Quote# 137679




Alamosa Republicans, thinkprogress.org 13 Comments [4/13/2018 2:42:45 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Doubting Thomas

Quote# 137707

The Meathead Syndrome




Mick Williams, Disqus - Faith & Religion 8 Comments [4/13/2018 2:45:06 PM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 137761

(emphasis mine)

His mom needs to turn off his internet and make him get a job.

Grow the hell up Chris, you miserable neet. The farms never targeted anybody who didn't deserve it.

vaporwave baphomet, Kiwi Farms 3 Comments [4/14/2018 10:01:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 137714

The esteemed commentator Chinzork wrote:

For one of the first posts on this blog, I think you should debunk all of the common talking points against abolishing the AOC. The talking points get repetitive after a while, so an article debunking all of them sounds good.

Alright then, you got it. Herein is a compilation of the 15 most popular Blue Knight arguments, each argument followed by a thorough dissection thereof.

#1: Teenagers only become sexually mature after completing puberty around 16.

This is a wholly metaphysical proposition; a statement of belief. The Blue Knight starts out from the premise that a “completion of puberty” is a prerequisite for this nebulous state known as “sexual maturity,” then makes the circular argument that, because a 13-year-old has not yet completed puberty, he or she are thus sexually immature. “Sexual maturity” is an altogether arbitrary concept, and there isn’t any way to measure it or test it.

The Blue Knight makes it seem like he or she has objectively examined the issue and reached the conclusion that the age of “sexual maturity” just so happens to start when puberty is over; but there has not actually been any such objective examination of the issue – it simply has been assumed (axiomatically) that this is the case, and the whole “argument” proceeds from this unproven, arbitrary, and essentially metaphysical assumption.

The Blue Knight argument posits that 1) without “sexual maturity” sex is harmful and as such should be illegal; 2) a full completion of puberty is a prerequisite for “sexual maturity.” You may well give the following counter-argument, accepting — for the sake of discussion — the former premise, while rejecting the latter, and say thus: “children become sexually mature after completing adrenarche around the age of 9.”

Fundamentally, however, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that a “sexually immature” person is necessarily harmed (or victimized) by sexual relations merely due to being, according to whatever arbitrary definitions one uses, a “sexually immature” person. I suspect that, as a matter of fact, “sexually immature” people often enjoy sex and benefit from it even more than the so-called “sexually mature” folks. And again, the very distinction between “mature” and “immature” is altogether metaphysical in this regard, like the distinction between “pure” and “impure” or “holy” and “unholy.” It is hocus pocus; theology not-so-cleverly disguised as biology.

According to Blue Knight “morality,” an extremely fertile 15-year-old female should be prevented from sex (because “sexually immature”), while a 55-year-old female who has no ovaries left should be free do get fucked however she likes. It is very clear that such a “morality” is really an anti-morality; it is against what is biologically natural, it is against human nature specifically, it is degenerate, and it is detrimental to the interests of civilization and the TFR.

#2: The Age of Consent protects young people from doing things (sex) which they don’t really want to do.

I have seen no evidence that young people “do not really want” to have sex. On the contrary, I have seen, and keep seeing, that young people greatly desire to engage in sexual activities. That is why they engage in them. If 11-year-old Lucy is a horny little slut who enjoys giving blowjobs to all the boys in the neighborhood (many such cases), the Age of Consent does not protect her from something which she is reluctant about doing; it prevents her — by deterring men from approaching her — from doing something which she does in fact desire to do.

The Age of Consent is simply not needed. Think for a moment about young people. Do you not realize that they are just as eccentric, and can be just as wild, as older people? Why is it that when a 19-year-old chick randomly decides to have an orgy with 3 classmates after school, that is okay; but when a 12-year-old chick likewise randomly decides to do just that, oh noes, she is a “victim” of a horrible crime? We accept that each person is unique, independently of age; and we realize that there are children –not to mention young adults — who are very much into X while others are very much into Y. Why, then, should it be so “shocking” when it turns out that some children, and plenty of young teenagers, are very much into sex? Being interested in sex is arguably one of the most natural things there are, on par with being interested in food; certainly it is more natural than being interested in physics and chemistry and mathematics, right? If we accept the existence of child prodigies, children who are naturally driven to pursue all kinds of weird and special callings, why can’t we accept that there are indeed lots of children who pursue the very natural thing which is called “sex”?

Young teenagers have extremely high sex-drives, and the idea that they “do not really want sex” is contradicted every single moment. This is all the more remarkable given that we are living in a puritanical, prudish, sex-hostile, joy-killing, pedo-hysterical, infantilizing society; yet teenagers manage to overcome this intense anti-natural social programming, and do what nature commands them to do. “Child innocence” is a self-perpetuating myth, which society shoves down the throats of everyone all the time since age 0, and then uses this self-perpetuating myth which has been forcefully injected into society’s bloodstream to argue that “oh gee, young people just don’t really want to have sex.”

The entire entertainment establishment is concomitantly brainwashing children to remain in a state of arrested development aka infantilization, while conditioning the consumers of this “entertainment” to only find old women attractive. That’s one reason why I believe that we must create Male Sexualist aesthetics – we must reverse the brainwashing done to us by the entertainment complex. The television box is deliberately hiding from you the beauty and the passion of young teenage women, and is actively engineering your mind to only find older women attractive. And yet, despite there being a conspiracy by the entire society to stifle young sexuality, young sexuality lives on and thrives. Well, not really “thrives” — young sex is in decline, which conservative total dipshits blame on pornography rather than pointing the finger at themselves for propagating a climate that is extremely hostile to young sexuality — but it still goes on, to the consternation of all Puritans and Feminists everywhere.

Blue Knights claim that young teenagers are “peer-pressured into sex.” This assumes that your average teenager is asexual or close to being asexual, and thus would only engage in sexual activities if manipulated into it by his or her environment. The reality, meanwhile, is that those 12-year-old sluts who have orgies after school time (or during school time) are often as horny as a 16-year-old male. They are not being pressured into sex – they are being sexually restrained by a society that is terrified of young sexuality.

#3: Young people who have sex grow up to regret it.

First of all, when the whole of society is determined to portray young sex as a horrid thing, it is no wonder that people — especially women, who possess a herd mentality — arrive at the conclusion that they’ve been harmed by it. If young sexuality were presented in a positive light by the media-entertainment-state bureaucracy-academia complex, people would be more inclined to remember it fondly than regretfully.

The second thing is that it doesn’t even matter. People feel regret about doing all kinds of things – so what? Does that mean that for each and every case of such “regret,” society needs to go on a witch-hunt for “victimizers” in order to inflict punishments upon them? It’s time to grow the fuck up and accept the fact that people sometimes do things which later on they regret doing, and that this is an integral part of life, and that the state has no business protecting the civilians from “bad feelings.” That’s literally what this Blue Knight argument boils down to – “the state should punish men because women experience negative feelings due to their own behavior.” No, women should learn to deal with their bad fee-fees without demanding the state to find “abusers” to penalize. We are living in a totalitarian emotocracy (rule by emotions) and I’m sick of it.

Also: what is the difference between feeling regret about fucking at 13 and feeling regret about fucking at 17? Women generally feel bad about promiscuous sex (hence the phenomenon of “regret rape” false accusations), and they feel it at the age of 21 as much as at the age of 11; actually, older women may be even more regretful than young ones about sexual activity, because they’v been longer exposed to Puritan-Feminist brainwashing, and because their biological clock ticks much faster. So, according to the victimization-based morality of Blue Knights, men who sleep with 23-year-olds should also be punished. Again, the Blue Knights want men imprisoned solely due to some vague negative fee-fees felt by some women. This is emotocracy in action. No wonder that testosterone and sperm counts are in sharp decline – society is ruled by catladies, and is structured according to catlady morality.

