Quote# 47779

"The point is that life, as a gift given through grace to humanity, is sovereignly governed by God. Any power wielded by mankind over the lives of another is delegated to us from God, and as such carries fairly clear ideas."

Gabe, La Shawn Barber 22 Comments [9/24/2008 8:36:46 PM]
Fundie Index: 0

Quote# 48142

{in response to a question about creationism}

Because it's true. It's been scientifically proven that Creation is fact and that evolution is gay.

Taake, Yahoo Answers 54 Comments [9/25/2008 1:06:53 AM]
Fundie Index: 14
Submitted By: J Arcenas

Quote# 47828

Let it be known that all beliefs outside of what the Bible teaches are of false nature. Evolution is in animals, not in humans.

brother tony, yahoo answers 39 Comments [9/25/2008 1:25:43 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: senorchipotle

Quote# 47754

all science is not wrong, i mean mostly only the evolution, big bam and gravity. ID will eventually beat evolution. and i don't eat genetic food because i live in europe. gene food is only sold in USA. i like science and nanotechnology, but i think some things are wrong because they contradict myths.

Lucis, IIDB 44 Comments [9/25/2008 2:35:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 48155

teaching evolution wastes everyone's time and makes harder for everyone to be accepted into heaven.

handyone6, Yahoo Answers 20 Comments [9/25/2008 6:37:03 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: J Arcenas

Quote# 47919

It just happened. It's in the Bible, I don't need scientific proof.

chosen one, Yahoo answes - Religion and spirituality section 19 Comments [9/25/2008 7:24:21 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Eric

Quote# 38227

So now that Pluto is considered a star, not a planet, where does its light come from? Did it suddenly burst into flames and generate its own light? No, it didn't. It's light is the same light that is reflected off Mars. So the claims by scientists that stars generate their own light is sheer nonsense. It's as much speculation as speculating on how many stars there are in the universe.

Carico, Christian Discussion Forums 168 Comments [4/26/2008 10:54:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 38
Submitted By: Turk

Quote# 47884

While the Bible does use colourful language and has lots of translation
issues it is the prime source upon which much of religious philosophy is
based. After all you wouldn't know about God, if the Bible didn't exist.

PeterCH, Broadband and ASDL Forums 28 Comments [9/25/2008 7:59:29 AM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: Quadronian

Quote# 48313

Will an Atheist always win these debates ?

noone: in the end an atheist will not win so no

gablueliner : No. The greatest debator in history is Satan. He has debated with many a people about their beliefs, but in the end, Satan will lose and will be cast into the eternal lake of fire. I suggest that all atheist try to disprove the existence of God and Jesus, and then they will see the truth because God and Jesus cannot and will not ever be disproved.

crazychick16 : They may think they do, but in the end they will not when they are burning in hell. True believers realize that not everything can be explained with facts and reason, and that atheists were usually put through some kind of trauma to waive their faith. Besides, scientists are now saying that there IS evidence of a higher being. no atheist will ever shake my beliefs, nor will they shake any true Christian.

Numerous, Yahoo Answers 31 Comments [9/25/2008 9:15:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: J Arcenas

Quote# 139693

Lady Checkmate's headline: "Feds spend $140,625 to reduce 'intersectional stigma' of men who want to be women in Nepal"

Original Fox News headline: "Feds spend $140,625 to reduce 'intersectional stigma' of transwomen in Nepal"

(Link to original Fox News story which Lady Checkmate has cut and pasted to her own channel: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/10/feds-spend-140625-to-reduce-intersectional-stigma-transwomen-in-nepal.html)

Bob:
The insanity of the left knows no bounds



Lady Checkmate:
They're confused, lost and in need of the risen Savior, Jesus Christ. He can save and deliver them.

Chela:
"men who want to be women"
The word "want" seems to imply that transgenderism is a desire, and not an intrinsic state into which a person is born. ...so all the money, social upheaval, "men who want to be women" in women's restrooms, etc etc....are all simply just to entertain the desires and "wants" of....men. So "men who want to be women" are actually being sexists by insisting other people's "wants" should be subservient to their "wants".

Lady Checkmate:
Chela, that was my edit added for clarity. Thanks for sharing. You're right.

Lady Checkmate, Disqus - News Network 8 Comments [8/10/2018 11:21:04 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 139701

Transgenderism is mental illness. When a person becomes so disconnected with reality that they believe themselves to be something other than what they biologically are, it is a sign of psychosis. There is no such thing as a "third sex", and biological sex is binary.

