Quote# 141696

on sanduskys wife turning a blind eye to her husband molesting children




A spouse cannot be compelled to testify against a spouse for a reason. They're a single unit in the eyes of the law, as well as emotionally (for many/most couples). And come on, they are both old as fuck. It's way less upsetting to think that your husband was pilloried unfairly in court than it is to accept that you are married to a child molester--even if that does mean calling dozens of victims liars. It's easy to talk tough online. But I'm not even married yet, and I can't say I would likely do anything differently in her position.

Rachellelogram, The straight dope 11 Comments [12/26/2018 1:18:39 AM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 141686

So, my third semester of Nursing School is finally over. I made an A on a final and that pulled my grade out of the weeds to pass a class. I studied for 5+ hours a day for over a week and met with my study buddy in the same cohort every chance we got. That A is a reward for all of my hard work and now I can relax and enjoy my Christmas break.

I called my Mom when I found out I passed because I knew she would be grilling me when I got home and, at the end of the day, I just want to retire to my room and watch tv/play video games without her going on and on about the subject for hours. She immediately said that she'd be praying every night for me and my A was the "work of God." I'm not a religious person and retorted with, "Or maybe it was all my studying for the past week and a half." "But He helped you remember everything." "Yeah. Okay, Mom hangs up"

pressatoplay30's mother, /r/raisedbynarcissists/ 11 Comments [12/25/2018 2:51:10 PM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 113085

Children and babies have made money for wicked people for generations, and nothing has changed in 2015. The hypocrisy and irony is that if you have a baby today, unless you jump through a bunch of man-made hoops like getting certain tests from a doctor, they accuse you of child abuse.....yet you can legally kill that same child with impunity. Then, once you have a child, the wicked government institution CPS can kidnap your children from you at any time, for any trumped up charge, and adopt them out for profit. Forever separating parents and the children God gave to them. Woe unto these monsters that kill babies and kidnap children for filthy lucre! Hell will be hot enough for them, and this is one group of people I will be glad to see there.

railhead, Christian News Network 28 Comments [9/23/2015 6:45:06 PM]
Fundie Index: 11

Quote# 141698

It's right for God to slaughter women and children anytime he pleases. God gives life and he takes life. Everybody who dies, dies because God wills that they die.

God is taking life every day. He will take 50,000 lives today. Life is in God's hand. God decides when your last heartbeat will be, and whether it ends through cancer or a bullet wound. God governs.

So God is God! He rules and governs everything. And everything he does is just and right and good. God owes us nothing.

If I were to drop dead right now, or a suicide bomber downstairs were to blow this building up and I were blown into smithereens, God would have done me no wrong. He does no wrong to anybody when he takes their life, whether at 2 weeks or at age 92.

God is not beholden to us at all. He doesn't owe us anything.

Now add to that the fact we're all sinners and deserve to die and go to hell yesterday, and the reality that we're even breathing today is sheer common grace from God.

I could make the question harder. As it was stated, it doesn't feel hard to me, because God was stated as the actor.

My basic answer is that the Old and New Testaments present God as the one who has total rights over my life and over my death.

"The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1:21). How he takes away is his call. He never wrongs anybody.

How would you state it to make the question harder?

The part that makes it harder is that he commands people to do it. He commanded Joshua to slaughter people, okay? You've got human beings killing humans, and therefore a moral question of what is right to do.

The Bible says, "Thou shalt not murder," yet God says to Joshua, "Go in and clean house, and don't leave anything breathing! Don't leave a donkey, child, woman, old man or old woman breathing. Wipe out Jericho."

My answer to that is that there is a point in history, a season in history, where God is the immediate king of a people, Israel, different than the way he is the king over the church, which is from all the peoples of Israel and does not have a political, ethnic dimension to it.

With Joshua there was a political, ethnic dimension, God was immediate king, and he uses this people as his instrument to accomplish his judgment in the world at that time. And God, it says, let the sins of the Amorites accumulate for 400 years so that they would be full (Genesis 15:16), and then sends his own people in as instruments of judgment.

So I would vindicate Joshua by saying that in that setting, with that relationship between God and his people, it was right for Joshua to do what God told him to do, which was to annihilate the people.