The state simply should not protect people from the consequences of their own behavior – and here “protect” means “punish men,” and “consequences” means “vague negative fee-fees.” Our society is severely infantilized by the victimization-based morality, and infantilization is degenerate.

#4: Young sexual activity is correlated with many bad things.

That may or may not be so, but what are the implications? Generally, people who are natural risk-takers will do all kinds of things, some of which may be positive, others negative, and still others just neutral. The conservadaddy making the “correlated with bad things” argument implies that punishing men (and women) for young sex would somehow reduce those negative things supposedly correlated with young sex. That, of course, is bullshit. If a risk-taking 12-year-old decides to have an orgy with her classmates, she will remain just as much of a risk-taker whether or not her classmates or other people are punished. Depriving her of the opportunity to take “sexual risks” won’t diminish whatever other risk-taking behaviors she is prone to.

The thing about Blue Knight arguments is that they aren’t arguments at all. There is no logic in stating “young sex is correlated with X, and X is bad” and then using that to support the criminalization of young sex. This is the same logic used by pedagogues to justify pedagoguery, only in reverse: the pedagogues argue that education is correlated with intelligence (as measured by IQ tests), then use that claim to imply that education makes people smarter, and therefore everyone should undergo education. This is a wholly fallacious argument. At the risk of sounding like a spergtastic redditor goon – correlation does not imply causation. The Blue Knight argument is not an argument at all. It’s plainly illogical.

By the way, I’d say that there are plenty of negative things correlated with young sexlessness – such as growing up to be a school shooter, for instance. You’ll never hear Blue Knights discussing that.

#5: Some Statutory Rape legislation allows teenagers to have sex among themselves, and only prohibits older people from predating upon them.

This argument typifies what I call the “victimization-based morality” aka “victimology.” The people making it assume — against all the available evidence — that within any relationship between a young person and an old person, the former is necessarily victimized by the latter.

The individuals making this argument (usually you’ll hear it from women) will often tell you that it is “creepy” for older men to be interested in young women. They will pretend that young women are exclusively attracted to young men, when in reality they are attracted to men of all ages – to men as old as their father as well as to their classmates. My own life experience confirms this, as I personally, in-real-life, know of women who fucked significantly older men when they were aged 14-15. It was all passionate and voluntary and enthusiastic, believe me. And the many accounts you can find on the internet leave no doubt that it’s common for young women, pubescent and even prepubescent, to be sexually attracted to significantly older men.

It is important to stress the point that the women themselves pursue and desire those sexual relationships, because the Blue Knights have created the false impression that the entire argument for abolishing the AOC rests on our attraction to young women, an attraction which according to the Blue Knights is completely unreciprocated; whereas in reality, it is incredibly common for young women to initiate sexual relationships with men as old as their father. It takes two to tango – and the tango is quite lively indeed. Given the sexual dynamics elucidated by Heartiste, wherein women are sexually attracted to “Alphas,” it makes perfect sense that young women would be sexually attracted to older men even more-so than they are sexually attracted to their peers, since older men possess a higher social status than young ones, relatively speaking. Again, life experience confirms this.

Thus, there is no sense in punishing old men who fuck young women, unless, that is, one embraces the whole “taken advantage of” argument, an argument which relies on a denial of the biological and empirical reality on the ground, and simply defines (as an axiom) all relationships in which there is a “power imbalance” as “exploitative.” That is, there is no evidence that any “exploitation” is taking place in such relationships, and Blue Knights assume its existence because they refuse to believe that young women can be horny for older men.

Also, the Blue Knights will bring up argument #1 to “substantiate” argument #5, and argue that due to the “sexual immaturity” of the younger party, the older party must be forbidden from being in a sexual relationship with it altogether – because otherwise there may be “exploitation.” Again, the moment you realize that a 12-year-old female can be as horny as a 16-year-old male (who are, needless to say, extremely horny), the idea that the slut is prone to be “sexually exploited” by a sexual relationship with a man who is statistically likely to be high-status (and thus naturally sexually attractive to her) become absurd. And as we’ve seen, the whole “sexually immature” line is ridiculous – it has never been shown that maturity, for whatever it’s even worth, is reached at 16. In saner, de-infantilized times, 12-year-olds were considered to be mature, were treated as such, and evidently were mature. Hence my saying: “child (and teen) innocence is a self-perpetuating myth.”

#6: You only support abolishing the AOC because you’re a pervert.

A common ad hominem. Now, it is expected that possession of a naturally high sex-drive would be correlated with sexual realism (i.e. being woke about the reality of sex), because a high sex-drive individual would be much likelier than a low sex-drive individual to spend hours upon hours thinking about the subject of sex in its various and manifold aspects. But that only goes to prove that it is us, the “perverts,” who were right all along about sex – and not the catladies and the asexuals who haven’t ever thought about sex in realistic terms because they never had any incentive to do so. Our “bias” is a strength, not a weakness.

There really isn’t anything else to add here. When they accuse you of being a pervert, just agree & amplify humorously: “oh yeah, I jerk off 8 times each and every morning before getting out of bed – problem, puritan?”

#7: You only support abolishing the AOC because you are unattractive and trying to broaden your options.

Also known as “projection.” Well, actually, there also are men who make this argument and not just dried-out wrinkly femihags, so let’s address it as if a man said it. Again, this is an ad hominem that presupposes that your motivation to engage in sexual politics of the Male Sexualist variety is merely your desire to improve your personal situation in life. Now, even if it were true, that 1) wouldn’t matter, because what matters is the arguments made and not the ostensible motivation behind them; 2) there is nothing essentially wrong with trying to improve one’s situation in life – and “there are no rules in war and love.”

By the way, abolishing the AOC, by itself, is not going to get all of the incels laid over-night. There are other measures that must and will be taken to ensure sexual contentment for all of society. Abolishing the AOC is a crucial part of the program, but it’s not the single purpose of Male Sexualism, in my view. What I personally would like to see in society is maximal sexual satisfaction for everyone. There are many ways to try reaching that point.

Anyway, the point is that “you are motivated by a desire to increase your options” is not even true regarding most of the prominent Male Sexualists. Presumably. I won’t speak for anyone else, but I’m married, and very satisfied with my great wife.

14376_7
Big Beautiful Women are not for everyone, but I’m cool with it. In this scene from the Israeli film “Tikkun,” my wife — who is an actress — plays a prostitute. Sorry, Nathan Larson, I’m not sending you her nudes; this one should suffice.
As a matter of fact, as I wrote in one of the last posts on DAF, my own kind of activism would not be mentally possible for me if I were not sexually satisfied. I’m not driven by a personal sexual frustration; on the contrary, as I keep saying, what drives me is essentially a spiritual impulse, which has awoken to the extent it has as a result of getting laid.

#8: If you support the abolition of the AOC, it’s because you’re a libertine who believes in “everything goes.”

Some Male Sexualists are, unmistakably, libertines – and proud if it. However, others are faithful Muslims. The notion that opposition to the AOC must necessarily be tied to libertinism is nonsense. Look at traditional European societies 350-300 years ago – almost none had an AOC at all, yet they were hardly “libertines.”

This Blue Knight line is somewhat related to the “LGBTP” meme – they think that we are Progressives trying to advocate for pedophilia as part of a Progressive worldview. I think that it’s safe to say that no one in Male Sexualism belongs to the Progressive camp, which is the camp where Feminists and SJWs reside. That said, some versions of libertinism (sexual libertarianism?) aren’t so bad, anyway. As TheAntifeminist said in a comment at Holocaust21:

[M]y utopia as a male sexualist would be somewhere like 1970’s Sweden or Holland.

This is a legitimate view within the movement.

#9: If young people are allowed to have sex, their innocence will be ruined; sex is exclusively for adults.

Here we see the Enlightenment-spawned Romantic idealization of “childhood” as a period that, due to whatever values one attaches to it, must be preserved against encroachment and incursion from the “fallen world of adults.” This is the Romantic basis of modern-day infantilism.