It isn't "assigned" at birth (to use a leftist term that suggests sex is arbitrary), it is confirmed. Our chromosomes (XX, XY, or even XXX, XYY, etc. in rare instances), muscular-skeletal frame (women have a larger pelvis), oxygen levels in the blood (men have more), genitalia, etc., all work to make us male or female. There is NO XYZ sex.

Likewise, homosexuality is a neurosis. It is an illogical attraction to one's own sex due to environmental and maybe genetic factors. It is promoted by the left as an alternative, rebellious lifestyle. So we have a situation where mental illness is normalized in an effort to subvert society.

It is not only against Islam and Christianity, but against reason and science.

Silas, ShiaChat 7 Comments [8/10/2018 12:22:50 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 47747

Why are evolutionist so stubborn even if evolution is possible it is VERY unlikely they say that anybody who worships a god or gods are uneducated but have they learned about PROBABILITY when it comes down to it a god is simply more likely.I think they DO NOT want to believe in a god or think that there is no god just because bad things happen.Even if all the gods people hear of do not exist there could be a god that nobody has even heard of.IF the anti-god people want us to believe that there is no god they should come up with a different THEORY than evolution.THERE IS TONS OF PROOF AGAINST EVOLUTION BUT NO PROOF AGAINST A GOD.

AND I think that the earth was created about 40,000(estimated by a christian SCIENTIST YES SCIENTIST) but evolution does not seem impossible but very possible if there are animals to start with like dogs,cats,and people.Who knows in THOUSANDS OF YEARS WE MAY EVOLVE INTO MONKEYS (PLANET OF THE APES LOL)MY POINT IS WE WERE CREATED BY SOMETHING THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO NOT MILLIONS AND EVEN IF EVOLUTION IS REAL TRY TO PROVE THAT IT is MORE LIKELY than a god if evolution has a 90% chance of being real I CHOSE GOD. Sorry for the caps I got carried away.

danieltotalwar, Yahoo! Answers 45 Comments [9/25/2008 9:16:58 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: onein6billion

Quote# 48032

I find it highly amusing how you pagans and atheists continually appeal to the LAW OF MOSES for your defense in attacking the word of God. Christians are under a NEW COVENANT, not old testament stoning laws. Christ fulfilled ALL the demands of the levitical and judicial laws on the cross by his sacrifice, we no longer need to observe such laws, but trust me if you don\'t repent, your final reward will be a LOT worse than stoning.

jesuitinfiltrator, Youtube 49 Comments [9/25/2008 2:48:07 PM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 48285

Liberal educators have been teaching their students to worship Satan for a number of years now.

jinenglish68, Yahoo Answers 43 Comments [9/25/2008 11:00:21 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: J Arcenas

Quote# 48050

to those slagging off creationism as if it wasn't scientific, the theory of evolution is not science but a religion devised with one purpose- to do away with the God of the bible, because if the genesis account is inaccurate you may as well forget about the whole text.

just as well then that the genesis account can easily be proved to be scientific, if you look at the evidence ie fossil record with a different set of glasses

Andy (and many others), Melanie Phillip's Column on "The Creation of Hsyteria" 37 Comments [9/26/2008 1:44:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Nick

Quote# 48249

to Jane in London, If evolution is fact then why is it called THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION? I'm sorry but you are wrong. Evolution preaches a long slow change in creatures over vast periods of time. It turns out that this has not occured, check out the Cambrian period. When scientists discovered this it then became a slightly modified THEORY? I used to live in UK, I am so, so, so glad I no longer live in that sad, pathetic little country. USA rocks, despite all of its downfall (name one country that does not). Enjoy your socialism Suckas.

VTMAN, timesonline 41 Comments [9/26/2008 1:44:42 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: worldsend

Quote# 48193

More on modern "science"

Some psychology "problems" are perfectly normal. If you're serious about religion, you're a maniac; If God gives you a vision, you're a schizo.

Some psychology "problems" are in fact demonic possessions. For example: H*m*s*xuality.

thaiduykhang, Evolution Fairytale Forum 35 Comments [9/26/2008 2:29:18 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: David

Quote# 48143

[Wiccan Accidentally Stabs Herself in Foot With Sword During Good Luck Ritual]

lol it serves her right for worshipping satan

lambofchrist, Rature Ready 47 Comments [9/26/2008 3:27:39 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Will Creech

Quote# 48097

Atheist are trying to create a black hole.... well seeing if these stargate nerds actually THINK they can do this, simply through their pride they will create something from a horror movie and all die doing it, and anyone in the immediate area including innocent kittens who dont believe in evolution anyways.

