already done that. I will, however, encourage you to Google the Amelekites and do a general search on the topics of war, murder and genocide in the bible and see what you find. Then come back and see if you still (rather stupidly) believe that the biblical god does not ask his people to commit horrible acts of violence against others. Oh, and if you decide to come back here all ruffled and insist upon attacking me instead of addressing what was said in regard to the bible, you'll be ignored. Also, you'd better come prepared, because I was christian for a long time and I used to teach it. Bring it on, baby.

Mo: "I'm not going to bother posting the actual scriptures because some of the other folks here have already done that." You won't bother, because you know they don't exist. Others haven't, because they don't exist. There are no open-ended commands in the OT or the NT for Jews or Christians to commit violence against unbelievers or against anyone. None. Zero. You cannot produce any because they do not exist. That is why we do not see Jews or Christians committing such acts, on a regular basis, all over the world, in obedience to any such commands. Now, how about addressing ISLAM, the focus of this article?

ToTripoli: "You won't bother, because you know they don't exist. Others haven't, because they don't exist." So you are blatantly ignoring the verses in the comments above the one you quoted. Isn't that tantamount to bearing false witness? Or are you actually convinced that the following passages do not exist in the Bible?: Romans 1:32, Leviticus 20:9-10, Deuteronomy 21:20-21, Deuteronomy 22:22, Exodus 21:15, Luke 19:27, Exodus 22:20, Deuteronomy 13:6-10, 2 Chronicles 15:12-13, Deuteronomy 13:13-19, Deuteronomy 13:7-12, Deuteronomy 17:2-5, and Numbers 25:1-9. I am increasingly convinced that you have never read the Torah or the Bible, beyond a handful of verses. Oh, and as for Christians & Jews committing acts of terrorism? Look up "Christian Identity," "Lord's Resistance Army," "Anders Breivik," and "Bat Ayin Underground." (It should be noted that Jewish terrorism is far, far less common than terrorism committed in the name of Christianity.)

Mo: There are ZERO open ended commands for Jews or Christians to commit violence against unbelievers. That's why we're not seeing Jews or Christians AROUND THE WORLD ON A REGULAR BASIS committing any such acts IN OBEDIENCE TO ANY SUCH TEXTS. I hate to shout,but that may be the only way to get through to people like you. Such commands don't exist. You can't provide any. PERIOD. Now, instead of babbling about Christianity or Judaism, how about ISLAM, which is the purpose of this article, since MUSLIMS are the ones slaughtering people around the world in obedience to not only their texts, but their warlord prophet? How about that? Anything to say on Islam? Of course not. Just nonsense about Christianity and Judaism.

Show post

Anne Kennedy #fundie

(=Part two of Anne Kennedy's Glenn Doyle Melton rant=)

So yesterday I got through half my thought. To recap, Glenn Doyle Melton recently announced on Facebook that in the wake of finally separating from her husband, she entered into a romantic relationship with another woman. Yesterday I began to answer the question What is love? Insisting, rather lamely, now that I go back and look at it, that self love is not really “love” in a true sense. But in this brave new world self love is the hope and the dream.

Of course, I’ve used the word “love” without really defining it. So let me do that now.

Love in our modern context means something like having powerful lovely feelings for something, someone, or oneself.

Love, however, in a biblical context is the verb used to articulate the nature of God who is One in Being, but Three in Person. God Is Love because the Father eternally pours himself out for the Son who eternally pours himself out for the Father. And so also the Spirit. The three live in a perfect unity of the giving of the self without holding anything back. That is a very different thing than, “what the world needs — in order to grow, in order to relax, in order to find peace, in order to become brave — is to watch one woman at a time live her truth without asking for permission or offering explanation.” Glennon’s articulated self love, so usefully insulated from the world’s criticism, being grounded solely in the rebellious and sin poisoned human soul is of necessity narrow and hard.

Whereas God’s love gives life to the world. As I like to say to my Sunday school children about Jesus, “He didn’t hold anything back from you. He gave his whole life, down to the last drop of blood. Not a single bit of who he was did he guard or keep away from you. How else can we talk about his body being something that we eat, his blood something that we drink?” This is the basis upon which any human being can give anything to any other human being.

If you are busy loving yourself you can only take, you can only demand. And so let’s look at what is demanded of the children in this picture. “They have the love and support of their dad, me, their grandparents, their aunts and uncles, their church, their teachers, their friends’ families –all of whom have fallen as hard for Abby as they have. They’re lucky kids, to be surrounded by so much love. We have family dinners together – all six of us — and Abby cooks. (She is an AMAZING chef because Jesus loves me). We go to the kids’ school parties together. We are a modern, beautiful family. Our children are loved. So loved. And because of all of that love, they are brave.”

Glennon is claiming a multiplication of love. Look, more people to love you. Me, your dad, his new person, my person, your grandparents. We are all here together with love. And we go to the parties together and everyone is completely happy.

And yet, because this has been a business of taking for the self, rather than self giving through death, there cannot really be happiness, in the ultimate sense. I would put cash down that these children have been cut to the heart by the father’s betrayal of the mother, and now the mother’s of the father.

Why? Because marriage is a picture of Christ and his Church. Jesus, who lived in the perfection of self giving love in the Godhead as the eternal Son, set that aside to come and gather us back into that perfect love. He set aside glory and honor and beauty to come and die as the ultimate act of Love. He gained, in his death, a bride, the church. Every marriage is a shadowy retelling of the triumph of the cross. And so each time a marriage fails, that retelling is spoiled. And the whole world feels it, knows it at the core, however much we may lie and say it is good. And the people who know it most are the children, the product of that troubled retelling. Multiplying “love” when something so essential is broken is not really “love”.

Really what the children have learned is that father can’t keep his promises and mother can’t keep hers. Each time a promise is broken “love” apparently abounds. Whereas, that’s just not true. Every time a promise is broken the love that Christ has for his church is lied about. And lying doesn’t really produce happiness. It produces misery and anger.

If lying produced happiness, humanity would be peachy happy and love love love. But we are liars by nature, determined to call good evil and evil good. And observe the roiling anger, the bitterness, the unbending intolerance of individual people for other individual people, the racism, the violence. Where is all the happiness? Where is all the love? It isn’t in the hard defiant gaze of Glennon Doyle Melton. It isn’t in the collective heart of a culture that hates God and loves the self.

As I implored yesterday, prayer is of the essence. But also Christians should cling tightly to the surpassing love of God that sets aside the self, dies to the self, abandons the self, holds nothing in reserve to grasp onto the one who is perishing. His blood and love is sufficient for every grief, every brokenness, every lie.

Show post

Anne Kennedy #fundie

(=First of a two part post/rant about Glennon Doyle Melton, a Christian blogger/author who came out as a lesbian and married a woman=)

I mentioned in our podcast yesterday the tragic downfall of Glennon Doyle Melton. I would like to point out a few obvious home truths. Incidentally, of course it would be nice to think nuanced and fascinating thoughts, to grasp at difficult insights that have not been articulated by others, to, in short, be Novel. But this point in Christian history doesn’t seem to be calling for that sort of thinking. We seem to be needing to go back to the most basic point, the expression of the most essential truths. And the most essential of all of them is...

What is love?

This foundation of Christian doctrine has been so muddled and twisted, squandered really, by the modern Westerner, that we have to keep going back to the very beginning point of Christian Faith in order to answer this tragic confusion.

So Glennon, like so many, got married, had some children, and found herself in the usual way of coping with a too difficult life, a broken relationship with herself, and a cheating husband. In the midst of this, she turned out to be a top notch writer and so wrote her way through her difficulties and troubles. Here she has my complete sympathy. I am sitting here at this very minute in desperate pursuit of mental health through writing. Writing is my life line. If I don’t write every day, I become unhinged. And gosh, isn’t it nice if people read your writing? Everyone has been reading Glennon. That I haven’t is my own fault. I need to get out more and read more. I’ve read a few of her blog posts, though, and they are breezy, brilliant. The writing is what you Want when you click on the Internet.

But good writing does not a theologian nor a Christian make. Any one of us can put ourselves out there but the church–the people who know and love God and his Son Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit of whatever denomination and background–have a duty, an obligation, to articulate the gospel clearly and repudiate those who call themselves Christian but do not adhere to basic Christian doctrine. For the sake of Glennon herself, because she has claimed the name of Christ, I find I must say no to her new way of life.

Let’s just quickly look at what she says about love, both for herself, and more troublingly, for her children. She writes, “I want you to grow so comfortable in your own being, your own skin, your own knowing – that you become more interested in your own joy and freedom and integrity than in what others think about you. That you remember that you only live once, that this is not a dress rehearsal and so you must BE who you are. I want you to refuse to betray yourself. Not just for you. For ALL OF US. Because what the world needs — in order to grow, in order to relax, in order to find peace, in order to become brave — is to watch one woman at a time live her truth without asking for permission or offering explanation.”

And about her children, “They have the love and support of their dad, me, their grandparents, their aunts and uncles, their church, their teachers, their friends’ families –all of whom have fallen as hard for Abby as they have. They’re lucky kids, to be surrounded by so much love. We have family dinners together – all six of us — and Abby cooks. (She is an AMAZING chef because Jesus loves me). We go to the kids’ school parties together. We are a modern, beautiful family. Our children are loved. So loved. And because of all of that love, they are brave.”

You can find the longer post on her Facebook page.

Let me begin by saying that throwing over your broken marriage to join with another woman isn’t actually brave any more. It’s one of the easiest choices on the table. It may not feel easy in the moment, but what you are doing is embracing a copy of yourself, and you are doing it with the culture’s complete approbation. Bravery is when you do something difficult that ought to be done but you don’t want to do it, but you do it against your desires, for the sake of another. The choice of Glennon to be with a woman is the choice to go with self expression and the love of the self over the love of another and of God.

And that’s the confusion, isn’t it? It’s everywhere. In Christianity you are called to die to yourself, to die to the very essential nature of who you are which has been so corrupted and marred by sin that it is irrevocably bound to eternal death. This is the state of the human person. Not a single human person escapes the sentence of death that came when we chose to love ourselves rather than the Other, that is God. And however painful it is to face, no one gets a pass on this sentence. We all go down the grave one by one, dust to dust, because we idolatrously chose to love ourselves rather than our Creator.

No amount of embracing the self will cure the ills of the soul. No Amount. There is nothing you can do to love yourself enough to rescue your soul from death. You can’t. There is no human solution to the death dealing cavern that separates us from God.

That is why God himself had to cross over that cavern by himself. He had to come and absorb our sin and our rejection of him in himself. That is the cross. He took our catastrophic and poisonous self love onto himself and died the death we should have died.

When we cling to him, the death we endure, though it feels very great, is actually very small. Still, it is not easy to say no to the self, to put to death that essential poisoned self. It can’t happen without God himself carrying you through to eternity.

And I really hate to say it, but this is going to have to be part one, because I have somewhere to be. But I will pick up right here tomorrow, and will probably have another part after that. I hope you who know and love Jesus will pray for Glennon and her children and her husband and her new person and plead with God to enlighten the eyes of her heart that she might finally see him for who he is. See you tomorrow!

Show post

Susan Foley #fundie

(=Comments on Christian author Glen Melton Doyle coming out as a lesbian and subsequent marriage to a woman=)

Susan Foley: One can only imagine what the children here really think of this. Have they actually "fallen for Abby"? Is it really their desire "to watch one woman at a time live her truth without asking for permission or offering explanation" when that one woman is their mother, and "living her truth" means tearing up their family, and the permission and explanation would should have been asked from them, given to them? "Oh no, who cares what you think dear, I'm off "living my truth" and you'll just have to adapt. You'd better pretend to be happy about it too or you'll ruin the story!" We won't hear from them until they are old enough to get out from under this monster self-absorbed mother they've got.

Charlie Sutton: My bet: within three years, there will be a tempestuous break-up.

Susan Foley: Count on it. When what matters is the gratification of the present desire, because people are inconstant, when the desire changes, more promises are broken.