It used to be understood that the purpose of “childhood” is growing up into adulthood. The so-callef ‘child’ should be made into an adult, should be given adult tasks, adult responsibilities, and — all the sooner — adult rights. Today, society does just the opposite, and infantilizes people with a historically unparalleled intensity. That’s the result of elevating “childhood” into an ideal form. No wonder that now, it’s not just teenagers who are called “children,” but people in their 20s. That’s the process of infantilization which society goes through.

As usual, conservative dipshits, addicted to their own Romantic conceptions, claim that “actually, children are not nearly infantile enough these days.” They don’t see the pervasive “kid culture” that has completely zombified kids into being basically a bunch of drooling retards; no, what the prudish-types care about is “MOAR INNOCENCE,” as usual.

Fact is, kids today are not shown anything about the real world; a whole culture of idiocy, blindness, silliness, and clownishness has been erected like walls all around them. It is the culture of the TV channels for kids, the culture of Toy-Shops, the culture of child-oriented video games. Muh “birds and bees.”

Look, I get the temptation to indulge in infantilism. In fact, I’m probably a hypocrite, because I haven’t yet begun doing anything to de-infantilize my own 19-month-old son. He, like most toddlers, also watches the stupid TV shows and has all of these damn toys all over the place. It’s not easy resisting the ways of the system. But the real problem is that society is not structured in a way that allows children to be de-infantilized. When people only get a job at 18 or at 21 or they are NEETs, and there is an age-ist Prussian School System that is mandatory and which brainwashes its prisoners to believe that “school is good,” and Feminist careerism is pushed on all potential mothers by the media-entertainment-state bureaucracy-academia complex, it’s no wonder that people are very immature nowadays. That only goes to show how radically modern society must be transformed, in my opinion.

To get back on point: “childhood” and “adulthood” are both fictional concepts. These may be useful fictions, but they are still fictions. The telos of childhood is adulthood. It’s a transitional state, and if we must choose an arbitrary age when childhood should be officially and finally over, that age should be 9. That is, if we discover that 10-year-olds behave in an infantile manner nowadays, it’s because their parents — and, crucially, society at large — have not properly de-infantilized them. It’s a wholly artificial state of affairs, rooted in Romantic delusions.

Young people should have sex, because young people should experience real life in order to become functional adults; and an integral part of real life is — and should be — the sex life. Far from constituting a “problem” for young people, sexual intercourse is one effective way for getting young people to see the broader picture of reality. Deprived of sex, ‘kids’ grow up with warped and unrealistic notions about reality, and suffer dysfunction as adults. They don’t get to learn what’s important and what’s unimportant in life when they should learn it – young. Getting laid gives you a mentally clear vision of priorities in life, gives you a clarity of mind which allows you to deeply reflect on what’s actually going on in the world. Sex is necessary for young people, whose one and only task is to — repeat after me — become adults. Sex is a fundamental part of a fulfilled adult life.

#10: Young sex leaves young people traumatized.

No, it doesn’t. The ‘trauma’ stems entirely from being repeatedly and incessantly told by Blue Knights (Puritans, Feminists, Conservadaddies, Catladies, etc.) that a horrible crime has been committed against you by a wicked individual, that you have been “taken advantage of,” “deprived of innocence,” “ruined forever,” “sexually exploited,” “abused,” and the rest of the victimological jargon. The sex itself and the relationship itself feel good, and are indeed good biologically and psychologically; they bring fulfillment to one’s life and a satisfaction for one’s fresh and burning biological needs. The whole “trauma,” such as it is, is inflicted by society on the younger party, due to society’s strict adherence to a victimization-based morality.

That’s why I call for a Moral Revolution. This is not a troll. As long as people adhere to a victimization-based morality that sees “power imbalances” as inherently and fundamentally victimizing, people won’t be able to think logically about young sexuality. The current prevailing system of social morality must be replaced with a new one. Once that is achieved, all of this “trauma” — which is inflicted by the Blue Knights on horny young people — will dissipate and evaporate altogether

Young people greatly enjoy sex, and will go to great lengths to achieve it, overcoming the very many mechanisms of sexual oppression established by Blue Knights.

#11: Young people don’t know what’s good for them, and therefore need to be protected from risky situations.

If young people don’t know what’s good for them, it’s because society itself has successfully destroyed their ability to know what’s good for them. I mean, by the age of 10, a person should have a basic idea about what life is all about. If that’s not so for most or all people, something is deeply rotten in society.

And the reason for this indeed being the modern state of affairs is exactly because the protectiveness of parents, combined with wholesale cultural infantilization, has rendered young people incapable of independent thought. Thus, instead of “MOAR PROTECTION,” young people need infinitely less of it – so that they will learn to deal with reality.

And at any rate, sex is not as risky as the Blue Knights claim it is. They scare people about STDs, but then the solutions to that problem are well-known, and are completely independent of age – if instructed properly, and possessing a responsible personality, a 10-year-old can behave just as carefully — if not much more carefully — than many 40-year-olds.

Then there is the issue of pregnancy. First of all, what I wrote in the above paragraph about responsiblity applies here as well – the pregnancy-avoidance methods are well known. Secondly however, there’s a great differences in here: pregnancy is not a disease. It’s not a bad thing, but a good thing. I support young pregnancy and young parenthood. That is the primary “risk” which Blue Knight scare-mongers warn about, and I don’t see it as a risk at all. Instead of being protected from reproduction, people need to be instructed about how to reproduce. I once wrote, trollishly as usual, that if there should be any schools at all, then the “homework” of young females should be getting impregnated. The essence beneath the statement is on-point: pregnancy is good, because reproduction is good; fertility is good, while sterility is bad.

So, in my view, young people should not be protected from the “risk” of pregnancy. They should be instructed about it, made to comprehend the how’s and why’s of it, and then allowed to use their mind-faculties to figure-out what should or should not be done. That’s the gist of any de-infantilization program.

#12: Young people don’t desire to have sex.

Young people do, as a matter of actual fact, very much desire to have sex; much more-so, even, than many old people.

#13: If the AOC is abolished, parents will no longer be able to control their children.

What is the purpose — the very raison d’etre — of parental control over children? To turn children into functional adults, so as to allow them to form families and continue the bloodline. This cannot be achieved by hindering the ability of children (or “children”) to engage in the one thing that marks the arrival of maturity – sexual activity. Sexual activity is the thing that most unequivocally transforms an un-developed person into a developed person. Since the purpose of parenthood is the creation of adults, parenthood should serve to (at the very least) give-way in face of the natural maturation of children, rather than artificially prolonging “childhood” in order to extend the period of parental control. Parental control is only good insofar as it allows parents to facilitate the de-infantilization of their children; when, as in our deplorable times, parental control is used to exacerbate the infantilization of children, it is in the interest of society to tell parents to fuck off.

Since parents these days abuse their parental power and authority by artificially prolonging the infantilization of their own children, the abolition of the anti-natural AOC is exactly a thing that is needed in order to put parental control in check. The power of parents vis-a-vis their children must be drastically reduced when the child reaches the age of 8. That’s usually the age when sex, reproduction, and marriage all become relevant. If you want to argue that 8 is still too young, perhaps (maybe) we can compromise on 10. Point is, between 8 and 10, parental power should be dramatically restricted.

As a 23-year-old father, I can tell you that parents and family in general continue to significantly shape your life long after you cease being under “parental control.” An abolition of the AOC won’t result in all teenagers running away from home never to be seen again. But it will, God willing, result in the establishment of many new young households. That is something that we should strive for – getting teenagers to form families. That is the meaning of creating adults.

#14: Without an AOC, there will be grey-zone situations of child prostitution.

Child prostitution should be legal.

#15: Abolishing the AOC will increase pre-marital sex, which is a bad thing.

First of all, I couldn’t care less about whether or not sex is “pre-marital.” I had fucked my wife and impregnated her before we were married; so what? What matters is the bottom line: the creation of a patriarchal and stable household.