This black hole machine... how atheistically typical...

Atheist always try to look, and sound intelligent, but the whole world will see when they lacklusterly get up in the morning, hop into their toyota yaris, go to walmart, get their oil changed, get a bite to eat and drive on over to the black hole machine.

They finally turn the machine on and say: " Hey Bob, weve done it, WE have single handedly disproven God"..... ahahahahahahaha huuuuuulllllkkkk cruuuunnnch...... as he is sucked into the black hole, then the lab mice try to get away but are sucked in also... along with anyone in the immediate area (including there beloved toyota yaris')..... and hilariously open the gates of hell....

Therefore single handedly proving that these atheist had no common sense whatsoever.... but hay, this is just a possibility.

How many times will an atheist continue to say that he absolutely positively KNOWs that the universe is billions of years old, and that God obviously doesnt exist, because people who believe in God are just a little below the cambrian layers if you know what i mean.

scott, Evolution Fairytale Forum 38 Comments [9/26/2008 5:23:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: David

Quote# 139687

What if the parent neglected to remove the infant from the train tracks if it ended up there by no fault of the parent?


If the parent had the power to save the child's life, and instead he just casually watched his infant get hit by a train, we would universally condemn that, no matter what legal or criminal label you put on it.

IMO, such a parent shouldn't be prosecuted for negligence. Yes, it's a really bad thing to do. The problem is that once you establish that theory, that someone has a legal obligation to save someone else, then prosecutors turn the common-sense applications on their heads trying to get convictions. The next thing you know, parents are going to jail for not taking their children off the train tracks when the parent was tied up and unable to help, or because the parent was looking the other way and didn't know the train was coming and was deaf and couldn't hear the train, or because they were chasing their other kid who was running off in the other direction and the parent couldn't chase both kids. Stuff like that happens all the time, it's ridiculous. I think the bottom line is that the criminal apparatus should always assume that a parent acts in his child's best interest unless there is damning evidence to the contrary. The vast majority of parents won't intentionally let their children die. Those that do, deserve to have something horrible happen to them, like having their children die.

Haha. Seriously though, I don't think people in general should be prosecuted for failing to help someone. Parents are generally the people we should be LEAST worried about in this department, because they are naturally protective of their children. "Good Samaritan" laws have been repeatedly struck down in the context of requiring the police to help a citizen in need. Those are the situations I'd be far more concerned about. Although, I do agree, if a parent doesn't want to be responsible for his child, he ought to give the child to someone who is willing to care for it appropriately.



As I've said elsewhere, there are various ways of caring for a child. In this example, an infant died while the parents relied on faith healing. It seems to me that they DID seek treatment according to their religion. I can't think of a reason to prosecute them for acting according to their own values instead of the State's.

In other words, simply knowing that a child is in danger is not sufficient "damning evidence" for negligence. There are always a ton of details that modify every situation. That's why, as a general rule, I don't think anyone should be legally liable for not helping someone else. Obviously, the world would be a better place if we helped each other, and if you don't want to care for your child, give it to someone else to raise. But I can't see putting the State in a position to enforce this with guns

indentitee, r/libertarian 5 Comments [8/10/2018 11:20:42 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 139641

While I do feel it's wrong to have arranged marriages, especially with a 14 year old girl, it is part of their culture, been around for thousands of years and who are we to judge one culture, to make comparisons?

Naturally, almost all species (Including our own) have a system where as soon as the females are able to breed, they're turned into a broodmare. I don't agree with it, and I wouldn't pretend it's acceptable because we used to do it, but it is their culture, it's their way of life and it isn't our place to condemn their practices, although we can disagree with it.

Hyve, MMO Champion 10 Comments [8/9/2018 11:33:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 139677

If we going to “unlearn the lies” then lets not start with a lie: People try to discredit the rapture theory by saying that Darby invented it. Whether this is through ignorance or to discredit it, it is simply untrue. You cannot say that “no one and I say no one” talked about the rapture prior to Edwards and Darby.

Look at a few scholars from the 1st century onwards who held the belief in a rapture:

The Pre- Trib Rapture view goes back to very early beginnings of Christianity and the church. Obviously writings of Paul also epistles of Barnabas, also Irenaeus (2nd century), Hippolytus, Justin Martyr (2nd century). Ephraem of Nisibis (the Syrian) (4th century). Others from 1686 Pierre Jurieu, John Asgill, Phillip Doddridge, James McKnight, Morgan Edwards and others.