But that's much more complex morally than saying that God does it. He can cause a flood and kill everybody on the planet except 8 people and not do a single one of them any wrong. But he didn't ask anybody else to do that. It gets difficult when he uses others.

An example of this right now is that God has given the sword to the government (Romans 13:4). Therefore I believe the government has a right to take a rapist and a murderer and to put him in jail. Or to kill him.

I think capital punishment is consistent with Genesis 9 and consistent with God's character, because of the value of man: "The blood of a man shall be shed for taking the blood of a man" (Genesis 9:6) But that's very different than saying that anybody can go around killing people.

So God has his times and seasons for when he shares his authority to take and give life. And the church today is not Israel, and we are not a political entity. Therefore the word we have from the Lord today is, "Love your enemy. Pray for those who abuse you. Lay your life down for the world. Don't kill in order to spread the gospel, but die to spread it."

John Piper, Desiring God 20 Comments [12/26/2018 1:19:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 141702

(throwaway05566)
We grew up in a time period filled with countless media wherein the "nerds" and unpopular kids in every piece of media were always ugly and the popular kids were always good looking. Yet the majority of people today refuse it and believe in nonsense like "personality matters more". Why?

The blackpill was literally shoved in front of every one of us since childhood through TV and movies.

So how did we end up with such a blue-pilled society? How is the view that looks are everything not universal?

(SilverGryphon)
Simple dude, they need you to keep hoping, because without hope you quickly check out and stop wasting your time, effort and money on women. Face it, men help women with the intention of getting sex and there is nothing wrong with that, that is just human nature. When they learn that the sex is not going to happen, they lose all motivation to stick around.

If all the unattractive men are told that they won't get pussy by being kind hearted they, will drop out of orbit in the millions.

All of a sudden women cannot live life on easy mode any more and their lives become much much harder as the guys who orbited them no longer help them out. This would have a dangerous effect on their mental health and the state would not be able to cope with an unprecedented level of depression.

You would get more and more guys embracing a frugal lifestyle. Hence the economy (as we currently know it) would take a huge hit as far less clothes, cars and other expensive shit is consumed. Companies like apple would be wiped off the face of the earth within weeks.

This why the view that looks are everything is not universal and why it is so vehemently attacked by others outside the manosphere and in real life. The way society is constructed, you need a large amount of laborious beta billy's to keep civilization running. Take them away and you will be facing a total collapse of the world we live in. Let that sink in for a while.

(RaphaelTisserand)
If all the unattractive men are told that they won't get pussy by being kind hearted they, will drop out of orbit in the millions.

Can we please just do this? Normies and Chads would always advise me to "stop putting pussy on a pedestal" when I was younger. Let's fucking do it. Not even rise up, just walk away.

(okyeah93)
because corporations need labor and government needs your taxes bitch!

(LayDownAndCope)
JFL @ any wagecuck incel

Take the NEETpill

Various incels, r/Braincels 11 Comments [12/26/2018 1:57:48 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 141711

Just a little chat with Jesus

I was going to relapse last night, but instead I chatted with God until I fell asleep.

I’ve never slept well. It’s just not a good time for me. I suppose it could be residual stress from being molested by my father as a kid. Always at night. Always at bedtime. Maybe my body is hanging onto those memories, and I flip into stress mode when I try to sleep (currently reading The Body Keeps the Score. Phenomenal book for those who’ve undergone severe trauma/abuse).

Last night, I climbed into bed, and just wanted to fall asleep. But I was bombarded with thoughts, fears, anxieties, and wanted a hit of dope to help me fall asleep. But I also wanted to be obedient, to “deny myself, take up my cross and follow Jesus.” I tossed and turned, and eventually just started talking with Jesus.

“Why do I feel this way?” “Why can’t I just sleep?” “Why is it so hard for me?”

We talked for some time. He asked very pointed and thought provoking questions. Each answer I had, I followed with another question.

Ultimately, He asked, “Why is it harder to choose obedience than it is to choose sin?”

I was stumped. It was a good question for sure. I mumbled, “well, I suppose because there are forces (thoughts/feelings/chemicals) that push me to sin. There’s no force that pushes me to obedience.”