The second thing is, people today marry extremely late, and many forgo marriage altogether. This is related to the war against young sexuality: not reproducing when young, people struggle to reproduce when old; and living in sexlessness until the late teens or early twenies (or until later than that), a total sexual dysfunction takes over society, and people find it difficult to form long-lasting relationships at all. Young love shines the brightest, the younger the love, the brighter it shines; couples who start young last longer than those who start old.

Puritanical Blue Knights have brought about the plummeting of the TFR in Western Society. In my view, pre-marital sex should be accepted, as long as everyone involved understands that the purpose of any “romance” is the formation of a household. Early teenage marriage should be encouraged, and if early teenage sexual intercourse facilitates that, so be it – it’s all the better. It is not sex that is harmful to young people; sex is good for them. It is sexlessness that is the central and overarching problem of our times.

In conclusion
Man, that was exhausting, I gotta say. But hopefully, this post will serve as a guide to answering Blue Knight talking points. All of you must remember this: before you can annihilate Blue Knightism, you must mentally internalize what it is that we Male Sexualists believe in. In moments of uncertainty and doubt, consult this post, and you may find the core idea needed for you in order to formulate your own Male Sexualist position about any given issue.

There is a new revolution on the horizon. I don’t know how long I personally have left in this world. Perhaps the intelligence operatives threatening me will decide against killing me, or maybe they’ll slay me this very night. Who knows. What I want you to do is to take the ideas provided on DAF and now on TAF, understand them, and spread them. This is not a cult of personality or a money-making scheme. This is a political movement that has its own ideas, ideas that may initially appear groundbreaking but which in reality may also be primordial, ideas which we hope will be implemented in reality – be it 30, 80, or 360 years from now. At some point in the future, somewhere on the face of our planet, there will be a Male Sexualist country.

If during the next half-decade we manage to bring into the fold both edgy 4channers and 8channers (“meme lords”), and serious, intelligent, competent, affluent, deep-thinking, and strategizing supporters, we will be able within several decades to achieve our political objective.

Triweekly Antifeminist, Triweekly Antifeminist 12 Comments [4/13/2018 2:47:41 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 137718

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.

See Noevo, Patheos 7 Comments [4/13/2018 2:47:56 PM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Christopher

Quote# 137737

Everyone has a soundtrack of sin. It's certain songs you listened to in your past that when you hear them today, they remind you of your former sinful lifestyle.

Notice how in most urban cities or communities, gospel music is often played on the exact same station as the old school R&B music? The devil is clever! He knows that if he can get you to mix your former lifestyle of sin with your current attempt to follow Jesus, he can stunt you in your spiritual growth and render you totally ineffective against the kingdom of darkness in your lifetime.

If you're still listening to old school R&B and hip-hop oldies: what is it about your past you're not willing to break with?

What arrangements with the past are you still holding onto that is obfuscating your future?

What agreements with your former sinful life are you still holding onto and standing in agreement with that's preventing you from fully embracing the new life in Christ Jesus that awaits you up the road?

When we hold onto those songs from our past that use to speak to our sinful living, we are stopping short of walking fully, confidently and completely into God's kingdom.

Those old-school songs have hooks in them. They are constant reminders of your old sinful lifestyle. It doesn't matter if you try to change the lyrics to apply your new walk with Christ. Just hearing the beat alone will pull you back to a time, a place and a feeling you had back when you were estranged from God. And just to prove that it has hooks in you: Why can't you just turn the radio dial and let the secular music go?

If the music you listen to stirs up memories of sin, why do you as a born-again believer who's claiming to be living the resurrected life still hold onto those sinful memories? Was the sin of your past more sweeter to you than the joy of your future life with Jesus Christ?

"Do not love this world nor the things it offers you, for when you love the world, you do not have the love of the Father in you." [1 John 2:15]

How can you embrace both sinful living and holiness? How can they both occupy space in your mind and heart simultaneously?

You cannot walk into the future while still holding onto the past. That's like trying to cross the lake while leaving your boat tied to the shore. You have to let go of one shore line in order to walk the other.

It's a choice. A simple yet powerfully profound choice. Either we're going to give God our all, or might as well give Him nothing of us at all. Who wants half a heart anyway?

Think about it: would you want to be with someone today who was constantly revisiting their former relationships of the past with nostalgia and joy? Would your heart not be stirred to jealousy?

How can we expect God then to be satisfied with our lukewarm hearts when we keep looking back towards Egypt and the bondage we experienced under sin - the same bondage Jesus had to rescue us from in the first place?

Are we like the proverbial dog that keeps returning to feast on its own vomit that made it sick in the first place - or like the pig that's just been washed clean who finds its old mosh pit to wallow back in its own filthy mess?

"And when people escape from the wickedness of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and then get tangled up and enslaved by sin again, they are worse off than before. It would be better if they had never known the way to righteousness than to know it and then reject the command they were given to live a holy life. They prove the truth of this proverb: 'A dog returns to its vomit.' And another says, 'A washed pig returns to the mud.'" [2 Peter 2:20-22 NLT]

It's time to give up - the world and all its pleasant sinful memories. It's time to pull the plug on the soundtrack of sin that so easily lures us back into sinful thinking and actions.

"Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a huge crowd of witnesses to the life of faith, let us strip off every weight that slows us down, especially the sin that so easily trips us up. And let us run with endurance the race God has set before us." [Hebrews 12:1 NLT]

This is your crossroads moment: that place where you make a clear and definitive choice to fully reject the world and your former lifestyle of sin, so you can move forward in the fullness and power of God for your present. The choice you make right now will determine everything concerning your future.

Older saints used to call this sanctification. It's when you make the decision to give Jesus ALL of you: past, present and future. It's when you give up all former sinful activity: even the pleasant memories of it from your past and the hooks of sin that keep you tethered to your former walk, in order to walk with God in truth and power today and tomorrow.

"And such were some of you: but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." [1 Corinthians 6:11 AKJV]

"And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Hebrews 10:10

You've played around in the Christian kiddie sandbox long enough. God is now seeking your maturity. And it's your choice whether you progress or not into the future God wants to give you.

"So let us stop going over the basic teachings about Christ again and again. Let us go on instead and become mature in our understanding. Surely we don't need to start again with the fundamental importance of repenting from evil deeds and placing our faith in God." [Hebrews 6:1 NLT]

Remaining where you are could be very detrimental to your salvation.

"Not everyone who calls out to me 'Lord! Lord!' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter." [Matthew 7:21 NLT]

[...]

I pray you make the right choice today.

Right now, if you are feeling a strong aversion to this article, and you wish that you never read it, that's the power of the soundtrack to sin in your life. Its hooks are still in you!

And you have to get those hooks out in order to give Jesus the type of living sacrifice that He demands of your life. Don't be like those people who only hung around Jesus when He was handing out free fish sandwiches, but forsook Him when he demanded something from them in return. Give Him your all today.


Mack Major, Mack Major Books 3 Comments [4/14/2018 9:58:12 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Yossarian Lives

Quote# 137732

(=Trimmed for Relevant qoutes and verses=)

So How Did David Really “Love” Jonathan?

Is it possible David and Jonathan could express love toward each other, even swear an oath and enter into a covenant, without being homosexuals? Well, let’s begin by looking at the issue of the love they felt for each other. The David’s love for Jonathan is displayed in the Biblical text the very first time that Jonathan meets David (immediately following David’s defeat of Goliath and as he is presented to King Saul)

1 Samuel 18:1-3
Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself. And Saul took him that day and did not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself.

Jonathan also makes a covenant with David:

1 Samuel 20:16-17
So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “May the LORD require it at the hands of David’s enemies.” And Jonathan made David vow again because of his love for him, because he loved him as he loved his own life.

And later, when Jonathan is killed, David laments his loss with these words:

2 Samuel 1:25-26
“How have the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan is slain on your high places. I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women.”