Remember that the medieval church could not preach a doctrine of wrath been poured out on the very “kings” and rulers that paid their salaries. Hence one of the main reasons for an a-millennial view by the majority of denominational churches.

Rev 3:10 says specifically that the church of Philadelphia (missionary church) will not go through the tribulation. Also that some will go through unless they repent. How will they not go through if they repent?

Do not confuse the coming of Jesus for His saints (and the dead) in the rapture with the events that happen when he comes to judge the world and fight for Israel.


1 Th 4:16 and 1 Cor 15:51

BEFORE AFTER

He Comes for His own He comes with His own
He comes in the air He comes in the earth
Only His own will see Him All will see Him
Great Trib begins Millennium rule begins
Saints Ascend to heaven Saints come to earth
Earth not Judged Earth Judged
Imminent (anytime) Predictable – many prophecies , Psalms Daniels prophecies?

Paul Gallimore, Youtube 6 Comments [8/10/2018 9:24:35 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Christopher

Quote# 139688

You dismiss people's religious beliefs rather cavalierly. I don't rely on faith healing, personally, but I have no problem with those who do. As I pointed out in another place, when parents are prosecuted for not seeking care, what's really happening is that the State is attempting to punish adults for having different values than the State. The State's value is "Physical life and health are the highest values, nothing else competes." But many people believe that there is something more important and valuable than physical life. If such a person enacts such a value in the life of his child, the State has a fit and says, "NO, you must enact MY value instead -- physical life is the most important thing!" So, either you have parents enacting their values in the child's life, or you have the State enacting its values in the child's life. I think the parents have a higher claim to be the ones to choose the value, rather than the State. And personally, I don't care if the parents' values are based on religion, philosophy, science, materialism, political idealism, or anything else. It's easy to look in from the outside and say, "Those poor children, they're at risk." But you don't know the richness of their inner experience, which their parents may be expert at imparting, because they have a purpose in life that's higher than simply continuing to exist.

If parents starved their child to death, that would be horrible. Only a miniscule percentages of parents are so malicious. There are SO many more likely threats to a child's life, I find it kind of silly to hyperventilate over this rare hypothetical. There are better targets for self-righteous rage. The vast majority of parents would give their own lives for their children, and they deserve the benefit of any doubt, as well as the assumption that they do, indeed, act in their children's best interests as they understand them. That might not be the way YOU understand them, but really? It's not even your business.


People act to preserve their children's well-being in different ways. Sometimes taking your child to the doctor is a harmful thing to do, such as in the Stiehler (sp?) case that's ongoing in Michigan right now. Without knowing exactly what was wrong with the 7-month-old in this case, without knowing how easy it was to KNOW that something was wrong, and without knowing the efficacy of various forms of treatment, it's impossible to judge whether the parents did "enough" to care for their child. A large part of the tyrrany of the medical establishment consists in its ability to hookwink everybody into thinking that it has the only solutions, or the only valid solutions. There is often a scientific reason to refuse medical treatment, not just a religious reason.

indentitee, r/libertarian 5 Comments [8/10/2018 11:20:47 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 139684

Who decides what is neglect and what isn't? Who decides which children should be taken away from their parents and which children shouldn't be taken away from their parents? I have an issue with declaring guilt before innocence. Furthermore, who pays for Child Protective Services? Should we be giving money to the government so they can sometimes wrongfully separate a child from his/her parent.

ondaren, r/libertarian 2 Comments [8/10/2018 9:30:28 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 139685

[ on faith healing]

/I tend to agree with you. I think the family unit should be basically allowed to operate, unless active harm is being done or unless one member asks for help.

The idea is that 99% of families will do their best to keep each other safe and healthy. That's human instinct. If you invite government in to nanny everyone with the "Norm," you have the potential to do more harm than good.

I think that people connected to the family (religious leaders, community leaders, relatives, etc) can keep an eye out to make sure, but sometimes a person dies. I don't agree with this idea that everything must be heavily medicated or treated. I agree that ADD medicine and depression medicine is a negative thing (as a whole) and I think that parents should have the right to choose what happens to their kids body.

If we really wanted "protect" every kid from his parents, we would take them from birth ala Brave New World and raise them in government centers where everyone is equal. That's not how it works in nature though. We should improve nature through technology through iteration, not by imposition or by declaration.


[deleted], r/libertarian 1 Comments [8/10/2018 9:30:51 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20 25 30 35 40 | top