He said, “What about the pain of sinning? The disappointment in yourself, the shame you feel, the groggy morning and the pain of lying to your friends and family? It’s not so much that you aren’t pushed to obedience, it simply comes after the fact, and it’s easy to ignore in the moment.”

That’s the last I remember of our conversation before I fell asleep. Fell asleep not in stress, not in anxiety, but in peaceful communion with my savior.

I’m so grateful to call Him friend, and I wanted to share my story. Hopefully one of you will have a chat with Him next time you’re feeling weak.

DeeKayThunder, r/NoFapChristians 10 Comments [12/26/2018 11:13:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 96006

For us in the Muslim world female circumcision is, above all else, obedience to Islam, which means acting in accordance with the fitrah and following the Sunnah which encourages it. We all know the dimensions of Islam, and that everything in it must be good in all aspects, including health aspects. If the benefits are not apparent now, they will become known in the future, as has happened with regard to male circumcision – the world now knows its benefits and it has become widespread among all nations despite the opposition of some groups.
Then she mentioned some of the health benefits of female circumcision and said:
1) It takes away excessive libido from women
2) It prevents unpleasant odours which result from foul secretions beneath the prepuce.
3) It reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections.
4) It reduces the incidence of infections of the reproductive system.

Sitt al-Banaat Khaalid, Askimam.org 48 Comments [8/16/2013 3:23:50 AM]
Fundie Index: 58

Quote# 141684

I was listening to a very popular radio host one day, who claims to be a Christian. He claims to deeply love God in every way. He is married with children. Yet one day I heard him tell his listeners that he goes to massage parlors from time-to-time, to have beautiful women massage him. I was saddened when he said that, wondering what kind of wife didn't care if her husband went to be massaged by other women. God is a jealous God, and something is wrong with anyone who is not jealous over their spouse. In America's sicko society today, where married couples “swing” with other couples sexually, it is horribly evil.

Only in a sinful, carnally-minded society do people go get a massage, letting someone of the opposite sex usually) put their hands all over you from head-to-toe. It is just plain wrong.

When I hear someone say that they're going to get a massage, I know that they're not right with God. Oh, I know, everyone has a bad back, or a bad leg, or some other health problem that they use to justify getting a massage; but it doesn't matter. It is sinfully for a man to have a woman putting her hands all over him (unless it's his wife). Massages are unscriptural and sinful, because they potentially arouse sexual desires (at least in a healthy, normal man) and often lead to sexual immorality during the massage. God calls all believers to a life of holiness.

A wife who doesn't mind if her husband gets a massage by another woman; probably dresses like a whore, has a loose past of fornication, approves of abortion, accepts homosexuality, et cetera. Only an immoral wife would approve of her husband getting a massage by another woman. You should be jealous over your spouse, just as God is jealous over His own (Exodus 20:1-5).

Massages are sinful. No one should touch you except your spouse. Even a man touching a man is creepy. No man should massage another man.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Savior 18 Comments [12/25/2018 2:50:42 PM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 141689

Also, Trump did not want the suicidal transgenders in the military because it is so expensive to cope with their medical demands.

church mouse guy, BaptistBoard 14 Comments [12/25/2018 2:51:47 PM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Kang

Quote# 141690

I can understand how they can be happy. Most people would be very happy to live a life in which you would be able to do WHATEVER you feel is right, regardless of what that was (as long as you weren’t arrested for it). Not believing in God frees people from the guilt and pangs of conscience that accompanies the belief that some Higher Power may hold you responsible for the choices you make. If you can convince yourself that there is no Higher Power, then you will believe that no one will judge the choices you make. In this way, atheism is sort of a faith, a deep hope and belief that there is no God.

If you don’t believe in God, then you live only in the here and now and have little concern about others and their circumstances beyond the amount of concern that the human laws and regulations insist you must have (for example, an atheist would avoid t murder, NOT because some “God” said that murder is wrong; rather, they would not kill someone because of the knowledge that they would be arrested and put in prison, losing their freedom.) They don’t worry about consequences or obligations beyond what society would require of them. They believe that if they are “good people” in the eyes of society, keeping human laws, then that is good enough. Atheists are also content in their belief that humans can solve every single problem on Earth and that whatever problems humans cannot solve are not worth worrying about. They don’t worry much about death and disease or intractable poverty or hunger because either they believe that humans will eventually solve those problems, or they believe that those problems are the evolutionary “lot in life” of people who are not the “fittest” and that the laws of evolution will take care of the matter soon enough. No point in caring or worrying about it at all.