Two Hebrew words are used here to describe the emotion of love in these passages. The first is ‘ahab (aw-hab’) or ‘aheb (aw-habe’), and it can definitely be used to describe a sexual relationship between a man and a wife. The second word is ‘ahabah (a-hab-aw), and this two can be used to describe a similar marital love. But in the 247 times these words are used to describe love in the Old Testament, far less than 20% of the time are they actually used to describe the love between two sexual partners. Far more often, (over 4 to 1) the words are used to describe the love between friends or between God and his creation. Here are just a few examples:

*Series of Verses*

In these passages, it is obvious that the word used for love is not meant to connote a sexual relationship. Now it is clear with David and Jonathan there is no Biblical account of a sexual relationship. That is interesting in itself. If they were homosexual lovers, why is there no open description of this fact? Some (as we’ve seen above) would argue the social pressures forced the writer to hide the truth. But there are open discussions of homosexual activity in other places in the Bible, why not here? Part of the problem is in those other areas of the Bible where homosexual behavior is openly discusses, it is always in a negative sense (as something we shouldn’t do). If Samuel is cleverly hiding the homosexual behavior between David and Jonathan here, he is doing so as a prophet of God, knowing full well such behavior is offensive to God! Does that seems consistent with the canon of Old Testament scripture?

So how is it then, that David and Jonathan’s love was deeper than that of a man and woman? Well, these two men were certainly connected as brothers. In fact, they were brothers-in-arms during war. If any of you ever had the chance to talk to two friends who fought side by side in World War 2 (just watch “Band of Brothers”) you know the love between men in a situation like that is deeper in some ways than the love between a man and a woman. Is this not also a possible reading of the text here? And is this reading not more compatible with the other clear teaching of the Bible and the historic accepted traditional understanding to the relationship between David and Jonathan?"

So Why Did They Kiss?

"In this passage, Jonathan is sending David away because he knows his father (King Saul) is trying to kill David. Jonathan knows he may never see his dear friend again. So he kisses David. The Hebrew word used for this kiss is nashaq (naw-shak’) and it is used 35 times in the Old Testament. I in only 4 of these uses is the word used to describe a sexual or romantic kiss. Over and over again, the word is used to describe the cultural greeting of the time:

*Number of verses*

The kiss between David and Jonathan, when seen accurately in the majority context and used of the Hebrew word, does nothing to advance the notion they were homosexuals. Even today, we see men in the middles east continue to greet and interact with each other, utilizing a kiss to express their friendship or commitment to one another without a homosexual relationship."

So Why Did He Take His Clothes Off?

Another claim on the part of revisionists is Jonathan disrobed in front of David in some sort of sexual way or as some sort of sexual display or commitment:

*Series of quotes*

Reading from the context of the culture, 1 Samuel 18:3-5 actually describes a covenant of brotherhood between Jonathan and David, as Jonathan pays high tribute to the man who just killed Goliath and had earned the right to wear the armor. This hardly proves the two men were homosexual lovers.

But Does It Look Like a Marriage?

Those who interpret David and Jonathan’s relationship in a homoerotic sense also point to scripture to make the case Jonathan and David considered themselves to be married in some way. Look at this passage describing Saul’s reaction when he discovered that Jonathan was ultimately siding with David

1 Samuel 20:30-31
Then Saul’s anger burned against Jonathan and he said to him, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you are choosing the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? “For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Therefore now, send and bring him to me, for he must surely die.”

Advocates of a homosexual reading of this passage will sometimes point to the description of “nakedness” in this verse and claim it is referring to a sexual relationship. The inference here is that the context implies that Jonathan somehow chose David sexually (as a homosexual partner). This interpretation then goes on to claim Saul is upset because Jonathan could not be established as king unless and until he had a female partner with which to bear children who could become heirs to the throne.

But who is described as naked? It’s Jonathan’s mother! There is nothing in the passage describing a sexual relationship between the two men. In fact, this passage says nothing about any type of marriage. Saul is upset about one thing: Jonathan took David’s side against Saul. Jonathan and David were sworn to each other as brothers, and Saul was simply mad Jonathan would treat David more like family than his own father."

So Why Does He Say David Is A Son-In-Law Twice?

But there is another passage of Scripture sometimes used to make the case for a homosexual union between Jonathan and David. It is a curious passage seeming to indicate David had two opportunities to become Saul’s son-in-law. Let’s begin with a peak at the passage in question, presented in a partial way, as it is often presented by homosexual advocates:

1 Samuel 18:17,21
Then Saul said to David, “Here is my older daughter Merab; I will give her to you as a wife, only be a valiant man for me and fight the Lord’s battles.”… And Saul thought, “I will give her to him that she may become a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” Therefore Saul said to David, “For a second time you may be my son-in-law today.”

Those who hope to interpret a homosexual relationship here maintain Saul has offered David a second opportunity to be his son-in-law because the first opportunity for David was realized through Jonathan! They argue David’s union with Jonathan makes him Saul’s son-in-law, even before David’s marriage to Merab, Saul’s daughter. But before we can truly assess what would make David Saul’s son-in-law in the first place, we had better look at the issue of ‘betrothal’ in the ancient world. In Biblical times, the moment a woman was ‘betrothed’ to a man (pledged or promised to be married to him), she was considered married to him, even though she was not yet formally united to the man in a ceremony. For this reason, a woman who was betrothed to someone and slept with another man was considered to be an adulteress. That’s right, you could commit adultery even before you were officially married. If a woman wanted to break a betrothal, something similar to a divorce would have to occur.

Once we understand this historic truth, many other passages of scripture start to make sense. Take a look at this passage from Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

Clearly in this law written for Israel, an engaged girl is described as a wife, even before she is officially married. In addition to this, we are all familiar with this part of the nativity story:

Matthew 1:19-20
Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.”

Joseph thinks about divorcing Mary for what he thinks she has done. How can he do this when they aren’t even married yet? Because, (once again) this engaged woman was considered married to her betrothed, even before the official ceremony. OK, now let’s take a look at the situation with David and Merab one more time. As it turns out, David had already been betrothed to Merab; this occurred the moment he defeated Goliath:

1 Samuel 18:17-21
Then Saul said to David, “Here is my older daughter Merab; I will give her to you as a wife, only be a valiant man for me and fight the Lord’s battles.” For Saul thought, “My hand shall not be against him, but let the hand of the Philistines be against him.” But David said to Saul, “Who am I, and what is my life or my father’s family in Israel, that I should be the king’s son-in-law?” So it came about at the time when Merab, Saul’s daughter, should have been given to David, that she was given to Adriel the Meholathite for a wife. Now Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved David. When they told Saul, the thing was agreeable to him. And Saul thought, “I will give her to him that she may become a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” Therefore Saul said to David, “For a second time you may be my son-in-law today.”

This is the key to the comment that Saul makes in verse 21. Although Saul had already betrothed his daughter to David as a result of his killing of Goliath, Saul conveniently ignored this betrothal when he instead promised Merab to Adriel the Meholathite. Look at what traditional commentaries have to say about this:

*Quote here*

Now Saul’s comment in verse 21 makes sense. Saul had betrothed Merab to David twice. Once when he defeated Goliath and once here in the passages that precede verse 21.

So Were They Homosexuals?
In order to believe David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers, you are going to have to ignore the plain reading of the scripture and the historic and traditional understanding of the text. In addition, you are going to have to believe Samuel, one of God’s prophets in the tradition of the Mosiac cultural law that condemns homosexuality in Leviticus, would then approve of this homosexual relationship enough to carefully cloak it in the text. Would not this prophet of God, in the strong tradition of Judaism and the law of Moses have an opinion on this?

Hopefully this very brief review of the texts under consideration will help you to understand the orthodox Christian perspective of David and Jonathan’s relationship. David and Jonathan were the deepest of friends. True brothers in both Cause and Faith. But they were nothing more.