Show post

Jack Wellman #fundie

It would be maniacal to believe in something that you knew was a lie and then die for that lie. You can choose to believe or not to believe but your belief does not change the historical evidence that Jesus indeed did exist and that He continues to exist. For many, they will believe too late (Dan 12:2; Rev 20:11-15). If I am wrong, then you have nothing to lose and you will cease to exist at death but if the Bible is right, and I am convinced that it is, you will have to give an account for your life after you die (Heb 9:27) but “Those who are wise shall shine. Like the brightness of the firmament, And those who turn many to righteousness. Like the stars forever and ever” (Dan 12:3). Reject this truth and you will face “shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan 12:2c).

Show post

wfmcfp #fundie

When we force, or attempt to force, our own personal ways / requests / demands / lifestyles on others, knowing it hurts, scares, and even deeply offends these others as we do so,...are we truly interested in unity or healing? For example, gay "marriage" could have been achieved by "Civil Unions" or some other very meaningful title, but no..., traditional heterosexual one man, one woman "marriage" had to be "redefined". Why? Why this absolute demand at the cost of other's beliefs and sensibilities? Where was the unity interest demonstrated here? Differing opinions clearly existed, yet there seemed to be no desire to "work it out" together, to come up with a mutually acceptable approach. Deeply help spiritual beliefs and a century upon century definition was to be "defeated" / "turned asunder" for the 'victory' of a small group of people. Why? Was this truly a demonstration of the 'tolerance' that they'd passionately spoken of an marched for? How can one be so intolerant of another's deeply held belief as they hold a banner for tolerance? How about a baker, florist, retreat owner, losing their complete livelihood and being sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars, because although they'd served these folks for other needs, they couldn't offend their Lord to help "celebrate" what they feel is a Holy Covenant between one man/one woman? Where is the desire for "getting along", "unity", "live and let live", and "tolerance" here? Where? Love....true love....doesn't care to offend, put down, or demand, yet there is no loving caring "two way street". No, it's my way or the highway! We will make you pay if we don't get what we want! Why? Getting along will require a "two way street" on issues which divide, which offend deeply held foundational religious views, etc.... Real Love, true tolerance, genuine inclusiveness....cannot demand others simply disregard or go against their deeply held religious / personal beliefs. These people love their families, their children, and their children's children and desire to teach them to understand what they hold to be Truth. Why are their rights not held up along side those seeking new rights and societal changes? Why? Love, respect, tolerance, unity...all require a more thoughtful and caring which is far less "in your face"!

Show post

See Noevo #fundie

See Noevo: “Thou Shalt Not Be Gay” No. More like ‘A man shalt not have sex with another man, nor a woman with another woman.’ (cf. Rom 1:26-27)

HudBud: I don't know what's more mind blowing, the fact you got the verses mixed up or that it warranted likes.

See Noevo: "I don't know what's more mind blowing..." Poor guy. You must have blowing on your mind.

Show post

Mike Bird #fundie

Answering President Jed Bartlet on the Bible and Sexuality

I have been very gradually working my way through The West Wing, currently up to Season 2 and I just saw this epic scene where President Jed Bartlett lays into some conservative Christian radio show host for her views about homosexuality.

I’ve heard this line of argument several times, it latches onto something genuinely problematic which most Christians have a hard time explaining, so I thought it might be a good idea to offer my own response to President Jed Bartlet:

Dear President Bartlet,

Sir, I just saw your rather dramatic lambasting of Dr. Jenna Jacobs for her views on homosexuality. You speak with great passion and conviction on the subject and are rightly concerned that pious people will use religious texts as a license to treat LGBT persons with hatred and indifference. I sincerely appreciate that concern and I applaud it.

As a biblical scholar myself I have to confess that I was seriously impressed with your ability to recall biblical passages from the Pentateuch by memory. You are obviously a veteran of a very rigorous Sunday School program and you can recall Scripture with a precision that would leave many rabbis envious of your abilities. You obviously have spent a lot of time reading the Bible and you take it very seriously. I appreciate that too.

Let me say also that I don’t know Dr. Jacobs, I don’t listen to her show, I have no desire to defend her as I imagine that she and I probably do not see eye to eye on social issues and how to express a Christian view point about them. Still, I do wonder if you gave a Christian view of the Bible and sexuality a fair go, at least as a biblical theologian might express them.

The problem is that you are right, there are some very strange prohibitions in the Bible about combining fabrics together, planting crops side by side, laws pertaining to slavery, and stoning the less scrupulously observant of religion. The Old Testament contains things that are not only weird, but look callous and cruel even to those brought up with a deep reverence for the Bible.

Sir, I do not presume to lecture you on matters of religion, but it seems to me like you want to say in effect, “You believe what the Old Testament says about homosexuality, so then, do you believe all the crazy rules and regulations in the Old Testament too?” That is a good question and such a question requires an obvious “no,” since Christians themselves would concur that they are not bound to obey all the Old Testament regulations. But the matter I wish to press Mr. President is that you have overlooked how Christians read the Old Testament as Scripture and how they use Scripture to construct their own mode of moral discourse.

Please indulge me for a few short moments Mr. President in the hope that I can illuminate your understanding of the Bible and help you better appreciate how Christians use the Bible in their moral reasoning.

First, the Old Testament regulations were for a specific moment in Israel’s history and are not prescriptive for all time. The purpose of the law was to equip the Israelites to survive in the harsh context of the ancient near east. To tease that our further, the purpose of the law was to protract Israel’s capacity to worship God, to cocoon God’s purposes around Israel, to keep the Israelites separate from the peoples of Canaan, to teach Israel about human sin and divine holiness, and to point to the messianic deliverer whom God would send in the future. Many of these laws are not ideal (such as divorce as Jesus himself taught), other laws are a liberalization of ancient practices but still not particularly pleasant (like the treatment of slaves), many laws are related to the specific context of the ancient near east (like inter-tribal warfare), and several laws censure things that seem odd to us like consuming blood (because of its link to pagan worship). So, even from a Christian perspective, we have to say that Old Testament laws were a survival measure in a hostile environment, they were addressing cultures as they were rather than how they might be, they were incremental attempts to bring light to a world that was brutal and dark, and the laws were preparatory for something better rather than final. These laws might be God’s first word on how human should live before him, but they were certainly not the last word either.

Second, the Old Testament is strictly speaking not prescriptive for Christian ethics. That is not because the Old Testament is a bad thing that has been done away with, but because it is a good thing that has been fulfilled by Jesus Christ. I would suggest that the basis of Christian ethics is largely three things: (1) The example of Jesus and the apostles; (2) The teachings of Jesus and the apostles; and (3) Life in the Spirit. The Old Testament Law then is not the constitution for a Christian society, not the content of Christian ethics, nor the catalyst for Christian social reform. Instead, the Law is more like a consultant for Christian beliefs, embodying a form of wisdom on how to fear the Lord, how to walk in his ways, and how to love him. We are not bound to its letter, but we ignore its teachings to the peril our own spiritual ignorance.
Third, if the Old and New agree on one thing, it is this: the supremacy of love. Both Testaments agree that love of God and love of neighbour are the core concerns and truest teachings of Law. We read the commands: “Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (Deut 6:5) and similarly “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18). This is precisely what Jesus himself argued according to the Evangelists where Jesus said: “’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matt 22:37-40). Even the Apostle Paul, though often maligned for his views of women and homosexual behavior, said: “For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’” (Gal 5:14).

When it comes to the issue of sexuality and marriage, Christians should not rush to Leviticus or Deuteronomy searching for proof texts for their beliefs. The first thing to note is that Genesis teaches that God made men and women in his image, and that marriage is rooted in a sexual ecology of the complementarity of men and women oriented towards the creation of a family (Gen 1:26-28). What is more, this is something that Jesus affirmed (Mark 10:6-9). On top of that, there are prescriptions about homosexual acts outside Leviticus made by the Apostle Paul (Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10). And while these prescriptions are disputed – are they only about pederasty, an aggressive bi-sexuality, excessive lust, or limited to cultic prostitution – generally they are regarded by most scholars as censuring homoerotic behavior. Of course, if you think Jesus and Paul were just wrong and you care to disagree with them, that is fine, but please understand that that is not an attractive option for those of us who wish to affirm what our own tradition teaches on marriage and sexuality.

Mr. President, at the end of the day Christian ethics are based on love not law: love for God and love for our neighbors. Christians, within the precincts of their own consciences, cannot affirm behavior that they believe Scripture prohibits. The wisdom of our tradition is that sexuality is a gift from God, leading us to affirm celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in marriage. Yet because of the command to love their neighbours, you can expect Christians to always treat people, irrespective of gender, race, religion, and sexual orientation, with compassion and dignity, as we ourselves would want to be treated. If you wish to wag a finger at Christians for their hypocrisy, and I hope you do, citing texts from Leviticus is probably not the best way to do that. Much better is to accuse Christians of not keeping Jesus’ commands to love their gay neighbor, point out that they have not followed Jesus’ example to welcome those who polite society has rejected, and they have not embraced the lost for whom Jesus said he came to save! That is a word of rebuke Christians need to hear time and again.

That is my two cents on the matter Sir. I wish you all the best in the coming election season.

PS, watch out for that Jeff Haffley guy, he’s a sly old critter!

Show post

aedgeworth #fundie

Well, you agreed with them that the geologic column can't be found in one location, which is what they asked for. Your interpretation of it has a few problems such as missing layers, revered layers, fossils in the wrong layers, etc. Catastrophism fits the scientific evidence much better than uniformitarianism. Gravity isn't a theory, it is a law. It is amazing how many evolutionists don't understand the difference. But, if you can't answer their arguments, just use name-calling. A clear sign of your intelligence level.

I read the other day those finches on the Galapagos Islands are still finches, and the peppered moths in England are still peppered moths. How exactly does that prove one of my great grandpas was a complex chemical or a rock, depending on how far back I want to take my family tree of course. I know you haven't figured this out yet, so I'll help you out. Whenever someone tells you a story that starts out "billions" or "millions" of years ago; whatever they tell you from that point on, they made it up.

Why don't you just come out and say it? You hate God, you hate the Bible, you hate Jesus, you hate Christians, and you hate the idea that you might spend eternity in hell. We all know that is why you are hanging onto the fairy tale of evolution. You might as well be honest about it. But, I would guess that isn't one of your strong points. Eternity is a long time to be wrong!

Show post

scottmontgomery #fundie

(Regarding a blog post on polygamy)

Clearly this author doesn't understand that some of her examples were stated as opposed to God's will (Genesis), the Rabbinic Code as Jesus summed up, given after the Israelites refused covenant with God, because their hearts were hardened, and circumstances only for widowed women. The Bible was always one man and one woman for marriage as God's stated purpose. when you see kingdoms in Judah or Israel whereby the king had numerous wives, they did not last and for that reason

Show post

CoffeH #fundie

(=This fundie trolls a thread with pictures of athiests or agnostics who committed to prove athiesm is evil=)

CoffeeH: Another atheist kid who thought he could manage his own purpose. Eric Harris.

Iain Lovejoy: I am a Christian, and you purport to be so, so I'll speak to you Christian to Christian (and I'm sorry if this little speech is out of place in an atheist blog). Seriously, WTF is wrong with you? Is your "purpose in life" to persuade as many people as possible that Christianity turns you into a d*ck? I am struggling to see how anyone who has even had a brief glimpse of the love of God, or comprehended anything at all of the character of Jesus could write this stuff. Are you an atheist deliberately trying to discredit religion? Why do you hate your fellow human beings so? God loved sinners (even the lost souls whose pictures you put up) to such an extent he permitted them to kill him in order to save them, and forgave them while they did so; haven't you read the Bible? John said that we cannot purport to love God we cannot see if we do not love our neighbour we can see, and that is because it is our fellow human beings who carry God's image into the world. All these shooters killed because they (rightly or wrongly) felt rejected and despised by the world. By their neighbour. By us. By you. If they had no "purpose" in life it was because they felt their own life worthless, because they felt hated, or despised, or treated with contempt, and returned hate with hate. So what do you do? You hate. You tell people who haven't had the good fortune to have a glimpse of God in the world that that makes them useless, or evil, or somehow worse than anyone else. You smugly post pictures of broken,lost people as if it proved anything other than your own desperate brokenness and need of God. Over and over I feel compelled to apologise for people like you. People who use the name "Christian" which I ought to be proud of, and make it an embarrassment, a burden, something to be ashamed of. Well I'm fed up. The Bible has only one character that constantly accuses human beings of sin, that demands their punishment and spews out libel against those who are good. Only one character that hates mankind and seeks to consign them to hell. That character is the Accuser ("Satan" in Greek). Your father whom you bandy about is not God but the Accuser and I am sick to death of people serving his purposes while his claiming to be serving God. OK. Deep breath. Rant over. God loves you as he loves every one of those lost souls whose pictures you have posted. You may have no knowledge of him, and have mistaken hatred for love, the Accuser for the Redeemer, but he does not give up he will one day free you from whatever pit of loathing you have confined yourself. And when he does you will find the doubters and atheists who love their fellow men at God's table waiting for you - anyone who loves his neighbour, who is God's child, and the world, which is God's creation, loves God better than someone who wraps himself in religious-speak, hates his neighbour and worships his own hatred and calls it God.