Finally, they think of themselves as individual little “Gods” or “Goddesses” in that they believe that they, as imperfect human individuals, are the sole source of moral authority in their lives, that whatever their personal situational ethics dictates is what they do, and they alone have complete control over their own fortunes. Each one lives as they want to live with no outside sources of ethical rules (other than the laws of imperfect human governments). If it is not legally mandated, you don’t have to do it. If it “feels good” to you personally, then do it. They feel no obligation toward any universal source of authority and believe themselves to have attained ultimate freedom.

I can understand how some folks could think this is happiness.

brensgrrl, Daily Kos 13 Comments [12/25/2018 2:51:59 PM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 141692

About China
This is simple.
If the capitalist class answers to the government, and is beholden to them, the country is socialist because the state has control over them, ultimately. The state can tell the businesses what to do, but may choose not to unless the policies are beneficial to the state. regardles of if there is a form of capitalism allowed. State capitalism is run by the state, and the workers have a benefit access to Healthcare and housing and generally their quality of life tends to be better.
Under nazi rule, the workers were take advantage of, if you weren't leibensborn or German born, you had no rights, while China has 133 constitutionally protected minority classes
I f
T h e
C a p I a l i s t s
A n s w e r
T o
T h e
G o v e r n m e n t
The country is socialist.
Cuba ussr China, Venezuela
If the capitalists control the government
USA UK EU, they are capitalism based.
period.
Being a capitalist means you own land or a business or a house. Living under capitalism doesn't make you a capitalist.
Also, imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. Therefore
China
BY
DEFINITION
CANNOT
BE
IMPERIALIST
laika

Gulag the Liberals, Facebook 11 Comments [12/25/2018 2:53:27 PM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 141710

(Nejibana-)
Monsters University Giant Blackpill

Mike Wazowski tried harder and wanted to become a scarer more than anyone in that film, but no matter how hard he tried he just wasn’t scary. No matter how hard he tried he couldn’t change who he was and would never be scary like Sullivan (Chad). Even the main antagonist of the biggest frat house was called Johnny “The Jaw” Worthington.

(Nejibana-)
There are some flaws in this Blackpill as Mike does get a girlfriend in Monsters Inc but would this happen in real life? Would the human equivalent of Mike Wazowski ever get a girlfriend?

(Jflitsover)
He’d be a prime beta bux at 26

Nejibana- and Jflitsover , r/Braincels 7 Comments [12/26/2018 11:13:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 141697

The way you phrase your question you are trying to preordain your reply as intended in the wording of the question, that in the absence of all other things God is guilty, he is mean and heartless! He is not a caring God. This is a fallacy on the grandest of proportions; for you do not take into account what God gave us.. that is the most important issue for you to examine and think about; this is God’s granting of the concept of “Free Will to Man”.

This is a difficult concept to understand in the historical past as it relates directly to past, presence and future actions as well. What we have come to know as “Civilized Man”;man’s history is spotted throughout with violence, death, destruction, war’s & civil unrest. I firmly believe that God wants us to love him as Christ taught us, with all of our hearts, mind & spiritual souls. He did not make us his slaves for whimsical amusement, he gives us free reign to accept & approach him in the fullness of our love toward him; in which case he may decide to intervene on our behalf or use us to effect other people’s actions & feelings to accomplish his goal for the betterment of mankind.

God is infinite in his wisdom & love for us, we cannot judge his reasoning or purpose. The only thing that we can do is to try to obey, understand his love and carry out what God speaks to us thru that little thing known as “the little voice in our hearts & minds known as the conscious” of man. Man has a the propensity of doing good or evil to our fellow man. That is my & your choice. You decide, it’s up to us individually.