J. Warner Wallace, Cold Case Christianity 5 Comments [4/14/2018 9:34:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 137779

The first person that's joined me in the "anti-science" / "science" hypocrisy.
"...It is certainly ironic how liberals who posture as defenders of science when it comes to global warming ( a
sentimental myth unsupported by evidence ) flee all reference to biology when it comes to gender."
So true. Poor so-called 'scientific data' for global warming, a myth which could change the economy of the entire world, taking us down,....against "I feel, therefore, I am."...with ZERO science. Hypocrisy.

wfmcfp, The Dailey Wire 6 Comments [4/14/2018 11:03:21 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Christopher

Quote# 137766

Christians who believe the fossil record was laid down millions of years before man, are really accusing God of saying cancer & diseases are "very good" Gen 1:31, as many diseases have been discovered in fossil bones supposedly millions of yrs old! No, diseases came after sin

Ken Ham, Twitter 10 Comments [4/14/2018 10:01:21 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Yossarian Lives

Quote# 137622

The sex cult NXIVM – from their Mexican press office – issued a social media statement in Spanish hinting that the arrest of leader Keith Raniere a/k/a The Vanguard, on sex trafficking charges, is much like the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Raniere is known to followers as Vanguard.

Their statement reads:



English translation:

The story is that more than 2,000 years ago – a day like today – Jesus the Nazarene was arrested, after having been betrayed by one of his own, and then crucified on the cross. How threatened could the people back then have been to do something like that? How much did they have to invent to justify his death? Today, in modern times, some things remain unchanged ?? #somosmaslosbuenos [we are good] #amorenelmundo [love in the world] # ?


NXIVM, Frank Report 2 Comments [4/13/2018 1:28:30 PM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 137727

Lady Checkmate's headline: "Lesbian couple, the Harts, likely received $270G from Texas after adopting the 6 kids (they murdered) from Houston area"

(NOTE: Fox News story from which this is taken has this headline instead, for the same story: "Harts likely received $270G from Texas after adopting kids from Houston area: report"
Link to story is here: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/07/harts-likely-received-270g-from-texas-after-adopting-kids-from-houston-area-report.html)

Skamania Steelie:
This is horrible! I am not an advocate of same sex couples adopting, but one would think that these people would be caring. At least this is how these people portray themselves. They are so caring, they accept all people of race, gender, color, etc, but they are anything, but caring! These gender and sex confused people should not have children, they have very serious mental problems to live with! That is evident!

[NOTE: Lady Checkmate liked Skamania's comment so much that she made it a "featured comment"]

Lady Checkmate:
I guess to the alt-left, those 6 black lives didn't matter, BUT they matter to me. RIP dear children



Lady Checkmate, Disqus - News Network 14 Comments [4/13/2018 2:48:39 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 47678

The word Lie-beral is often used to refer to liberal activists who value deceit and lies above truth and fairness. It is a portmanteau word.

Tellingly, there is no such coinage related to conservatives --- because there is no use for one!

Annie, Conservapedia 67 Comments [9/17/2008 6:23:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Tehpogo

Quote# 137627

You can say what you want but DONALD J TRUMP was picked by God to be president. Black and white Christian was praying for Trump to be presdent for along time and God answered there prayers all the media all the experts said there was noway he could beat Hillary Clinton but with God all things are possible and he won fair and square . You can whimper and moan all you want but God's pick is in the White House whether you like it or not .

David Miller, Facebook 10 Comments [4/13/2018 1:28:40 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Christopher

Quote# 137693

How do you make a gay fuck a woman? Shit in her cunt. Don't think I don't know, 'cause I know!

Jimmy Carr, YouTube 13 Comments [4/13/2018 2:42:53 PM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 137729

“Italy’s first black senator has said his election for the League has proved that the far-right party, whose anti-immigrant rhetoric helped it to its best ever result on Sunday, has no problem with legal migration.

Campaigning under the party slogan “stop the invasion”, Toni Iwobi, a 62-year-old businessman originally from Nigeria, won his seat in Spirano, a small town in the Lombardy province of Bergamo, as the party took almost 18% of the vote nationwide.

“It’s an incredible honour for me to be Italy’s first black senator,” he told the Guardian.

He shared success in the region with his party colleague Attilio Fontana, the new governor of Lombardy, who at the start of the election campaign said Italy’s migrant influx threatened to wipe out “our white race”.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/08/italys-first-black-senator-my-election-shows-far-right-is-not-anti-immigration

This dispels the myth that The League is not controlled opposition. The League is virulently pro-Israel and believes in the false notion of the “based” black guy. Civic nationalists and conservatives are worse than leftists because at least leftists have the guts to say that they want all white people dead and gone. Conservatives and civic cucks are spineless people that pretend to care about Italians, but then what they do is advocate for legal immigration of foreigners from everywhere. It is better to have one million illegal squatters in your country than one million non white legal citizens that will wipe out your race legally.

“Muh legal immigration tho” (TM) is so much worse than simply having thousands of rapefugee boats dumping Africans into the country. When the time comes to peacefully repatriate all non-white people out of Italy, the invaders will just say they are citizens and that will be the end. Italy has never been a country of diversity so why let the blacks take it over?


CARLO ABRUZZI, Forza Nuova USA 8 Comments [4/13/2018 2:49:40 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: hydrolythe

Quote# 137705

We need to know more about what "welcoming" means. Of course theys should be welcomed, but trangenderism itself must absolutely not be endorsed.

Being born "in the wrong body" is a concept that utterly rejects God and science. Very rarely, individuals are born with intersex
conditions – but almost everyone has XX or XY chromosomes in every body cell (other than gametes of course). Each human being is a unique, immeasurably valuable individual, God loves them with a love that, like that of a parent, transcends gender - so to change name/anatomy/hormones is unnecessary, and a defiant rebellion against God's perfect plan. We should show transgender people that they are loved, so that they will come into the Christian community where they can be told the Gospel. That doesn't mean that is at all OK to affirm their feelings of being something other than the biological sex that God assigned to them.

What’s most tragic, is that our society’s celebration and encouraging of transgenderism demonstrates it’s rejection of God. It utterly breaks my heart; on the occassions that I've thought deeply about the LGBT movement, I've ended up in tears. Male and female He created us – and yet there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus – that is God has put each of us into the body He deemed best for us - what actually matters is whether we'll spend eternity with Him, and most people around us don't realise that they're at risk of missing their opportunity. We must continually seek with urgency to do all we can to show Jesus to our world.

(these are useful – obviously I do not necessarily agree with each article
entirely)
http://www.psephizo.com/sex...
http://www.thepublicdiscour...
http://dailysignal.com/2016...

Grace Dalton, Premier 7 Comments [4/13/2018 2:44:25 PM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Christopher

Quote# 137620

Keith Raniere:

You know, different children have brains that myelinate at different rates. Part of the neurons, the functioning of the brain, if you will. It’s not like all children are born and their brains are in the exact same state and they can do the exact same things at the exact same time. And it’s not even in the exact same order!

But what really counts is where they are and what the next step is to help them go forward. And wherever they end up is the best that they can end up. You don’t want to want enlightenment for every child. That’s one step worse than you wanting it for yourself.

Allison Mack:

It’s like forced enlightenment.

Keith Raniere, sarcastically:

Yes exactly, I want you to be enlightened.

Allison Mack:
So, I just was curious: what do you see as the greatest limitation between men and women in their quest to relate to each other in a loving and compassionate way?

Keith Raniere:
Well, the biggest limitation that women have is that they’re women. And the greatest limitation men have is that they’re men.

Keith Raniere and Allison Mack, YouTube 7 Comments [4/13/2018 1:27:08 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Hu’s On First

Quote# 10873

James Herberts VERY REAL expose' cleverly hidden inside a supposedly fictional "horror" novel.

About what might conceivably happen when people on Earth - in the not too distant future - are suddenly ENGULFED by "DARK FORCES"!!!