Raging Bee: Also, I notice you seem to be aware of how wrong the alt-right are; but you're only using that to attack atheists, instead of attacking the alt-right directly. Maybe you're the one lacking a decent purpose here.

CoffeeH: I think anyone finding their purpose in the alt-right is not finding their purpose in God.

Iain Lovejoy: Big whoopee, now you are preening yourself you are not an out-and-out Nazi (or possibly just that you aren't any worse). If you want to call yourself a Christian, perhaps you might hold yourself to slightly higher standards?

CoffeeH: Every day, we hear the garbage that religion causes most of the harm in the world or ever. It's BS. Sometimes, people need to see how wrong they are. It's ok.

Iain Lovejoy: Don't give me that. It is anything but "OK". If you want to do Christianity a service, take down your garbage and apologise. All you are doing is demonstrating precisely why people think religion causes harm, and indeed doing the exact harm people complain about. Your job as a Christian is to display God's love in the world, you are doing the opposite. If this school shooter is an atheist, it is precisely people like you, and the shameful behaviour they (and you) display towards anyone not sharing their beliefs or fitting in that helped produce the social isolation and bitterness that broke his mind. Love your enemies, welcome the stranger and the outcast, see God in every human being and welcome them in, show them God in your actions and love. That is Christianity. At least try and be a Christian this one time and stop this.

Show post

Jo Brown #fundie

People stop homosexuals from marrying each other, or try to oppose homosexual practices, not because they have sin in their hearts, but because homosexuality is a sin and the people caught in it should not be encouraged to continue in it or allowed to lead others into it. Opposition to homosexuality is not because homosexuals are special or fabulous. In fact, being caught in the sin of homosexuality doesn't mean that you're automatically special or fabulous. That's just not logical. There are dullards and douchebags in every segment of society, including the gay one.
There's good reason why the bible forbids homosexuality. Just look at what's happened to society as the biblical moral restraints have been relaxed more and more. People are getting involved in ever more perverted sexual practices and general lawlessness, and it's bringing down the whole of society.
I've yet to read the links that purport to show how the bible allegedly doesn't teach that homosexuality is a sin, but I'm expecting a lot of scripture-twisting and logical fallacies and appeals to emotion and love. (yeah, like love should never be tough aye?)
One thing I wonder about, are all these gay christians happy to remain completely celibate until they've found and married their life partner? (And choose to remain married for life too of course.) Or, since they feel that homosexuality is biblically OK, it's therefore also OK to be sexually promiscuous and engage in fornication and adultery? Since the homosexual lifestyle is so much about hedonism, promiscuity, and fornication, I suspect it's the latter.

I've read the arguments for gay relationships and sure enough there's a bit of scripture twisting going on. Drawing rather a long bow by claiming gay relationships for David and Jonathan, and Ruth and Naomi, the Roman centurion's and his servant, and that the Ethiopian enuch was gay, NONE of which are clearly and unambiguously stated but that is merely the inference preferred by gay people because it suits them. And what is initially postulated as "might be" and "could be" later magically transmogrifies into cold hard fact, upon which the rest of the house of cards is built. Then they go on about the hebrew words for shrine prostitutes (both male and female) and imply that therefore Leviticus 18:22 is not talking about homosexual sex but about sex with shrine prostitutes. Trouble is, Leviticus 18:22 does not use the words for shrine prostitutes, so if it's meant to be speaking against sex with shrine prostitutes why doesn't it simply use the words for shrine prostitutes? Answer: Because it's not talking about shrine prostitutes but about men having sex with men, plain and simple.
One must also ask why the one book in the bible that deals almost exclusively with erotic love (Song of Songs) does not depict any relationship EXCEPT that between a man and a woman. If the bible is supposed to be pro-gay, why the glaring omission in Song of Songs?

So, no, I'm not convinced.
I'm horrified that people would interpret scripture so permissively that it ends up saying something totally different from what a straightforward reading of it suggests. It's like looking at a black dog and saying well because of X, Y, and Z we have to conclude that it's really a white dog. And then staking your eternal destiny on that. Yikes! I think it's wiser to step back from the line, not over it.

Show post

DM #fundie

(=A response to "Clobbering Biblical Gay Bashing=)

You lost me at: "so I’m not even having that discussion" If you build a whole argument on something that is highly debatable but you won't acknowledge there is another opinion then it is difficult to engage you in the rest of your conversation.

The Bible is very clear on homosexuality- it is a sin. Sleeping with someone before marriage is a sin, cheating on a spouse is a sin, drinking to excess is a sin. A sin is a sin and everyone on this earth has sinned. If you talk to an informed Christian they will admit that these are all sins and that not one is more severe than another. A Christian will do well to love everybody as their brother and sister in Christ but will also do well to point out an error to them when they are in the wrong. The Bible does warn that we shouldn't judge but 2 Timothy 3:16 (NIV) tells us- All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

The difference between homosexuality and other sins is that one becomes hardened to it. There are other sins that one hardens themselves to but homosexuality is one of the most prominent because it usually isn't a one time thing but more so a lifestyle. The real problem is that when someone becomes hardened to a sin they become separated from God.

What you are saying is discrediting the Bible and like many other people of the times you are trying to read the Bible to fit your opinion. Instead I would encourage you to pray to God and ask him for wisdom to understand the scriptures as it was intended, not as you want to read in to it. Biblical truths are not always popular, but they are truths-
Matthew 7:24- (ESV) “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
Isaiah 5:20 (ESV) Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Thanks be to God that Christ came to earth as true God and true man, lived the perfect life in our place to be the atoning sacrifice for all of our sins, homosexuality, adultery, murder, etc... Because of this love by God for us we are washed in his blood through this perfect sacrifice for OUR sins. Those that believe in this WILL have eternal life. But my friends please don't be the one that tries to change what God's word actually says and twists his words or follow such false teachings.

2 Timothy 4:2-4 (ESV)- For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

Love your brother and sister in Christ, get to know them on a personal level, help them with their struggles. Furthermore explain to them the love of Christ and what he did for all sinners. Importantly when someone is caught in a Satan's snare and is trapped in a sin point the sin out to the sinner in love and gently bring them back to Christ so that their sin may not cost them their faith in God. Remember it isn't our words that will do the work but God and the Holy Spirit working through them!

Show post

Monty #fundie

Monty: God did not create us the way we have become. God made us morally neutral and we chose to be the way we are. Be glad I'm not God. I'd just have wiped everyone and started again. God loves us and has provided the answer, doing for us what we cannot do for ourselves. We are fatally flawed. Even the most noble and upright of people have a dark side. God has already revealed Himself. He is not the problem, we are! We are born spiritually blind. God came to the earth in the form of a man. His name is Jesus. Jesus went about healing, delivering, and even raising the dead. We have eyewitness accounts. I can assure you that that kind of miracle still happens. I was healed from a severely damaged liver caused by alcohol abuse. Jesus came to earth knowing what was in store for Him. The perfect man was killed by those He came to help. Jesus sacrificed Himself so that anyone who accepts Him can experience eternal life. Jesus did not stay dead! He rose again and he lives right now. If you believe only in evolution, how come man is going backwards? The world is not safer, saner, healthier, more tolerant, more forgiving and more loving. How come we do the things that we know are harmful to us? We drink to excess, way overeat even though we know it's bad for us, we are destroying our home (the earth), then we want to export all our dysfunction to the rest of the universe!

What does evolution have to do with an interpetation of the cross ?

Monty: Nothing. Evolution is a myth. People use evolution in order to deny the fact that God created us in His image.I was responding to Matt Woodling. I assumed that he believes in evolution as he denies that God exists or if He does, has no interest in His creation. Evolution is the usual belief of people who deny God. I've not come across another belief apart from some really wacky alien theories.

Show post

Mark #fundie

I can't help thinking about it when the gay community keep whinging for "equal rights". They don't want equal rights, they already have them. What they really want is to get their perversions legalized.

Show post

Convention of States #conspiracy

In report after report following Donald Trump’s election, career staffers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration kept saying the same thing: climate change is real, serious and man-made.
That’s surprising because Trump has called global warming a hoax. His political appointees at the Commerce Department, which oversees NOAA, have complained to its staff, but stopped short of demanding changes or altering the findings. So the reports, blog posts and public updates kept flowing. The bureaucrats won.
“Everything coming out of NOAA does not reflect this administration,” said David Schnare, a retired lawyer for an industry-backed think tank who served on Trump’s transition team and is skeptical about climate change. “It reflects the last one.”
That’s true across the government as some of the roughly two million career staff have found ways to obstruct, slow down or simply ignore their new leader, the president.
Staff at the Securities and Exchange Commission, for example, issued a report contradicting the White House’s position about the negative effects of banking regulations. The State Department’s embassy staff preserved Obama-era programs to boost the economies of developing countries — at odds with Trump’s “America First” campaign pledges — not by changing the substance of the programs but merely by relabeling them as a way to create markets for U.S. exports.

The President can’t “drain the swamp” under these conditions. The only way to reduce the size and scope of the federal government is by allowing the people and the states to take control via an Article V Convention of States.

Show post

shawn.erpexp #fundie

(=Revarding the sexual assault by Andy Savage=)

It's really important that we speak truthfully, without hyperbole, when discussing a situation like this. What he did was sinful. It was immoral and repugnant. It wasn't sexual assault and it wasn't illegal.

Why do you feel the need to exaggerate what was done in terms of man's law when it definitely broke God's law?

Show post

Mark Bradshaw #fundie

Mark Bradshaw: The author stated: "For instance, does it make any sense for a Christian to pluck Old Testament verses from their original historical and cultural context in order to clobber others, given that we are not under the Law but under Grace? It seems it would be a con to the very faith we proclaim!" ------- While we ARE under God's grace (through the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross), He (God) STILL CONDEMNS sinful behavior and we are to STILL abide by his law. Part of that law is that certain behaviors are STILL considered sin. Among them is the behavior of homosexuality (and all sexual behavior outside of man-woman marriage. Jesus said that we are to sin no more. If all sin is forgiven, then to what sin was He referring? Moral law established in the Old Testament is STILL valid and in effect. Moral law did not simply disappear because Jesus died for our sins. We are forgiven for our sins when we accept the gift of forgiveness from Jesus and develop a relationship with Him. The road to God and eternal fellowship with Him is through Jesus and Jesus alone. We are to rebuke and reject ALL sin both in ourselves and others. One must first recognize sinful behavior before one can truly reject it. And, only through Jesus can we truly reject sin.
see more

glenbo: >>"Moral law established in the Old Testament is STILL valid and in effect."<< Therefore, we can own, buy, sell and beat slaves to death. Women must marry their rapists. We are to murder anyone who dares to work on the Sabbath. And we are to murder all homosexuals. This is GOD'S Morality. And as Christians, you are bound to uphold it.

Mark Bradshaw: Uh, NO. You clearly do NOT understand God's law. Slavery was NOT part of God's moral law, therefore your assertion is fallacious. Same with women being require to marry their rapists - that is part of ceremonial law. Again, same with the Sabbath - part of ceremonial law and not in effect. "And we are to murder all homosexuals." ----- AGAIN, FALSE. this part of God's law was forgiven through Jesus Christ.