Jim Demetrakis, Quora 9 Comments [12/26/2018 1:19:16 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 141703



TheBannedOne91, r/Braincels 9 Comments [12/26/2018 1:51:24 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 141705

(About the mass imprisonments in Xinjiang)

China, which is taking resolute actions to stem violent terror attacks in Xinjiang, is a more moral country compared with the US that has done nothing to prevent the repeated gun crime.

Hu Xijin, Twitter 6 Comments [12/26/2018 11:12:59 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 141706

(MrStoleYourMeme)
Christianity is cucked


(explicit_implication)
I think stern Christianity is still better than secularism. The bible dishes out truth abut women.

(CuckedIndianAmerican)
So does Buddha.

(GuineaIncel)
Cucks are Atheist Leftists who hate Christians but love Muslims.

(jotaro_kuj0)
lmao a whole religion out of cuckery. JFL

(TheBlueTiger77)
The real father of Jesus wasn't God, it was Chad

(JFLcel2)
I do NOT accept your slander of Mary peace be upon her.

Seek refuge in Allah and repent for this horrible sin.

Various incels, r/Braincels 3 Comments [12/26/2018 11:13:03 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 141681

[If you could exterminate your ideological foes without any blowback or sanction, would you?

I leave people alone who mind their own business and don't use their vote to compel others to abide by mob wishes.

It would however be very tempting with the rest...
]

This speaks to the very nature of the human experience over thousands of years on this planet. History is pretty much rinse and repeat. It just so happens that we've passed the tipping point in this country and more precisely, in the entirety of Western Culture where we desperately need another war against each other. To answer your point, no, I wouldnt randomly exterminate liberals. I would want to meet them on the battle field where we would fight until every last one of the other faction were eliminated. It is wholly impossible for a group that believes:

1. in Christian America
2. that abortion is evil
3. that being gay/tranny is evil
4. taking as much money from us as the government does is evil
5. forcing people to render services to people they dont want to is wrong
6. that private ownership of the means to violently overthrow government is necessary to the cause of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
7. that Biblical morality is key to our civilization and freedoms

to ever compromise with todays left who believe the total opposite. You cannot bridge that type of chasm peacefully. People need to die.

lokmar, ThirdRailForum 10 Comments [12/25/2018 2:48:16 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Citizen Justin

Quote# 141694

Go fuck yourself Mrs. Sandusky

liar liar soul on fire
Now, now, woman. Ya'll reap what you sow.

He's raping little boys for years in the basement, and you never heard anything? Never saw anything? You make Helen Keller look like an eagle-eyed lookout.

For shame, you whining fuck. For shame.



Here's a woman who has spent how ever many years being married to an upright citizen, a man who has coached kids, probably attends church weekly and is for all intents and purposes a bloke beyond moral reproach.

Then the shit hits the fan with allegations, charges and sentences of child abuse.

If you were his wife, how would you respond? Me? I'd probably be in denial as well. To acknowledge otherwise would shatter my entire life. It would mean that *my* life had been a lie from the outset, that things I might have seen or heard along the way were not just innocent happenings, but toxic and horrid scenes. It would mean I'd have to let go of EVERYTHING I'd ever held precious. It'd mean that I was equally culpable even though I had nothing to do with the crimes.

Damn.....whatever Sandusky has done, it's just wrong to implicate his wife (and by extension, his kids) in the crimes. At the same time, it's time for her now to let him go and to get on with a life without him if she can.

Rock, hard place, fuck I'm glad it's not me.


Kambuckta, The straight dope 2 Comments [12/26/2018 1:56:26 PM]
Fundie Index: -3

Quote# 141676

Seventy-four years later, he still has no regrets. In a report broadcast on Thursday 29 November, on the German public broadcaster ARD, Karl Münter is surprised by the question: "Why should I have regrets? The old man asks, 96 years old. On the night of April 1 to 2, 1944, he was one of a few dozen young soldiers, members of the 12th SS "Hitlerjugend" ("Hitler Youth"), who massacred 86 civilians in Ascq (North), near Lille, after the train they were in had been attacked by resistance fighters.