For EXISTENCE consists of both "Heaven" and "Hell" FORCES.

I have had PERSONAL experience that the "DARK FORCES" James writes about is REAL!!!

I urge EVERYONE to swot up on - try to SENSE - the POWER of the "DARK". You will KNOW that I am NOT kidding! This is NOT a wind up!

I'm sure James wrote his book for that very reason?
To warn EVERYONE and to enable us to be FULLY MENTALLY
prepared, ahead of time!!!

Don't worry, because the "FORCES OF LIGHT" ALWAYS win!!!

Supergirlzon, Amazon.com Reviews 33 Comments [4/14/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: Talisman

Quote# 137702

Instead of that around 5000 people were partying at Monday the Persian new year in the green facilities there. With heated explanations under the Kurdish partiers, who then escalate to mass drumming and clearly heard shots.

According to a message in the Kölner Bild journal it's not the first time that such incidents ruled on the Decksteiner. It's rather that this unannounced organizing is already going on for years. Without any approval, security, toilet houses or other organisatory precautions. The regular foreign gastronomy of the mundane "house on the sea" next door is because of that in this day and age not open at all and preferably renounces its own sales.

For the city of Köln that however doesn't seem to be a problem, like city talker Inge Schürmann explained towards the Bild journal: "This is a meeting of people, that represent the intended use of the green belt. It's not a formal event."

A statement that we should take with a grain of salt and invites to a small thought experiment: What would the city of Köln say, when every year 5000 skinheads would meet unannounced in a Köln green facility to drink alcohol and beat people? If we ignore for a moment that it is probable that we can't find 50 skinheads in the whole Rhine country this question is of rhetorical nature. Obviously neither the city of Köln nor the police would see such grouping for five minutes without action and instead introduce rigorous steps to the dissolution of that.

Original German:
Am Montag dagegen feierten rund 5000 Menschen unangemeldet das persische Neujahrsfest in den dortigen Grünanlagen. Mit teils hitzigen Auseinandersetzungen unter den vor allem kurdischstämmigen Partygängern, die dann in mehreren Massenschlägereien und deutlich hörbaren Schüssen eskalierten.

Laut einem Bericht der Kölner Bildzeitung hätten solche Zustände zum persischen Neujahrsfest aber nicht zum ersten Mal am Decksteiner Weiher geherrscht. Vielmehr ginge dieses unangemeldete Treiben schon seit Jahren so. Ohne irgendwelche behördlichen Genehmigungen, Sicherheitskonzept, Toilettenhäuschen oder sonstige organisatorische Vorkehrungen. Die reguläre Außengastronomie des nahegelegenen mondänen „Haus am See“ würde deshalb an diesem Tag schon gar nicht mehr öffnen und lieber auf den eigenen Umsatz verzichten.

Für die Stadt Köln scheint das alles aber kein Problem darzustellen, wie Stadtsprecherin Inge Schürmann gegenüber der Bildzeitung erklärte: „Das ist ein Zusammentreffen von Menschen, das die bestimmungsgemäße Nutzung des Grüngürtels hergibt. Es ist keine formelle Veranstaltung“.

Eine Aussage, die man sich auf der Zunge zergehen lassen sollte und zu einem kleinen Gedankenexperiment einlädt: Was würde die Stadt Köln wohl dazu sagen, wenn sich jedes Jahr 5000 Skinheads unangemeldet in einer Kölner Grünanlage zum Saufen und Prügeln treffen würden? Mal abgesehen davon, dass man wahrscheinlich im ganzen Rheinland keine 50 Skinheads mehr finden kann, ist die Frage natürlich rhetorischer Natur. Selbstverständlich würden weder die Stadt Köln noch die Polizei einem solchen Treiben auch nur fünf Minuten tatenlos zusehen und stattdessen rigorose Schritte zur Unterbindung einleiten.


MARKUS WIENER, PI News 4 Comments [4/13/2018 2:43:54 PM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: hydrolythe

Quote# 137652

(=A comment thread in a Universalist educational video=)

Infinite Architect: You are a false teacher preaching annihilationism which is unbiblical. You will be held accountable for everyone you deceive.? [...] Did you even watch it? He is saying hell is just a temporary place where you get "refined" and you will eventually make it to heaven and the devil is going to heaven too. This is total heresy and sends a dangerous message to lost people because it makes them think they will escape eternal Hell and they can sin all they want and not have to worry. This clown thinks he has stumbled across special knowledge but he is just a fool twisting scripture and preaching some strange perverted form of Universalism. You can follow him into Hell if you want, it's your freewill to do so.?

ThyWordIsTruth: AMEN brother. Here we go again, someone trying to correct the Greek and Hebrew and using their own private interpretation. Now to the OWNER OF THIS CHANNEL, your problem is that you've either been deceived by a reprobate bible scholar or you hate what the word of God says. Revelation 14:11 KJV says: " And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name." Apparently you have more knowledge than 54 of some of the worlds greatest scholars who translated the King James Bible and you obviously believe in a "god" who cannot perfectly preserve his word for future generations. You are a fool and if you don't repent and TRULY put your faith in the Lord Jesus of the BIBLE, you will find out that the lake of fire is a place of eternal torment.

truth96130: @ Infinite Architect Just because people believe that judgment is not forever, that does not mean they will think they can sin all they like with no consequences. There are many crimes that do not have a life sentence.Does everyone think (I think I will commit all those crimes because the punishment is not forever)? Nope.?

ThyWordIsTruth: If you are gullible enough to believe this man than you have a big problem. Not only is he wrong but in denying the TRUTH of eternal hell is to deny a fundamental of the Christian faith! Also it is NOT foolish to believe that the KJV is the perfectly preserved word of God for the English speaking people. Have you heard the saying 'a little Greek is a dangerous thing?' Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.?

truth96130: 1. "He is trying to correct the Greek and Hebrew and using their own private interpretation."-- What part of (the Greek word translated as torment, is touchstone) is a private interpretation ? Look it up before you accuse. 2. "He has either been deceived or hates what the word of God says." --Calling people deceived because they know something you did not know.
does not mean they are deceived. Try to study up on the Greek word they translated (torture) before you falsely accuse someone. 3. "Revelation 14:11" --Is the book of revelation filled with metaphors, symbols and figures of speech? Yes. Does torment have smoke? No. Does smoke rise up forever? No. Can there be a forever after forever? No because the first forever will never end. Can people never rest? Only if they have an infinite amount of energy. Do people have an infinite amount of energy? No. Apparently your taking what is not literal and trying to say it is. 4. "Apparently you have more knowledge than 54 of some of the worlds greatest scholars who translated the King James Bible." Question --If the KJV translators were so perfect in their translation, than why did they give Alternate translations to over 1000 bible verses (in the margins) and many of them had different meanings. If they got (the original one right) there is no need to put another one in the margins. 5. "You obviously believe in a "god" who cannot perfectly preserve his word for future generations." --Are you saying that God will not allow any one to make a miscopy in a bible? A) Yes. B) No. 6. "TRULY put your faith in the Lord Jesus of the BIBLE." --What name is the only one by which we must be saved??

truth96130: 1. Any one that interprets the bible differently than you do are all false teachers? When you become God, than you can assume your interpretation is perfect. 2. He is not deceiving people just because he interprets the bible differently than you do. 3. "This is total heresy." --No, what you were taught is heresy. Because it teaches God is the eternal oppressor and the opposite of the savor to the majority of mankind. 4. "He is a clown because he thinks he has special knowledge." --Personal attacks prove nothing. Back it up with scripture if you can. If you can't than you have no argument.?