Show post

Richard Williams #fundie

Carmine Bracale: Wake up, Carl. One cannot hate a myth, only the horror that an outdated myth unleashes on the world. You keep presenting a god that is not one whit better than the mythical god of the Aztecs, who demanded human sacrifice, or Moloch how demanded human sacrifice, or any of the other mythical pagan gods who fed on the blood of those naive enough or foolish enough to follow them. Can any sane person posit an ALL POWERFUL god who could eliminate the evil in the world with a simple 'fiat'....but instead, fashions himself into an equally mythical son and forces that son to undergo the most gruesome death immagineable. No sane creator would ever be responsible for the horrors commanded by the god of the bible. And it is ONLY the bible that you have, on which to base your 'love' for Jesus Christ....a personage for whose existence there is not the tiniest shred of evidence. You claim to 'hate' religion, yet without it your mythical beings would have no existence at all. They certainly are not posited by science, or supported by logic. And the nonsense of a 'personal relationship God in Christ in nothing more than a hope, a wish, a dream.... just a nice fuzzy warm feeling. I have enough nice, fuzzy warm feelings in my life, I don't need anymore. And please try not to confuse a righteous hatred of religious bigotry with 'hatefullness'. If there WERE a Universal Creator, he/she/it would have not the slightest resemblance to your god, or to your Christ. And please, don't insult me with your prayers: I neither need or want them. If you MUST pray, pray for the families of those who have been killed or persecuted by the followers of your Christ! That would make, at least, a bit of sense.

Richard Williams: Ok, that is quite enough. Admit how despicable humans can be in how they treat others, how about? What do you do with people who treat humans despicably and will not change? God had every right to get rid of them. This is the God you are talking about who actually cares about the direction of the lives of human beings. This is the context that God asked the Israelites to kill. It wasn't because they were of a particular race or language, it was because their sin had gotten so bad that it was a plague to the world around them. We who have made comments like yours have probably not experienced such a culture and it is easy for us to make blanket statements regarding something we are ignorant about. God is not ignorant like that. God acted in love for those who would possibly choose to live a better life when He made the plans to get rid of these particular peoples. Only people filled with the same sadistic evil of those people would not be able to see how badly these people were embroiled in sin.

Show post

Josh #fundie

It comes down to this: a Christian is someone who has repented and turned to believe in the salvation that Christ bought with His blood on the cross after He was buried and resurrected. I don't see how a God who hates sin could allow us to practice it willingly. Does He forgive us when we sin? To those who have accepted His salvation, yes. Is there a possibility you will sin after you are saved? Absolutely. But the fact of the matter is you should be walking with Jesus towards seeing holiness in your life, or freedom from sin. You were freed when you were saved but it takes time to see it work out in your life. There is no point where a truly saved Christian should think: God is ok with my sin and I can live this way. Sin separates and either you are separated from Him eternally through rejecting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, or separated momentarily through sinning in your relationship with Him.

But you are not walking in the Spirit and having homosexual sex with a man, whether you are married or single. The verse in Leviticus that labels homosexuality an abomination has been fulfilled in Christ. So if something is fulfilled do you now do the opposite of what it said? No by standing in the righteousness of Jesus Christ Who fulfilled the Law, you stand in the righteousness as if you completed each Law yourself. That means in your personal life you uphold the notion that same gender sex is an abomination. You do not turn to another point of view; it would be outside of Scripture not to.

To address Matthew Vines' arguments, God did not need to create a partner suitable for gay man because man was not created to be gay, or else he would be in the garden with Adam. Homosexuality came about after sin entered in. Read Genesis 1-3 and tell me if you see any mention of homosexuality.

Honestly, it doesn't matter if a homosexual man feels like he has to be "celibate" for the rest of his life, or if because of the scriptural teachings of the bible the homosexual is left feeling hurt, torn, and has their dreams broken of becoming married to another man. It doesn't matter because Jesus is trying to emphasize that this was never intended and if a gay person has to learn that they must give up these things as they follow Him so be it. It's better than the alternative; living in the lie of thinking that the Bible approves homosexuality and end up in hell for all eternity because you never truly knew the real Jesus- the Jesus of the Bible.

The real Jesus through His Holy Spirit convicts man of sin. Man has long been convicted of homosexuality as being a sin before this past couple generations who believe orientation is a choice. That's another mistake: to believe that God was not omnipotent enough when writing the Bible to know that there would be gay people trying to find their place. And I tell you He did:
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (?2 Timothy? ?4?:?3-4? KJV)

So the answer is this: homosexuality is a sin. God does not condone it neither does His Word. He hates it but He loves you. It is more important ending up in heaven forever living for Jesus correctly than ending up in hell listening to some guy who doesn't believe the Word of God is the final authority and says that it's ok to live the way you were before you got saved. And then maybe the question is how do you know if you're truly saved to begin with? The gospel is simply stated as so:
But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (?Romans? ?10?:?8-11, 13? KJV)

That's it. If you've repented and believed the Gospel and called on the name of Jesus you shall be saved. I hope that God spoke through me tonight. I hope and pray that someone some time is helped by this post. I hate seeing people deceived and I hate seeing deceivers lead people, who don't know any better, into a lie that could cost them their life. Well I pray that God blesses you guys and Jesus saves you :) I hope to see you all in heaven :)

Show post

Bruce Atkinson #fundie

The whole issue of homosexuality is deliberately rigged in God's favor. Just check out the scriptures:: Matthew 19:4-6 (defining marriage), Genesis 1-2 (defining the image of God as male and female), Genesis 18-19 (Sodom and Gomorrah), Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13,
Deuteronomy 23:18, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10. Jude 1:7 refers to Genesis 19:1-11, the Sodom and Gomorrah incident. These scriptures condemn homosexual behavior as sin, even calling it an abomination that of course, without repentance and amendment of life, will keep you out of heaven. Additionally, there are many more scriptures that condemn sexual sin in general, which is defined as any sexual behavior outside of male-female marriage (this then must logically include homosexual behavior).

Chastity, sexual purity and sexual faithfulness in marriage are virtues valued highly all through the Bible. Their opposite is always condemned. I challenge dissenters to show me the scriptures which say that homosexuality is a good thing or even to be tolerated. They never can meet this challenge because such scriptures don’t exist. In order to maintain the heresy that committed homosexual relationships (and the sexual acts which accompany them) are not sin, a person must of necessity disbelieve and denigrate scripture. This means ignoring it, demeaning it, minimizing its authority, revising it, or re-interpreting it to fit one’s own point of view. This is because the scriptures are quite clear about sex being only right and holy within heterosexual marriage.

Show post

Denny #fundie

Paul is widely hated by the left, including the "Christian" left because of what he taught regarding sexuality and the role of women. If you defend the inspired character of Paul's writings, you will be called a "Paulist instead of a Christian" by the homosexual activists and feminists. They are obviously ignorant of Christian history. There is no such thing as a Paul-free Christianity. Accept the writings of Paul as part of the divine canon of Scripture, or go start a different religion, because there is no Christianity without Paul.

Show post

Dilettanti Ostranenie #fundie

Dilettanti Ostranenie: Earth really is flat. Not a spinning sphere it's obvious

ChrisDACase95: Reality disagrees with you.

Dilettanti Ostranenie: No curve or motion found. That’s reality

Show post

Shep Voice #fundie

[=A response to an article writing grief following the Orlando Massacre and how Christians should respond=]

To Josh Daffern,

First, it is very important to understand this: The truth must come before emotions and feelings (Jn 4:24). Why? For one thing emotions and feelings can deceive you where the real truth is a never changing constant (Jn 14:6; Prov 30:5-6; 1 Cor 4:6). We must also understand that no-one can live without breaking God's eternal law=sin that separates us from God. Some get into one or more sins more than another, some deeper into particular sins more than others.

Further, Jesus did not walk among the sinners to join in with them. He came to save sinners, to show them the way out of their sins (repentance - if they will not repent they will be worthless). He did not show worldly love to them nor did He celebrate anything with them (Jesus knew everything that would be written in the legit Bible). That is because He fully understood the difference between God's true love and repentance and man's foolish ideas of what love is coming from their sin nature (Lk 14:26; Rom 12:*9; Mt 6:24; Gal 1:10; Jam 4:*4; 1 Jn 2:*15; Amos 5:15; Jn 2:*24-25; 7:7,**24; 17:*9; Lk 9:**60 [the unsaved are dead already]; 23:51; 2 Cor 5:*16).

The problem many make is not understanding that you cannot just take a few verses and form a teaching from them. To achieve true interpretation and right understanding takes use of both the OT and NT together, along with the careful comparing and weighing every verse, passage, chapter and book against every other of the 66 legit Bible books (Jn 7:24 - includes right judgment for everything written in the Bible).

Only then can we begin to understand the true connections and differences between the OT and the NT and the actual one true interpretation (while being very careful not to add or omit anything from the Bible [Prov 30:6; 1 Cor 4:6] = There is only one God, one Jesus Christ, one Holy Spirit and one truth that stands forever unchanged [all of these are in full agreement and full compliance] = only one true interpretation is correct. Jesus was not talking out 2 nor 1000s of sides of His mouth=non confusion=the absolute truth.

What does all this mean with respect to your article? True Christians are not to do anything that even gives the appearance that we accept, support, promote or that we are participating in what God, Jesus and Jesus' fully trained Apostles have declared are in fact abominations against God, homosexuality being one of the main ones. In other words, mourning is mostly restricted to mourning the death of other Christians or members of their families dependant on what they were into if not Chistian. Also, true Christians are not to kill, gloat over or celebrate the unsaved's deaths.

One main issue overlooked by some is the fact that one cannot remain Christian if they continue in behavior that is an abomination. While humanly many Christians want to openly feel sorry for the deaths in Orlando, be emotional and have compassion for them it can only be very limited because the reality is they need to turn to Jesus for real and get away from that behavior because Hell is a real place.

The truth is that these deaths are a warning from God just as other deaths are warnings from God that they better turn to Jesus before it is too late. The Bible makes it clear that worse is coming and the more they pursue such behaviors the greater the destruction that will be coming soon (it is the end-times and eventually God's patience will run out and He will more and more lift His restraint on the devil, allowing him more and more power over the unsaved.

Eventually, the unsaved will insist on their evil ways to the point that they will make great effort to kill and get rid of Christians. Again, the Orlando massacre is just another hint of what God is going to allow to happen (see Mat 24, Mk 13, Lk 21, 2 Thes 2, Dan 11 & 12 and Rev). There is a great difference between right God's love and wrong "worldly" love. We need to rightly fully understand the difference or there will be a chance that you will be deceived (1 Cor 14:7-8).

Obviously, true Christians should not be supporting killing others as we are all sinners but the unsaved do need to know that what they are doing is in fact an abomination which God hates and His anger and wrath will grow as they refuse to repent (Jer 23:20). Find and carefully study my other posts. They all go together.

Show post

Shep Voice #fundie

For over 35 years I lived in a heavily gay area. I saw them almost every day in and around my building. In the 70s I happened to see a show about the "gay agenda" and it was quite clear they meant business, that no one was going to get in their way. A number of those living in and around my building also made it quite clear that no one was going to get in their way. I was a personal witness to their actions and corruption. Therefore, I write with authority. The world is in for a rude awakening if they continue down the path of acceptance of this abomination.

Show post

Shep Voice #fundie

JuliaRomanov16: The Truth is sometimes terrible. You cannot "disagree" with homosexuality, it is a fact. It is also a fact that many gay people, including children, commit suicide because they are told that homosexual attraction is an illness not to be reconciled with a good christian life. Countless other children are thrown out into the streets with some forced to turn to prostitution to survive. What i have told you does not even scratch the surface of the hate and indignities that the LGBTQ community face on a regular basis. So yes Yvonne must want us dead. The fact that she won't pick up a gun and kill us directly, but instead wants to use "respectable" means, makes her a coward.