Pursued by the French courts, Karl Münter was sentenced to death in absentia, in 1949, in a resounding trial in which sixteen other former SS defendants were accused of having participated in the massacre then described by Le Figaro as " Oradour du Nord » . In the interview broadcast Thursday night, he says he shot no one, his role was limited to monitoring the arrested French. But he considers that the shots were legitimate: "If I stop the men, then I have the responsibility. And if they run away, I have the right to shoot them. Too bad for them ! "

From this time, Karl Münter does not seem to regret much. Faced with the camera, he claims that the SS did not commit "any crime" during the war. On the extent of the Holocaust, he also has doubts: "There were not as many Jews here at the time. This has already been refuted. I recently read somewhere that this figure of 6 million is not true. I do not believe it, " he says.

If he does not leave his quiet village of Lower Saxony, where he has rebuilt his postwar life as a house painter, Karl Münter sometimes makes an exception. As on the day of early November when he went to Thuringia for a meeting organized by nostalgic of the Third Reich, in the presence of the vice president of the neo-Nazi NPD party. Invited as a "witness of the time" , he has dedicated dozens of photos, like the one he keeps preciously in an old album and shows it, at age 21, blond as the wheats and face poupin, in his uniform SS non-commissioned officer.

[...]

On the spot, the stupefaction is all the more intense as the name of Karl Münter is far from unknown. It was indeed out of oblivion thanks to the complaint filed in Germany, in 2014, by Alexandre Delezenne, whose great-grandfather had been murdered by the SS seventy years earlier. As a result of this complaint, the German investigators found traces of Karl Münter, waking the victims' descendants with the hope of a new trial. But on March 27, the prosecution of Celle (Lower Saxony) put an end to the prosecution. The reason: Article 54 of the Schengen Agreement, which states that a person already tried by one of the signatory states - even without attending his trial, as was the case of Münter, in 1949 - can not be prosecuted for the same facts by another State bound by the same agreement. The other argument against a new trial was that Münter had been convicted for "war crimes", which had been prescribed after thirty years.

Karl Münter, International News 4 Comments [12/25/2018 2:45:56 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: JeanP

Quote# 141695

ISTM that Dottie Sandusky and the posters to this thread share a common premise, i.e. that the accusations against Sandusky are all-or-nothing. Either all are true down to the last detail, or all are false and Sandusky is a persecuted saint.

The reality is that it's possible that some accusations are true and some are not, and within valid accusations, that some details are true and some are not. Meaning that while based on all evidence Sandusky was a serial child molestor, that does not preclude the possibility that other opportunists also jumped in with a chance to score a financial settlement, settle an old score or whatever. And it does not preclude the possibility that some genuine victims are misremembering (or possibly even misrepresenting) details of or relating to their abuse.

So it's possible - just possible - that Dottie Sandusky is simply relating the truth as she knows it: she did not in fact ever hear any suspicious sounds coming from that basement. And either the victim in that case was not a genuine victim, or he was a genuine victim who misrembered after the years how loud the sounds were, or perhaps even misjudged it at the time etc. etc.


Where she's going wrong - assuming this is true - is in making the leap to the assumption that this accuser's entire story must be fake, and that the other accusers' stories must also be fake, and so on. However, this is a premise shared with many others on the other side of the issue, who assume that since the evidence shows Sandusky to be a serial molestor it must follow that the particular detail of this kid making noise in the basement must also be true.


View Post
So, she should call her own son a liar and ignore that her husband molested him? And, if she doesn't do that, but accepts that her son is telling the truth, then what - she should believe that he was molested, but all of the other kids were lying? OK, so maybe not all of them - maybe she just believes he moslested half of them - does that really change anything at all? I think if she said, "yeah, turns out he was a serial molester, but I never heard anything from the basement that one time" people might actually buy it. But right now she's landing square in the 'blind eye' camp and it's not unreasonable to assume she probably knew something was going on and chose not look too hard.

I wouldn't put too much into the "own son" bit.

Matt Sandusky is not the Sandusky's biological son and is not someone who was raised by the Sanduskys. He is a former juvenile delinquent who became their foster child at the age of 17 and was adopted at age 18. (
cite
.)

There's no particular reason for Mrs. Sandusky to find Matt Sandusky any more credible than any other accuser, and her feeling of betrayal would be even stronger.