Hope Remains: The KJV is just as flawed as any other English version. I have nearly 40 years experience working with scripture in the original languages, and taught Hebrew and Greek for many years. God preserved His word in the original languages. That preservation does NOT extend to any translation. The KJV translators were charged with creating a Bible that would support the teachings of the Anglican Church. As a result, they tampered with numerous verses to bring the Bible into line with church doctrine. Further, KJV, like some other versions, contains a verse the translators almost certainly knew was a fraud. 1 John 5:7, as found in KJV, et al, is called the Johannine Comma. It cannot be found in ANY ancient Greek manuscript of the New Testament, nor in any of the early Latin versions. It first appeared in late versions of the Vulgate, added by some anonymous monk copying over the text. It breaks the sense of the passage, and there is not a legitimate Bible scholar in the world who thinks John wrote it. It did not find its way into a Greek version until the 11th century, when someone scribbled it into the margin of a Greek New Testament. When Erasmus created his Greek manuscript, he revised it to agree with late versions of the Vulgate, which was a huge mistake. The translators of KJV chose to ignore all the ancient Greek texts at their disposal, and used primarily Erasmus' so-called Textus Receptus, a seriously flawed version. There is no real substitute for taking the time to learn the original languages and studying scripture as originally written. 2 Timothy 2:15.?

ThyWordIsTruth: You mean the translators of the KJV chose to ignore the manuscripts that don't agree with one another? So to have the perfect word of God we have to learn Greek and Hebrew, what rubbish. Well go on then take your Novum Testamentum Graece and preach it to people on the street.?

Hope Remains: Hmmm... perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension. There are small differences in all Greek manuscripts. No two agree completely. The KJV translators rejected all the older, more authoritative manuscripts, in favor of a flawed manuscript that was only about 100 years old. Now, if you want to put all your faith in a Bible translated (poorly) from that flawed manuscript, go for it. But don't expect God to applaud that decision. You also ignored the fact that KJV contains a verse that is a proven fraud. I guess you don't care about that either.?

ThyWordIsTruth: Well don't expect God to applaud a bible like the NIV that says the Jesus fell from heaven and not Lucifer like the NIV in Isaiah 14:12.?

Hope Remains: I am no fan of NIV. There is no fully accurate vernacular Bible. But in NIV's defense, it does NOT say Jesus fell from heaven in that verse. KJV uses the word Lucifer, which is a lousy translation of the Hebrew word Heylel, which means "Daystar." That name was given by God to the devil when he was first created as a cherub. After he fell, God reclaimed the name for Himself, and the former Heylel became known as Satan.?

truth96130: If you want to get technical, it can be a dangerous thing to know no Greek. You said--"You mean the translators of the KJV chose to ignore the manuscripts that don't agree with one another ?" --Thats wrong, in fact they did use manuscripts that did not all agree with one another. That is why they had alternate translations in the margins of the very first KJV bible. I am still waiting for an answer. Question--Is it possible for there to be a miscopy in a KJV bible? A) Yes. B) No. Rather than just accusing him of being wrong with out backing it up, tell us exactly what he said that
was (wrong) and then explain to us the correct way. If you can not do that, than you have no argument.?


Infinite Architect & ThyWordIsTruth, Youtube 2 Comments [4/13/2018 2:39:30 PM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 137671

I feel age of consent is more of a social construct which doesn't make it any less value if its there to strengthen a society and that includes making children safe, confident and happy. I don't know if criminalising young adults, breaking up families because of blanket laws and telling a happy child that they should feel bad and dirty is necessarily achieving that. If two people through circumstances end up in love, one is 11 lets say, the other is 19. Perhaps their personal circumstances brought them together, over time they bonded, fell in love and as in any such relationship it turned sexual and mutual. The law would say that they should be broken apart, he should be jailed and she should learn that what they did was wrong and dirty and he was a bad man. The result in this case happens to be she becomes afraid of sex, relationships, has confidence and mental issues well into adulthood. Was that application of the law in her interest, his interest or society's interest? How about 11 and 45 year old since a 25 and 45 year old are both adults.

I don't know the right answers but in my mind it's such a complex area that I don't know if hard laws are always the right answer. More focus should be on sex education and I mean not just biology but also relationships.

Humanrespect, reddit 3 Comments [4/13/2018 2:42:02 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 137653

Sorry, you cannot possibly be "Christian" and "Gay." That's an irrational oxymoron if ever there was one. To be a TRUE Christian means you would try not to do anything knowingly or deliberately to violate, give offense or even live outside of G-d's Divine laws! That is mortal/moral sin. "Gay" is truly a most despicable Satanic word of mockery and the most contemptuous hatred towards G-d and his laws. The intent behind this perverted word is to cunningly infiltrate enmasse the minds of unsuspecting belligerent souls tempting each one into engaging into the act of sodomy to pervert the very nature of G-d's creatures and then to twist it socially as though it were perfectly natural, which it is NOT!!!! To destroy the family structure from within, to infiltrate the Holy Roman Catholic church, (and all protestant churches too) its seminaries and the children they have access to, and therefore, the nation itself. Look around you. Use your brains and pray...Get real, and get wise fast!?

Indexanimisermo, YouTube 4 Comments [4/13/2018 2:39:43 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 137650

Jean-Marie Le Pen represents for the APF and nationalists in general an extraordinary point of reference He is for all Europeans the very epitome of a history of ideological coherence and resistance; for the fighting people in our Continent our Jean-Marie Le Pen is a man of incredible value and courage.

We welcome Jean-Marie Le Pen at a time of revolutionary changes in Europe – our guide and leader for the oncoming struggles and victories!

JENS PÜHSE, APF Europe 5 Comments [4/13/2018 1:28:56 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: hydrolythe

Quote# 137654

The LGBTQ people need God just as much as any other person living in sin out there. Some of them are very unhappy and are hurting. Unfortunately because some Christians do not know how to talk to homosexuals and they judge and condemn them without treating them with love and kindness, this behavior draws a lot of LGBTQ people from God. A straight male pastor once said if life was the other way around and he was supposed to be with a man even though he had attraction towards women, he can understand that it would be really hard for him to let go of these desires in his heart and fully commit to God. So he doesn't judge or condemn LGBTQ people and he understands how they have desires in their heart that are hard for them to control. But I would love for anyone who is reading this who is living in sin and is not saved whether you are LGBTQ, an alcoholic, a liar, a fornicator, an adulterer, someone struggling with gluttony, struggling with pornography, struggling with any form of lusts, struggling with tendencies to gossip, struggling with greed, struggling with pride, etc. God can take these desires out of your heart and make you a completely different person. All sins are equal in gods eyes and once you get saved, all of your sins will be forgiven and they will be nailed on that cross that Jesus died on to give us eternal life. When you get saved you will also receive a gift from God that will teach you how to have self control. God loves every single human being living on this earth. After all he created us, we would not exist without him. If only more people living in sin will just seek God, get saved, and truly experience the love and forgiveness that he has for all of us. God does not wish for any of us to go to hell. But he gave us free will, so we have a choice to live in sin or to get saved and give our lives to God. If someone does not receive salvation, then they cannot go to heaven. Say this prayer below if you are ready to receive salvation and give your life to God.

If you are ready to give your life to God then say this prayer below:

Dear God, Can you please forgive me for all of my sins? I know that I haven't been living my life the way that you would want me to and I am sorry for this. I am now ready to give my life to you. I believe that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior who died on the cross for my sins and that you raised him from the dead. I am ready to get saved and I would like to be set free. In Jesus name, Amen?

Jesus is Lord, YouTube 4 Comments [4/13/2018 2:40:03 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Christopher

Quote# 137625

(=In response to a Flat Earth Debunking Video - should also be noted that in that same thread there's another fundie who completely took over the conversation, but left too many comments to post here=)

Thank you for introducing your subscribers to the Flat Earth concept. For those of you new to this, get ready, because your world is about to change, and it's never going to be the same again. Everyone laughs at first, but when you're done, ask yourself this: When did you first find out you lived on a globe? Because of the model you saw when you were six, or because of the ONE picture you saw in a textbook. Do your own research, and ask questions.?

markksargent, Youtube  4 Comments [4/13/2018 1:28:36 PM]
Fundie Index: 1