Shep Voice: Actually, it is God who will want them dead as they refuse to believe that He made us and that He sent His Son to save you even from yourself. Jesus is the Physician, the only one who can rewire our brains to accept what is right in God's eyes. Otherwise, you will be part of the rebellion, the one that God hates. Again, many ways SEEM right but its end is death=Hell. Jesus is the only way out (the reason He came to earth).

Show post

Shep Voice #fundie

[=Looking at the guys disqus profile, you see that he goes on this rant on numerous pages following the Orlando Massacre in 2016=]

Some say homosexuality harms no one but this is not true. If it was simply about “separation” of church & state that might be 1 thing. But its not:

“Normalizing” same sex relationships & marriage does have a major negative impact, harming hetrosexual families. You may not understand “cause & effect” consquences but by approving same sex lifestyles you have a negative effect on inocent gullible impressionable children. They copy adult behavior.

I call it the “undertow effect” as more children get swept into this behavior. They start with thinking 2 guys kissing or holding hands, etc. is normal behavior & later that its not bad & some take it farther. It will make it easier for gays to recruit more older children right under your nose – cause & effect laws of physics which cannot be broken w/o Jesus in your life=breakdown of the fabric of society just as Jesus prophecied 2000 years ago=spiritually selling & eating your children=acceleration of slavery to sin. The world & the US are making a grave mistake approving gay marriage.

The gay perversion is 1 of the hardest sins to get out of because it goes to the very core of your brain, spirit & being (internal sins are the worst. Its why the Bible calls it an abomination). The gay perversion is like a social cancer. Leave it in place & it will spread though out the body. Its now spreading through out society. Many ways SEEM right but its end=death (Hell, where you live alone forever). Find and carefully study my other posts. They all go together.

There are real reasons for not accepting gay and related behaviors as normal. Thus not all who are against homosexuality are homophobic nor are all whom are against such behaviors coming from hate as a motive.

Pride comes before the fall of a man. Pride parades come before the fall of mankind. However, many confuse TRUTH (upsets & offends many) and HATE. Telling someone the truth does not mean you hate them. Many ways SEEM right but its end=death (Hell).

Sleeping with/marrying your own gender is in effect SLEEPING WITH/MARRYING YOURSELF which equals being LOVER OF SELF which is an abomination [God's VALID REASON against this practice (right vs wrong love)]. It wrongly distorts, merges and blurs God’s male/female creation differences, characteristics, attributes and purpose-Lev 18:22, Rom 1:26-32, 1 Pet 4:3-4: Gal 5:19-21: 1 Cor 6:18-20. Also, even 1 man/1 woman marriages cannot be rightly put together w/o understanding God’s purpose for it (why there are so many divorces).

Accepting, promoting or participating in gay lifestyles are against God. You cannot remain a Christian if you do these things. It mocks God. Jesus was not talking out 2 nor 1000s of sides of His mouth=no confusion. Only one God can occupy true 360 deg infinity and that God is the God of Israel. Two true 360 deg infinities can not exist at the same time. Occupying this position you can never die=no other legit gods can exist.

Also, under the NT slavery (and killing anyone) was never approved. Neither God nor Jesus were ever into race nor were they ever against interracial marriage. What comes from God lasts forever. What comes from man, including his manmade religions & gods die with him. Why should God want you to live with Him forever if you do not want to know Him, His way, not yours?

Because God is real and made Commandments to His true believers, they must in turn not accept anything God does not approve of. In fact, true Christians should only grieve for the families (not the dead) in private or among themselves. They should not do anything publicly that even looks like they support homosexuality (it is called an abomination because it goes to the very core of one's brain and soul, making it one of the hardest sins to get out of=worst sins). We are not even to look like we accept, support and/or we are participating in their sin as that makes it look like we are promoting their sin which the Bible warns us not to do.

In other words, true Christians do not go to gay anything (i.e. clubs, parades, weddings, wakes, funerals, stores, watch gay shows [like the primetime ones aimed at children], movies (drives up ratings) or send your children to Boy Scouts or other organizations, etc. that install gays as leaders or try to get children to see gays as normal.

If a preacher said to kill them he is dead wrong. However, many are making a huge mistake. There is a huge difference between God's true love and worldly ideas of what love is coming from their sin nature and lack of understanding of who God and Jesus are. There is no use praying for the dead - Lk 9:60 (the unsaved are dead already and the dead cannot hear you nor can they do anything to change their status once they are dead); Lk 12:20.

No human is a child of God unless they become a true follower of Jesus = Jn 3:16-*18-21; *36; 1:12-13 = you must turn to Jesus to become a child of God (see Jn 3:3,5 - Nichodemus was a very religious man yet Jesus told him even he must be born anew or he cannot be a child of God. God's true love to the unsaved is to tell them that they need to be born anew and rightly follow Jesus not joining in in acceptance of them as they are. Find and carefully study my other posts (Hos 4:6). They all go together.

Show post

Clayton Gafne Jaymes #fundie

Do you really think that your your little kid understands 'honor' and 'obedience' out of love and respect the same way they understand the physical displeasure of discipline for not doing what is told to them?

I'm thinking that it is better to have you child/ren be afraid of you bringing a spanking rather than then not fearing you or respecting/honoring/loving you more than their own will/want and desires for whatever reason/excuse they may have at that time that can get them hurt faaaaaaar worse than a spanking.

Obviously, every child gets to an age where using physical discipline gets to be counterproductive and. Thus using other means to get their attention becomes far more reasonable than any physical correction.

Show post

Rudy Schellekens #fundie

[=Comment on "Would You Rather Have a Gay Child or a Dead Child ?"=]

"...parents asking their kids to change something inherent, something that son or daughter can’t change...." But that is the problematic issue, isn't it? the jury IS still out on whether it is a "born with..." issue. And yes, you can jump all over me, but an objective look at the studies cannot come to any other conclusion.

So, that being out of the way, the really important thing is how a deals with a child that is different. And by different I mean in any possible way. My child will always, no matter what the circumstances, be my child, and therefore loved by me. Even should my child turn out to be a a Bundy or a Dahmer. I will love.
But loving does not mean that I will support ar approve every kind of behavior. And that is where problems arise.

I believe the Bible clearly teaches that homosexual behavior is sin. I do not believe that homosexual behavior is acceptable to God when "two people really love each other..." We do not make that exception in any other relationship (Well, it's okay for a 25 yr old to have a sexual relation with a 13 year old. After all, they love each other). Or polygamous relationships. We do not accept the same excuse!

Unfortunately, homosexual behavior is in the spotlight (currently). The law in the US does not allow polygamous marriages, no matter how much the woman loves her three husbands. Biblically, we have the same condemnation. Whether we like it or not, we cannot invent reasons why God should (and would) allow relationships He has forbidden. Not once, not twice...

From a personal point of view, I do not have the right to change what God has written to fit my desires. And from a personal point of view, I would love my child - but will not accept or condone behavior which is not Biblical, be that sexual or any other kind of behavior. That is part of the price of our convictions. We may not be liked and may even be ridiculed or called names or lambasted on a public forum. But that, too, is part of the price of my convictions.

Show post

Rudy Schellekens #fundie

[=A comment on both Gay Christians and Unuveralism=]

Carl Longren: Would you be disappointed if you find out in the resurrection that everyone is saved??? There is nothing you or I can do to "earn" our salvation. It is a free gift. You are expecting gays to "earn" their salvation by not being gay. If you believe Hitler was evil, how much more evil do you think a god would be who would burn people for eternity. At least when Hitler killed people it was over and the suffering wasn't forever. Do you believe that the Jews who were killed in the Holocaust will only be resurrected to be sent to hell for all eternity? How horribly cruel. Please use some logic!

Rudy Schellekens: Logic steps above emotionalism. Salvation is a biblical concept. So how about using the Bible as the play book?
Yes. Hitler was evil. To think that he escaped justice on earth bothers me. To know that there will be a judgment that he cannot escape?
And that judgment will be righteous.
The greater monster is a God who WOULD let him escape justice again!

Show post

Josh #fundie

But saying that I made an unsupported claim is like the pot calling the kettle black. Where is the support for your claims? All I see is subjective experience. That's also what I gave you. The difference is that the subjectivity I gave is very obvious in the culture at large. The culture looks down on gluttony/obesity, gossips, and even cheating and divorce, therefore, those sins don't need a "Nashville Statement" to point out the difference between the church and the culture.

It's funny you say we are bleeding believers. The vast majority of churches with declining memberships are the ones that don't preach what the Bible says. Those that affirm homosexuality and the liberal political agenda are losing membership. Those that hold to orthodox teachings and a generally conservative political agenda are growing. in reference to this poll:

If you were in a church that affirmed all the sins you say it affirmed or enabled, you were in a bad church. There are plenty of those out there, but the good news is that their memberships are declining. If you aren't currently in a good conservative church, I urge you to find one.

Show post

newenglandsun #fundie

On June 17, 1689 the Sacred Heart of Jesus manifested to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque His command to the King of France that the King was to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart. For 100 years to the day the Kings of France delayed, and did not obey.

So on June 17, 1789 the King of France was stripped of his legislative authority by the upstart Third Estate, and four years later the soldiers of the French Revolution executed the King of France as if he were a criminal.

Junkies for Jesus Award

Show post

Brandon Barthrop #fundie

Brandon Barthrop, who says he’s a former meth addict, started a “Christian Crack House” in Minnesota where his followers “get high on the Lord”… by snorting and huffing essential oils.

He explains all this in a video published by VICE.


Barthrop explains that his place of worship used to be “the main crack house” for a bad area of Minnesota with “36 organized gangs.” But when he was handed the building (someone bought it for a mere $20,000), he turned it into a personal ministry.

“The devil had his crack house. Now I’m gonna have my crack house, and they’re gonna get high on my crack.”

His form of crack, apparently, is burning frankincense and getting “jacked up” on essential oils.

“I do a lot of stuff with essential oils, just for, like, fun. And we snort ‘em and huff ‘em and get all jacked up on ‘em.”

When asked if that makes them high, Barthrop responds, “Yeah, do you wanna try it?”

“This stuff’s so pure that you can orally ingest it and it can be huffed up the nose. You just pour a little on… and just bring it right into your brains and get high on frankincense.”

When asked if the huffing practice was “allowed,” Barthrop specified that it was “completely legal.” He also said Jesus huffed frankincense as a baby — a reference to the magi who brought Baby Jesus gold, frankincense, and myrrh in the story.

“You know Jesus, when he was a baby, started huffing frankincense right in the crib. It’s evidence he was high from birth.”

It’s not just frankincense, though. Barthrop says he also uses “Diamond Oil,” which gives him a “Holy Ghost body high.” He compared it to “like a clean and pure methamphetamine.”

“I’ve got some other stuff that maybe we can get high on later that’s totally like a healthy Holy Ghost body high and it’s called Diamond Oil. And I invented it and own the patents on it.”

Is anyone surprised he has an interest in making money from selling a substance he himself compares to meth?

He says the goal of his group is to “trance out the entire planet” and help people find “the perfect drug.” Being “drunk” or “high,” in their world, is a form of communion with God.

As if that wasn’t enough, Barthrop lashes out against “religion” as “the most evil substance on the face of the earth.” But Christianity, somehow, gets a pass.

“Christianity, in its purest form, is pure pleasure, pure spirituality that benefits everyone around you continuously by positive energy. 2000 years ago they were experiencing ecstasy in the Holy Spirit and it’s been a common occurrence throughout the entire church history and so, the drunkenness is simply ecstasy. It’s pure biblical Christianity.”

Barthrop is right about one thing. Christians have been getting emotional and psychological highs from religious gatherings and rituals for thousands of years. It turns out that, much like the spiritual high felt by someone speaking in tongues, his experiences are caused more by a mindset than by any external force.

I searched online and couldn’t find a reliable source suggesting huffing frankincense actually gets you high, but we all know that real substances aren’t necessary for strong emotional and psychological experiences. All you have to do is believe. Too bad Barthrop is just replacing one addiction with another


Show post

Pat Robertson #fundie

On Wednesday’s edition of The 700 Club, Pat Robertson kicked off his Dear Abby-style “Honest Answers” segment with a question from a viewer who was very concerned that her son had married an atheist and wanted to know what she should do about that.