Fotheringay-Phipps, The straight dope 2 Comments [12/26/2018 1:18:25 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 136161

So much Fake News is being reported. They don’t even try to get it right, or correct it when they are wrong. They promote the Fake Book of a mentally deranged author, who knowingly writes false information. The Mainstream Media is crazed that WE won the election!

Donald Trump, Twitter 27 Comments [1/22/2018 12:06:57 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 113059

How many of us would be willing to give up those we love the most simply because God asked us to? Sadly, most of us would not. We’re great at quoting “everything we have is a gift from God”, but when He dares to take back one of those gifts without our approval, we are nothing but nasty. Our little child is mowed down by a car and we accuse God of being an ogre. A loved one dies from a disease and our hearts are filled with hate towards the One who withheld healing. How dare we take such insolent attitudes towards the One who supplies our every breath? Just what does He owe us that we should feel authorized to treat Him as our debtor?

Anna Diehl, The Pursuit of God 25 Comments [9/23/2015 3:22:28 AM]
Fundie Index: 14

Quote# 141654

In the world of blogging and writing, sometimes you write an article that someone else uses as a springboard to push their opinion. Even going as far as to misquote you to allow for them to use something you’ve said to prop up their position on a particular issue.

This happened recently with an article that I wrote for Theology Review when a local North East political satire blog (read of that what you will) took upon itself to quote mine less than half a quote from our recent article on the situation revolving around Eugene Peterson in July. The situation being around a reported affirmation of gay marriage, and a retraction of Peterson’s statement on the subject.

For more on that please read our article “Getting to Grips With Eugene Peterson’s Statement on Gay Marriage”.

Due to the busyness of the summer, I haven’t been able to spend as much time working on content for Theology Review as I would like. However, last night I logged in to the website to check on a couple of things (not intending to write an article) and came across that the website had been tagged by another website in a blog post. So I went and checked it out, lo and behold, it was an article about homosexuality, where our website was subtly targeted for not being “inclusive” of people of a homosexual persuasion.

So I’ve read the article, and have responded to the article. In this article, I’m going to include my response to the blog and then post some observations about the blog.

Please note that I have removed the name of the author of the blog post at The Northern Jester.

Our Response to The Northern Jester
Hello,

First off, thanks for tagging my post in your article on this subject. It’s always nice to be tagged in a post, as it helps get a little more attention to the site.

However, let me take exception to the comment you made where you said the following:

“Or this article by the Theology Review that’s states how homosexual marriage was “not being pushed down the throats of society in 1997, whereas it is now” in which I don’t want to sound crass but the imagery just writes itself there.”

The first thing to point out here is that you take the quote out of context immediately, as the comment was addressing my observation/assumption to what Eugene Peterson meant by saying the question of whether he affirmed homosexuality or not wouldn’t have even been discussed 20 years ago. Stating that you think that “the imagery just writes itself”, is an indication of your view that this either shouldn’t be discussed or blindly accepted.

The other thing to note in the paragraph I quote you from is that you target an article found on Babylon Bee’s website. I feel as if I should let you know that Babylon Bee is a Christian satire site. So including an article that was written as a joke is not really something that would support your argument here.

It is also worth pointing out that Jesus definitely addressed the homosexual issue, he did this by expressly stating that marriage is to be between one man and one woman only as was established at creation in the garden of Eden (Matthew 19:3-5), also it is quite possible that Jesus references a tradition that was later recorded in the Genesis Rabbah, and is also noted in the Babylonian Talmud, that is that gay marriage was happening at the time of the flood (Genesis Rabbah) and had been outlawed from the time of Noah (Babylonian Talmud). This is found in Matthew 24:36-51 and Luke 17:20-37. Below are the quotes from the Babylonian Talmud and the Genesis Rabbah.

“The generation of the Flood was not blotted out of the world until they had begun writing nuptial hymns for marriages between males or between man and beast.”
Genesis Rabbah 26:5:4

“These are the thirty commandments which the sons of Noah took upon themselves but they observe three of them, namely, (i) they do not draw up a kethubah [marriage contract] document for males, (ii) they do not weigh flesh of the [human] dead in the market, and (iii) they respect the Torah.
Babylonian Talmud, Chullin 92a-b”

So as we can see there is very good reason to believe that Jesus did, in fact, address gay marriage, it just takes a lot of studying of Jewish history, tradition, and Midrash to see that. Personally, it took me a long time of studying the Bible before I came across this, so I encourage you to dig deep into this issue if you really want to have a voice on it.