Ethyl wrote:

When my son told me he was going to marry an atheist, it was a tough pill to swallow, but I managed to get through it. I raised my son to believe we, as Christians, should only marry inside the church, but I know he loves her so much that I can’t bring myself to say anything about it. Should I respect his right to make his own choice?

Yes, yes Ethyl, you should absolutely do that. Because it is not your business.

That, of course, is not what Pat Robertson said.

He said that Jesus doesn’t have any fellowship with Belial (the Devil), and that people in the church should not be “unequally yoked” with non-believers, and that Billy Graham said, “You marry an atheist, then you’ve got the devil for your father-in-law.”

This is factually untrue. If you were to marry me, you would have Dante for a father-in-law. Not the Inferno one, of course, just the one who is my dad and has no relation to the fiery pits of hell whatsoever. Robertson explained to Ethyl that although she could give him advice and counsel him, this was all her fault for having been such a terrible parent.

Why? Because the Bible said to “Raise up a child in the way he should go and when he’s old he won’t depart.” And then, just to hammer home the point, Robertson added, “You haven’t raised him very well if he’s going into atheism right now.”

Show post

Kwame Lazarus #fundie

I lie not about the American flag. It is hardly ever seen waving in front of most Black homes and practically invisible at African American celebrations.

Trust me, I make no distinction between the White American and the White Supremacist.

You can continue to gloat in your delusions but the rise of North Korea and your race's inability to subdue that nation is testament that the days of global and national white rule are numbered.

Show post

newenglandsun #fundie

Single-payer is a violation of human rights. It means the government can lay claim onto my children or potential children because they pay for that healthcare. It also means that they can lay claim to my own life and create a euthanasia state based on who they think ought to live since it is everyone's tax-payers' money they are using on the situation.
If you think single-payer is "no threat to healthcare", you are a moron.

Show post

newenglandsun #fundie

(part of a longer arguement about the second amendment)

"Indeed. What good would any of that do against tanks, bombers, and so forth?"

Straw-man. I affirm military privatisation.
In other words, I believe that the people should be allowed to possess the same weapons as the government possesses.

"who do you envision purchasing enough tanks and fighter jets and such to fight the US government on equal terms?"

Do you understand what a free market even is?


If the governmental authorities have them, yes.

Show post

Archdiocese of Regina #fundie

A group of Catholic bishops in Saskatchewan recently sent out a letter to Catholic school boards and parents targeting the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine and warning about its “moral implications.”

The Archdiocese of Regina said Monday that schools can’t enforce a “compulsory vaccination program for students” and that parents have “the final say” in the matter. The group encouraged parents to reject the vaccine, which prevents certain types of cancer in boys and girls, for religious reasons.

“First, in accord with the moral teaching of the Church, it is important that young people be encouraged to avoid any kind of promiscuous behavior that, along with other negative effects, also can put them in danger of cervical cancer. Scientific evidence supports the ethical stance that responsible sexual behavior, abstinence until marriage and then a faithful, monogamous union are the surest way to good health.”

How dare they bring science into this discussion. Especially in the same breath as “abstinence until marriage,” considering that scientific studies have shown definitively how teaching abstinence instead of more comprehensive sex education actually hurts kids.

The bishops acknowledged that the vaccine prevents 70% of the HPV that can cause cervical cancer… but argued that that was a bad thing. They warned parents of a “false sense of security” that can contribute to “risky behavior.”

“This is especially important since other viral infections and sexually transmitted diseases are unaffected by the vaccine. When making moral decisions, practical considerations play an important role. In this case, parents need to weigh both the potential benefit that comes from the reduction of one’s chances of contracting an HPV infection that could lead to cervical cancer and the potential harm that could come both from risk compensation and from undermining a healthy sense of sexuality if young people perceive that they are being given ‘mixed messages.’”

In case you weren’t following that, the group is actually saying the HPV vaccine should be avoided because it works too well… which will encourage young children to have more sex. It makes as much sense as saying students shouldn’t be told to wear seat belts because it might encourage them to drive more recklessly.
The bishops went on to contradict that sentiment, though, by undermining the evidence in favor of the vaccine. The group said the scientific support for it “is at an early stage” and the “long term effects are unknown.” (Would they support it if the research was more clear?)

This research has been accepted for years, so why are the bishops lying? It turns out they’ve been sending out this exact same letter during vaccine season every year since at least 2008. The only difference now is that the vaccine is now being offered to girls and boys.

This error was brought to the attention of at least one of the bishops, who admitted that sending it without updates was “a mistake.” Unfortunately, the damage may have already been done, according to Canadian Cancer Society’s Donna Pasiechnik.

“Parents might read this and think ‘Oh my goodness, I don’t want to [do] this’,” Pasiechnik said.

“Statements in the letter were not based on evidence or facts, so we are concerned some parents may just take that at face value and not want to vaccinate.”

Show post

John #fundie

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

Show post

Ronald Keith and Rendy Wright #fundie

Ronald Keith Wright and Rendy Wright are now out on bond after an August arrest for kicking their child out of the house.

Why on earth would parents kick out a seven-year-old? Because a preacher allegedly told them he was possessed by demons.

"The couple told the child that he was to leave his home and never return, according to the arrest affidavit.

Authorities say the parents then let the child leave with no regard for his safety or whereabouts.


A Bowie County, Texas deputy also said that the couple, in a discussion with a preacher, were told that the boy is possessed by demons."

This all stems from the idea that the boy wouldn’t “do what he was told,” but good luck finding children who listen to everything their parents say. That’s not a sign of Satan. That’s a sign that they’re children.
The parents were also apparently meth users, though plenty of people take the advice of their religious leaders while sober.

The child is currently staying with a relative who hopefully knows better than to listen to a preacher’s advice on the devil.

Show post

Topeka Correctional Facility #fundie

Shari Webber-Dunn is an inmate at the Topeka Correctional Facility in Kansas, where she’s been serving a 40-year sentence for “helping her boyfriend murder her husband”. She’s also a practicing Thelemite, which makes her part of a century-old theistic religion that stresses individualism. Those details are irrelevant, however, for the problem she witnessed at the prison.

According to a lawsuit filed by the American Humanist Association’s (AHA) Appignani Legal Center, Webber-Dunn has been subject to all kinds of religious proselytizing at the women’s prison:

"… the lawsuit objects to displaying religious messages, images, and symbols on public bulletin boards and elsewhere on prison grounds; encouraging and facilitating prayer requests; displaying a large wooden cross in a multi-purpose room that is used for various purposes; and otherwise imposing strong Christian values on inmates."

Even the movies shown on weekends are Christian propaganda films.
Despite asking politely, and through the proper channels, for the religious items to be removed, she heard nothing from prison officials. That’s why she approached the AHA.

“Prisons are not exempt from the Constitution,” said AHA legal director David Niose,”and prisoners do not lose the shield from state-sponsored religion provided by the Establishment Clause.”

Why she’s in prison has nothing to do with the rights she’s guaranteed while she’s in there. And forcing Christianity upon prisoners is illegal. Prison officials should never have let this happen in the first place. They should’ve stopped it when she asked about it. And now, they’ll have to stop it while paying a hefty penalty for it. Too damn bad. They deserve it.

Show post

Dan Fisher #sexist

“If elected, I will do everything in my power to bring this evil to an end and take executive action to ensure that all Oklahomans are equally protected, including the preborn,” the former Oklahoma state representative said in a video posted to his campaign’s YouTube page last week. “I will disregard any unjust rulings or perversions of the U.S. Constitution that claim that there is a right to murder preborn human beings in the womb.”

Fisher said in the video that anti-choice laws passed by Republican lawmakers “really only spell out the requirements for killing a preborn baby,” suggesting that they don’t go far enough. “Every one of these pro-life laws affirm abortion as legal, treat it as an acceptable choice, and seek to regulate the practice. If you think about it, these laws are basically pro-choice.”

“I am not running for governor of Oklahoma as a pro-lifer,” he said. “I am not running to regulate abortion. I am running to abolish it.”

Show post

Kirk Cameron #fundie

One thing we know about hurricanes — and all weather — is that this is not Mother Nature in a bad mood. This is a spectacular display of God’s immense power. And when He puts His power on display, it’s never without reason. There’s a purpose. And we may not always understand what that purpose is, but we know it’s not random. And we know that weather is sent to cause us to respond to God in humility, awe, and repentance…

Show post

Bob Shiloh #fundie

You cannot see past your bitterness. Remember envy and bitterness rots the bones.
The correct mantra from the Left is that 98% of climatologists agree on Global Warming. This is a fundamentally flawed statement because many are afraid of what the Liberal Media will do to them if they disagree. But don't worry after 8 years of President Trump you won't remember this blip in the road.
Well I guess that's why this site is called Formerly Fundie?

Show post

Arkansas #fundie

When public schools open up in Arkansas this year, they will all have to display the phrase “In God We Trust” in every library and classroom, provided that the signs are donated or contributions are made specifically for that purpose. The same rule will apply to all buildings funded by taxpayer dollars.

This unnecessary commercial for religion was passed earlier this year with House Bill 1980, which claimed to be about promoting the national motto (Patriotism!) even though this sort of thing is never about patriotism. The kids already say the Pledge of Allegiance. Is that not enough? Staring at a sign doesn’t make you more of an American.

If patriotism was the overriding concern, then schools would have signs saying “e pluribus unum” or something that actually unites us all. Instead, they’re alienating more than a third of young people who don’t belong to any traditional religion.

Just listen to public reaction to this law. It’s easy to tell religion, not America, is what’s on people’s mind.

“It should be there,” said Sharon Sumpter from Mulberry. “We need to turn more back to our religion, our roots and why our country was founded.”

“If you take ‘In God We Trust’ out, I mean that’s basically telling them God’s dead, you know?,” said Doug Wilburn from North Little Rock.

How weak must that guy’s faith be that not seeing an “In God We Trust” sign in a public school means God must be dead?

Unfortunately, this sort of law is difficult to challenge in court precisely because it hides behind the “motto” reasoning, but make no mistake, this is a promotion of God in every public building in the state.

Show post

Logan Robertson #fundie

Pastor Logan Robertson, an independent Baptist preacher from Auckland, New Zealand, said in a recent sermon that he would be glad to support two gay people getting married… as long as they were shot at the altar.

The short clip of the Westcity Bible Baptist Church sermon was posted online in late July but got more attention after the New Zealand Herald covered it today.

Someone just emailed me the other day about our church. I [believe] he lives in Auckland. He’s like, “What’s your view on homo marriage?”

I was like, “My view on homo marriage is that the Bible never mentions it, so I’m not against them getting married as long as a bullet goes through their head the moment they kiss.”

Because that’s what it talks about. Not homo marriage, but homo death. There’s no such thing as homo marriage….

That’s what should happen. Now we’ve got Christians that would rather side with them — side with their cute little fag cousin or brother or whoever it is — than with Christians, than actually preach against it.

The love of Christ + a hatred of LGBT people = This sermon.

To be sure, many Christians have already condemned his hateful rhetoric. But make no mistake Robertson feels fully justified in saying this sort of thing because he thinks it’s inspired by the Bible.

When contacted by the Herald tonight, Robertson said he did not deny his words were hate speech.

“Of course it is. Does it sound like hate speech to you?” he said. “If the world thinks that’s hate speech then that’s fine.”
When radical Muslims do it, it’s terrorism. But when he does it, it’s religious freedom…
Just like Pastor Steven Anderson and Theodore Shoebat, Robertson reiterated that he wasn’t calling on anyone to kill gay people — that should be the government’s job in his mind — but he also wasn’t about to take responsibility if anyone acts his message.

“It’s got nothing to do with me — they could read that verse in the Bible.

“I’m not inciting vigilantes … I believe it’s the Government’s job.”

This isn’t Robertson’s first time in the news. In 2014, he told a gay Christian author, “I pray that you will commit suicide.” When a reporter (who also happened to be gay) asked him for clarification, Robertson said once again that the man should kill himself.

It’s not often you see a video when the hateful commenters seem tamer than the person in front of the camera, but leave it to a Baptist pastor to make that happen.

Show post

Craig “Sawman” Sawyer #fundie

(I wonder if 'Sawman' got his name from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre?)

Americans, Patriots, pray for our nation. Pray for our President.

I’m hearing serious rumblings of a hostile, illegal coup against our democratically elected President by seditious, deep-state subversives funded by Soros & other globalists. Very disturbing.

Patriots, this would be nothing less than an act of war against the American people. It would be the removal of our boldest defender & last possibility of maintaining our protective Constitution. Under the boot of globalists, life as we know it, would immediately decline to the model that suits the globalist interest – Marxist/Socialist/Communist. They get complete control, you get zero. Freedom, Gone! Liberty, Gone! This agenda is evil and simply cannot be allowed, at ANY cost.

Like ALL military, law enforcement and government officials, I took an oath to defend our Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. By abandoning the rule of law and conducting a coup against the President & policies WE THE PEOPLE elected, they have made themselves enemies of the United States.

Under threat, ALL patriots, whether civilian, law enforcement, government, or military, have the duty to defend our Constitution against such enemies. Some speculate on “civil war”. I readily recognize a much more sobering reality: Anti-American subversives involved in ANY WAY in an unconstitutional coup against our President will be run down and executed immediately by the world’s most supreme warriors. There will be nowhere to run to, nowhere to hide, no mercy, no sense of humor. Harsh examples will be made. My prediction is it will be a gruesome massacre. Why? Because one side in this conflict has 8 Trillion bullets & the other side doesn’t know which bathroom to use. It will likely only take a few hours. Lessons will be learned. History will take note. Order restored.

Patriots, We The American People stand united as one, against ALL enemies. We are peace-loving people who abide by the rule of law. Prepare yourselves in case this ridiculous insanity actually gets played out and the rule of law goes out the window under their gross miscarriage of our legal process. Shaking my head…

United We Stand! At the ready. USA!

Show post

Michelle Meyer and another employee #fundie

In a horrible case of real religious persecution, a 7-year-old boy in Indiana was punished and ostracized by his public school teacher after saying he did not believe in God.

Disturbing details are emerging from a lawsuit filed against teacher Michelle Meyer at Forest Park Elementary School who allegedly punished her 7-year-old student with “banishment” for not believing in God.

According to the lawsuit, Meyers forced a second grade boy (identified as A.B. in the lawsuit) to sit by himself at lunch for three days as well as ordering the boy not to talk to any of his classmates after the boy told another student he doesn’t go to church and doesn’t believe in God.

The following is an excerpt from the lawsuit, via the Washington Post:

"9. On or about February 23, 2015, A.B. and his classmates were on the playground during
the school day immediately before lunch when A.B. was asked by one of his classmates if he attended church.

10. A.B. responded by stating that he did not go to church and did not believe in God. He also stated that it was fine with him if his inquiring classmate believed in God.

11. The classmate said that A.B. had hurt her feelings by saying that he did not believe in God and started to cry.

12. A playground supervisor reported to Ms. Meyer what had happened.

13. At that point the students were going to lunch and Ms. Meyer asked A.B. if he had told
the girl that he did not believe in God and A.B. said he had and asked what he had done wrong.

14. Ms. Meyer asked A.B. if he went to church, whether his family went to church, and whether his mother knew how he felt about God.

15. She also asked A.B. if he believed that maybe God exists.

16. [The teacher] told A.B. that she was very concerned about what he had done and that she was going to contact his mother — although she never did.


22. On the day of the incident and for an additional two days thereafter, [the teacher] required that A.B. sit by himself during lunch and told him he should not talk to the other students and stated that this was because he had offended them. This served to reinforce A.B.’s feeling that he had committed some transgression that justified his exclusion."

In addition to Meyer’s punishing her student for saying he did not believe in God, another Forest Park Elementary School employee also harassed the little boy for saying he did not believe in God:

"8. A day or two after the initial incident, A.B. and his fellow-student who had become upset with his comment on the playground were sent to another adult employed at Forest Park Elementary School.

19. This person asked them what the problem was and A.B. indicated that his classmate had become upset when, in response to her question, he had said he did not go to church and did not believe in God.

20. Upon hearing this, the adult employee looked at A.B.’s classmate and stated that she should not be worried and should be happy she has faith and that she should not listen to A.B.’s bad ideas. She then patted the little girl’s hand.

21. This was, again, extremely upsetting to A.B. as it reinforced his feeling that he had done something very wrong."

To sum up, one student told another student he doesn’t go to church and doesn’t believe in God. Apparently that upset the other student, who said the statement hurt her feelings. As a consequence, the student was punished by his teacher and another school employee for simply articulating the fact that he does not believe in God and does not attend church.

The district, who for some reason is not named in the lawsuit, released the following statement about the unfortunate affair:

"It is clear that it is not the province of a public school to advance or inhibit religious beliefs or practices. Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, this remains the inviolate province of the individual and the church of his/her choice. The rights of any minority, no matter how small, must be protected."

The most tragic part of the story:

"31. A.B. came home from school on multiple occasions crying saying that he knows that everyone at school — teachers and students — hate him.

32. Even now there are some classmates who will not talk to A.B.

33. Even now A.B. remains anxious and fearful about school, which is completely contrary to how he felt before this incident."

“He was publicly shamed and made to feel that his personal beliefs were terribly wrong.”

Show post

Dave Armstrong #fundie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Show post

Skeptical Realist #fundie

Al Cruise: I think we are going on the wrong trail here. What my original question was , what would happen if conservative Christianity had total control over the state in all areas of civil life. This is the parallel that the author is talking about. The Nazis took control of every aspect of life in Germany and we saw what happened. What would happen if conservative Christianity had the identical same control and power in the USA?

Skeptical Realist: It is impossible to separate people from the equation, and people are evil. But is actual disciples of Christ ran all things, it would be wondrous. Love God, and Love People. Prayer of the generic type would be allowed back into school. Abortion would be much more restricted if not illegal. Gender dysphoria would remain classified as a mental/psychological disorder. The traditional definition of marriage would be restored. Civil unions would be available to same sex partners. Freedom of sincere religious conscience would be restored. Totalitarian Islamism would be declared an enemy of the state and subversive towards the Republic. The federal govt would be removed from the role of nanny and caregiver, and return that to the people and the states.

Show post

Mariam Sobh #fundie

In a really awful attempt at humor, actress Mariam Sobh posted a video recently explaining why ex-Muslims speak out against the faith: They just want cash.

Not because they no longer believe in God.

Not because they think Islam in particular has tremendous potential for harm when people take the holy texts literally.

Not because they want other doubting Muslims to know there’s a safe place for them if they ever become “apostates.”

Nope. It’s only because they want to get in on some of that sweet ex-Muslim money.

It seems like everyone is looking for a way to make money fast! But what if I told you I could show you a way to make those dreams come true?

First, I have to ask you this. Do you happen to be a Muslim? If you answered yes, well, soon you won’t be. That’s because with this special program, you have to pretend you’re not one! Why? Well… hello! People who’ve had inside access to this faith are in high demand! You will be the go-to expert before you can say “Creeping Sharia.” All you have to do is join the “I’m Not A Muslim Anymore Tell-All Society” or INAMATAS.

She then lists the perks of being an ex-Muslim, including book deals, “six-figure speaking gigs,” VIP travel around the world, and political positions.

There are testimonials from two “members” of IMAMATAS who brag about some of those perks. In between, Sobh returns to say, “All you have to do is denounce your faith in a series of social media rants and wait for the trolls to bite! Once your story goes viral and receive at least one death threat, you’re a candidate!”

She closes with the line, “We do take a 90% cut on all speaking engagements.”

Show post

Lee Kaplan and the Stoltzfus parents #fundie

Two parents from Pennsylvania have been sentenced to prison for up to seven years for “gifting” their six underage daughters to a man who claimed to be “prophet of God.”

Daniel and Savilla Stoltzfus unlawfully gave their young children to Lee Kaplan, who claimed to speak for God, after they left their Amish community. Kaplan was convicted just last month on 17 counts of child sex abuse for molesting and then “marrying” the six sisters.

A neighbor told CNN all about Kaplan, who was found living with 12 females (many of whom were underage) last year.

“My gut was telling me to confirm what I was thinking. I just knew. There was no reason why this older, significantly older man, any man, regardless of what they look like, would have this amount of children, all in blue dresses, never outside the house regularly, looking so scared… I knew that something wasn’t right.”

The neighbor’s gut was right, and now authorities have the evidence to prove it. They discovered that Kaplan met Daniel Stoltzfus at an auction in 2002 and laid the groundwork for a massive long con to convince the poor family he was speaking on behalf of their God.

Kaplan promised the family financial help, moved in with them, and ultimately took their six daughters as his brides. The eldest daughter had two children by Kaplan, including one that was conceived when she was just 14.

Clearly Kaplan was the mastermind behind this immoral operation, but the girls’ parents had to be held accountable as well. They put their daughters in direct danger and allowed this man to take advantage of them, all because of money and misplaced faith.

An attorney for Savilla Stoltzfus, William Craig Penglase, acknowledged this and expressed disappointment that she didn’t get a reduced sentence for cooperating with the prosecutors who brought charges against Kaplan.

“Individually, her sentence is completely appropriate… I understand the court’s outrage at their behavior… The struggle I’m having is she got no benefit for handing the government Lee Kaplan on a silver platter… She was the beginning, middle and end of the government’s case, and she got nothing back for it.”

Counsel for Daniel Stoltzfus said the father chose not to present any mitigating evidence at trial.

“He did want to take accountability… He understood the severity of the charges, and how the court had to view them… It’s really tough to make any sense out of what happened.”

The important thing here is that these girls are getting justice. Not just for the behavior of the man whom they were forced to marry, but also for the actions of the parents who allowed it to happen. It’s the silver lining in an otherwise tragic story.

Show post

Communist Party of China #fundie

The Communist Party of China, the nation’s governing party, says its members must give up religious beliefs and “be firm Marxist atheists.”

Wang Zuoan, the director of the State Administration for Religious Affairs, wrote on Saturday that religious members should give up their faith in order to preserve party unity.

“Party members should not have religious beliefs, which is a red line for all members… Party members should be firm Marxist atheists, obey Party rules and stick to the Party’s faith… they are not allowed to seek value and belief in religion.”

Wang added that foreign forces use religion to “infiltrate China” and that extremism has “threatened national security and social stability.”

“Religions should be sinicized… We should guide religious groups and individuals with socialist core values and excellent traditional Chinese culture and support religious groups to dig into their doctrines to find parts that are beneficial to social harmony and development.”

This isn’t just one crazy government official banning religion and requiring “Marxist atheism.” Zhu Weiqun, chairman of the Ethnic and Religious Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, said it is “important” to remind party members not to have religious beliefs.

“Some people who claim to be scholars support religious beliefs in the Party, which has undermined the Party’s values based on dialectical materialism.”

Show post

Tamara Scott #fundie

… those who come against Christianity want to destroy Christianity.

Our Founding Fathers created a Christian nation. We definitely have a Christian background. The Declaration of Independence. We celebrated it just July 4, and two days later, this city council is having an atheist come speak?! Can you imagine the men that sacrificed their families and their fortunes, and they mentioned not just several gods in the Declaration of Independence, but the one true God — four different times.

There’s no mistaking that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. And they did it because they knew what made better Christians made better citizens.

Because law only punishes crime but Christianity changes the heart and prevents it. And once you take those principles out, that’s when you start seeing what we’re seeing today, Jeff.

You see the Ferguson. You see the riots. You see the Antifa. You see the Resistance. And when you take away that heart of prevention, then government has to become more authoritarian and coercion…

Show post

Sheikh Abd Al-Wahhab Al-Maligi #fundie

I will talk to you about female circumcision from the medical, religious, economic, and historical perspectives. So lend me your hearts and your ears…

The discussion about female circumcision goes back to the past century. The first time that this subject was debated extensively was in the past century. Who were the first to talk about it? The Jews. They do not want Islam or the Muslims to be pure, develop, and civilized, So they started talking about it. In The Protocols of the Elders of Zion it is written: “We must strive for the collapse of morals, so that it will be easier for us to dominate the world.”