However, I am not the authority here, God is, so let’s see what God says on the subject. Now because we are under the New Covenant, I’m going to focus on what the New Testament says, as the standard rule of thumb with law is that if it is noted in the New Testament in a context of whatever unlawful deed you’re referring to, still being unlawful, then we can say that in God’s eyes it is still wrong and shouldn’t be done. So here goes:

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” – 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

“Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.”- 1 Timothy 1:8-11

“For this reason, God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” – Romans 1:26-27

Read these passages (this just a sampling from the New Testament by the way), and tell me if any of these suggest that homosexuality and gay marriage is acceptable in God’s eyes. If we’re honest with ourselves, we can’t do that, not without manipulating and twisting scripture. At least with the Jesus argument, all you’re doing is ignoring what Paul said (John also speaks on the issue in Revelation).

As Christian’s our responsibility is to side with God and follow His will and His ways, not the ways that culture wants us to follow in. Now I understand that this will at times be difficult, I mean let’s be honest wouldn’t it just be easier if everyone gets saved if everyone went to heaven. Absolutely it would. But what real glorification of God would there be in that? Very little if we’re honest. God has set the world in His order, and that is the order we are to follow. We are not to try and worm our way around God because we don’t like His rules. That’s frankly an immature way to live. What we need to do is to adjust our position and stand in line with God, easy or not.

In terms of the love aspect, I actually agree with the basic sentiment. As Christian’s we should love everyone, and welcome them in. But truly loving someone does not mean that we affirm their sin, and God clearly defines homosexuality as a sin. It’s no different to adultery, murder, lust, gluttony, or any other sin in God’s eyes. The only difference is how much pop culture is pushing this agenda, when was the last time you saw a rally for polygamy, or Ofsted checking schools performances based on their acceptance of those who desire to commit bestiality. You don’t see either of those things (yet), but the LGBTQA+ agenda is massive, so much so that organisations such as the National Trust have tried to make the endorsement of this compulsory. I’m sure that’s tolerance though, right ??

Anyways, I’ve been on a while now and this comment is getting long. But let me say that I think it’s great that you have a heart and passion for everyone being welcome in God’s house. But with the gay marriage issue, that isn’t really the point. In fact, if you think that is the point, you’re actually missing the point. The real point is that if we’re really going to be godly people, then we can’t just blindly accept what the world tells us to. God is the authority here, not you or I, or pop culture. I know who’s side I’d rather be on.

All the best,
Mark

Mark Jones, Theology Review 8 Comments [12/22/2018 10:31:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 141434

Miru Angelou: incest is permitted in the Bible, maybe that's why
@allison00812810 thinks it's okay

allison clark: My argument is based on LGBT's hypothesis "love makes SSM OK". In that case incestual marriage

Martin Yirrell You're assuming it's love. Love does not cause another to sin.

Mr. Angry: Because the Bible's been all about marriages based on love....
*Image of the mutliple type of marriage practiced in the Bible with no condemnation*

Martin Yirrell: I suggest you read Matthew 19:3 which describes the only marriage approved by God,

Mr. Angry: You mean the one where the woman is essentially the slave of the man?

Martin Yirrell: And you didn't actually bother to check the passage, far too dangerous to your bigotry.

Mr. Angry: Also, you wanted 4-6, not 3. 3 just asks the question, not the answer.

Martin Yirrell: I expected you to read the passage, not slavishly stick to one verse.

Mr. Angry: Says the one that pointed out a verse....

Martin Yirrell, Twitter 3 Comments [12/19/2018 11:06:59 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: I

Quote# 141619

(In response to "Why do you not believe in Jesus?")

They don’t study the Bible or attend a church or consider creation verses evelousion, a couple questions to ponder. 1. Why does man have dominion over animals. 2.would a human eye evolve when it has over 2 million curcutes

Ray Floyd Southard, Quora 15 Comments [12/20/2018 12:26:48 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Denizen
1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20 25 30 35 40 | top