They tell you that female circumcision causes infertility. Says who? How can female circumcision cause infertility?! Egyptian women are circumcised, yet they give birth more than all the other mothers in the world. So how can this cause infertility? It is the uncircumcised women of Europe who are infertile. Allah be praised!

Are there any economic benefits to female circumcision? Yes! What are the economic benefits of female circumcision? Female circumcision is a preventative medical measure. Someone who is uncircumcised will be afflicted with many serious diseases, which we will discuss later, Allah willing. Someone who contracts one of these diseases must spend money, and the state must spend money on his treatment, and so on. But we can save all this money and direct it elsewhere. So this constitutes preventative medicine.

Show post

June Griffin #fundie

Terror for Jesus: A gun-toting, evolution-denying, Bible-thumping, Christian extremist is threatening atheists in Tennessee.

Long time Christian activist Pastor June Griffin of the American Bible Protestant Church is making “subtle and not-so-subtle threats” against atheists and other freethinkers behind a new statue of legendary lawyer and rationalist Clarence Darrow.

The statue is set to be dedicated on Friday, July 14, in front of the site of the historic Scopes evolution trial: the Rhea County Courthouse in Dayton, Tennessee.

Declaring that “an atheist is not on an equal footing with the Christian,” Griffin told WRCB that she is not happy with new statue, and suggested that she and others would take the law into their own hands if the statue goes up as planned.

During the interview Griffin said:

"All history proves the existence of God and Evolution is a joke for any thinking person. This is a very serious matter, the courthouse is a sacred place, you don’t turn it into a theater.

Well I know God is real and he’s not pleased with this. You can come in here with all kinds of French opinions of this, that and the other but this is not France and we don’t run on opinions and an atheist is not on an equal footing with the Christian.

You (commissioners) have betrayed the people of this county, you have betrayed them. There are people that live on the outskirts and they don’t make appointments with Channel 3, they just do things and I’ve heard talk of ‘well there’s always spray paint.’"

Griffin is vehement in her opposition to the Darrow statue. In addition to her interview with WRCB, Griffin also made some outrageous and concerning social media posts. On her Facebook page Griffins uses Psalm 149 to threaten atheists and other freethinkers: writing:

"(The non-prophet American humanist association and the non-prophet freedom from religion outfits think they are going to waltz into Rhea County and have all the Christians smile and love them. Here’s news for you: Christians don’t cowtow to the enemies of God. The God of David, Oliver Cromwell, George Washington and Wm. Gannaway Brownlow lives. You will get a nice surprise when you dare to step on sacred grounds of OUR Courthouse. You might bully your way around with our County’s advisor (we have no County Attorney),the historical society, the DA, and the Commission who are afraid of you, but I am not afraid of you. You are worse than devils; the 'devils fear and tremble,' but you have no fear of God. You come with your high-minded corruption and your boasted freedom but you will be brought to nothing when we get through with you. You come to us in the name of theatrical equality lawyers, but we come to you in the Name of the LORD OF HOSTS. The County property owners control this House – not you.Our God will bring upon your worst fear. This is not a threat – it is a Promise. Psalm 149. from a Christian saint. June Griffin. For God and Country.)"

Note: Psalm 149 is in part a call for the faithful to destroy the enemies of the Lord –

"May the praise of God be in their mouths
and a double-edged sword in their hands,
to inflict vengeance on the nations
and punishment on the peoples,
to bind their kings with fetters,
their nobles with shackles of iron,
to carry out the sentence written against them—
this is the glory of all his faithful people.
Praise the Lord."

In addition to the above post, Griffin made other statements on her Facebook page suggesting violence was a legitimate option in her opposition to the statue that is being promoted by atheists and other freethinkers.

Also, Griffin told a local paper that she wanted to meet the sponsors of the statue without lawyers, suggesting a violent confrontation may be necessary if the atheists and freethinkers did not see the light. The following is an excerpt from the exchange:

"'No lawyers,' she said, 'only personal confrontation. Engage them in the debate right there.'

If not that, she said, the humanists should have to defend themselves in court, without lawyers, who she says feed on taxpayer money and have no concern for people’s rights.

And barring that, Griffin suggests the association form its own militia.

'If worst comes to worst, I will challenge them to meet us in their uniforms at King’s Mountain, just like John Sevier did, and we’ll settle it over there,' Griffin said.

During the American Revolutionary War, Sevier led patriots to battle against loyalist militias in South Carolina."

Writing for Friendly Atheist, Hemant Mehta spoke with Griffin about her subtle and not so subtle threats. However, despite being pressed, Griffin refused to say whether or not she would engage in violence to protest the Clarence Darrow statue.

Show post

Qiu #fundie

An 80-year-old Buddhist woman forced the evacuation of 150 passengers on a Shanghai flight when she threw a handful of coins into the engine of the plane as she “prayed for safety.”

Throwing coins for good luck is common in Buddhism, but it is mostly directed at temples, statues, ponds, and wells. This time, one of the coins (worth 1.7 yuan… or 25 cents in the U.S.) hit the engine and caused the flight to be delayed for several hours.

The woman, only identified as Qiu, was taken away for questioning by police.

“After an investigation the involved passenger, surnamed Qiu, said she threw the coins to pray for safety. According to Qiu’s neighbour, Qiu believes in Buddhism.”

Show post

John MacArthur #fundie

[On if gay Christians go to Heaven]

Well, I don’t know if [the question is] for me, but no one is gay.

If you mean by that, that that’s some hardwiring… no one is gay. People commit adultery, they commit sins of homosexuality, they lie, they steal, they cheat.

That’s like saying, “You know, I keep robbing banks, but I’m a robber. I’m a bank robber. What am I gonna do? I’m a bank robber.”

That is not an excuse for what you do. Are there certain kind of impulses that lead people in that direction? Yes. But I think one of the really deadly aspects of this is to let people define themselves as gay.

They are not gay any more than an adulterer is hardwired to be forced by his own nature to commit adultery. Those are all behavioral sins that are condemned in scripture. God didn’t hardwire anybody in such a way that they are not responsible for certain behaviors.

And so we need to cancel that out of the sin list and welcome them into the Kingdom of God, because you can’t do anything else.

But I think we do no service to people who are caught in the vicious sins of homosexuality by letting them define themselves by that sin.

Show post

Anne Kennedy #fundie

It appears, from the general tenor of the internet, that there are only two choices of what to talk about today–Wonder Woman and Terrorism. Neither appeal to me at all, of course, because it’s not my job to stop the second one, and the first one is a movie, and I hate, join with me now, ‘all movies.’
Truly, I don’t get the super hero thing. Never have. Even after enduring two little boys who lived, each of them relentlessly, in various costumes–first Superman then Spider-Man and carrying on from there. I always wondered what they thought was happening as they daily donned cheap nylon and velcro unitards, usually over pjs and all manner of bulky little kid clothes. It looked like the most uncomfortable ensemble imaginable, but would only very rarely be removed.

My girls, of course, did occasionally don the Superman costume. But mostly they devoted themselves to big fat princess dresses. In this way, gender distinctions were rigidly preserved. And this must be my fault, even though I never bought a single one these items myself, and never told which child to wear which one. I never made a speech, ‘you wear the big dress, and you wear the skin tight unitard.’ They just knew…because of the patriarchy, probably.

I, therefore, pray and hope that I don’t have to go see Wonder Woman even though it will probably be one of those movies that I can’t avoid without trying really hard.

This morning I read a Mormon writer explaining how the movie is about Jesus, and then a feminist explaining about how the movie is about feminism. The first one surprised me. The second one not at all.

The second one said this, “She also won’t apologize for being a woman. The movie champions her femininity: Her power isn’t diminished by caring too much or experiencing her emotions. Instead, her love and kindness strengthen her.” That sounds perfect. I’m just curious, though, in how many places where this movie is likely to be shown is a woman having to apologize for being a woman? Will they be showing this movie to women in Mecca? And truly, how brave and courageous in this modern world to see brightly lit on a screen a woman ‘experiencing her emotions.’ What a counter cultural message!

For my part, I have always found the Super Woman meme to be a drag. The idea that a woman can have it all was predicated on the exhausting assumption that she could also do it all. And that has turned out to be a lot of work. Women have to save the world and cook the dinner and do the laundry and feel all the feelings and manage the man and be amazing at work. If you do all these things, you get to have a glass of wine at night and complain about how terrible your life is.

When really, no one person can do any of those things. One or two perhaps, but not all, and certainly not all at once. I dislike more than anything being introduced as someone who has Six Kids (! How is that even possible!) who Homeschools (! I know right!) and has written a book (! Can women even write books?) and blogs every day (! Every Day! That’s Crazy!). The list of my accomplishments goes on and on and as they’re going on, one of two terrible things happens. Either the person who is hearing them becomes overwhelmed and loses interest (this is more usual) or the person rightly begins to look quizzical, and with genuine curiosity says, ‘How do you do it all?’ Because that is a lot of things.

But here’s the thing, you have to be allowed to use the word ‘thing’ as a technical word whenever you want to, and, more importantly, You Don’t Do All The Things At Once. You do not, usually, have six babies in one go. You have one and then another and then another. And you don’t just wake up one day and write a book. You do it gradually. And you don’t do a lifetime worth of laundry in one single afternoon while you’re also getting your college degree and working three other jobs. You do a little bit of laundry every day, and you do one job at a time.

Accomplishments accumulate over the time.

And here’s the other thing, you don’t do them alone. You are not the savior of the world. You don’t have enough peace and light and beautiful world transforming feelings to end all the wars just by virtue of being female. That is not a thing. You are human. (I trust you all understand that when I’m saying ‘you’ I really mean me.) You need a savior and also some help sometimes. No person can do all the work ahead of her in life without any kind of help from other human people who also need help. The human experience is not a super hero one, nor a princess one (thank heaven).

It is a hard work intermingled with many disappointments and sorrows punctuated by bright moments of joy and amazement one.

We’ve had decades of the male superhero motif and we still have ISIS. Men couldn’t save the world. I guess we can try a decade of a female superhero but I’ve got some news for us all. She isn’t going to save the world. Being female is no better than being male. Both, male and female, are human, and fallen, and not able to save the world and themselves. They need God. But, you know, Wonder Woman, give it your best shot. You play Jesus for this year and we’ll see how it turns out.

And now if you’ll excuse me, I will go save my own house, Single Handedly! from disaster! Just kidding. I will make all my children help me. Because I can’t do things like that on my own.

Show post

Arkansas legislature #fundie

After a two year battle, a Ten Commandments monument was finally installed outside the Arkansas State Capitol this morning… which also means Arkansas is one step closer to being sued for promoting Christianity.

State Senator Jason Rapert spent more than two years trying to make this happen, and he had help from government officials (who know nothing about how the law works) every step of the way.

As soon as the proposal began making its way through the House and Senate, atheists and Satanists applied to donate their own monuments, but this past February, House members passed a bill (unanimously) giving them final approval over any proposals.

Show post

Javier Soto #fundie

[On using the gay pride flag as a rug]

I’m cold on my feet, so we’re going to put a rug in. This is a rug that I use in the shows I’m doing. This is the filthy rag I’m going to put here to do the show. This is a filthy rag that I always use.

Show post

Denny #fundie

[while debating on the concept of Hell, a commenter argued that Denny lacked empathy since he was fine with people suffering in Hell]

Denny: Really? So the only people who are full of empathy are people who are depressed or anxious? Christians should be writhing in agony because of God's justice? Quite the contrary, I would not want a God who did not punish sin. If Hitler and Stalin are not in hell, I think God is very bad.

A man who pretends to be a woman is not exactly in a position to judge others. You have some serious issues of your own.

Joslyn Renfrey: You think little non-christian children deserve to go to hell, including all the little jewish children that hitler gassed: to the same hellfire they go.
My issues are laughably tame compared to yours - you see, at least I'm not a sociopath.

Denny: So a "sociopath" is anyone who doesn't share your obsessions? Fella, you need strong medications and years of therapy.