Quote# 126775

Yes!!!! Wholly agree and there WILL be Gnashing of teeth! The Edomites "understand" the junk that they have made up (Ancient Egyptians were Caucasian, a lie, etc.), and now, since we Israelites are coming into the knowledge of WHO WE ARE versus Who our enemies are (which includes other nations along with Edomites) they're having a problem digesting it. However, we know the Heathens will Rage! LOL?

muchacha251, youtube 5 Comments [4/29/2017 12:49:30 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: P.E.T.F

Quote# 126760

Esau who's name was changed to Edom is the father of the Edomites who is the so called white people today. Esau is also Jacobs fraternal twin brother. Jacobs name was changed to Israel by the most high, and Jacob is the father of the Israelites. The Lord told Rebekah two manner of people shall be seperated from her bowels, so that means that Jacob and Esau will look and be nothing alike. Esau came out first and they described him as red and hairy. Now lets take time and think are white people really white? NO!!!!! If you take a white peace of paper and put it next to there skin you can clearly see that they are not white. They chose to call themselves white because it means pure in the dictionary. White people are really red because when they get mad or really hot they turn fire red, and that's why down south we call them rednecks. Now lets take time to think are black people really black? NO!!!! Black people are really different shades of brown. They chose to call us black cause in the dictionary it means evil, wicked, and death. I know you're thinking why isn't Jacobs color mentioned in the scriptures above? That's because Jacob looked like everybody else when the most high first formed man and thats brown lets get proof.

Gen 2:6-7 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

The Unknown Truth, The Unkown Truth 5 Comments [4/29/2017 12:46:53 PM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 126752

[Dammit Weidmann just pick a bigotry so I can file your quotes correctly]

“White male privilege” is a rhetorical incantation on the Left (and regarded as within the bounds of possibility by many cucks on the Right) that, like most leftoid tenets, is at complete odds with the truth, revealing more the egotistic psychological state of the projecting chanter than it does any observable reality.

It would not only be more truthful to say there is no “white male privilege”, it would be closer still to the truth to say that there’s female privilege and nonWhite privilege.

The religion of Equalism, and its supporting catechism Race and Sex Denialism, has real world consequences. Feminism and antiracism impose palpable, manifest, spiritual and material costs on society, on men, and most pointedly on White men.

Joe Franklin provides a useful list of the ways Equalism in the virulently framed forms of “women’s rights” and “anti-discrimination” have resulted in burdensome and often malicious government policies that stack the deck in favor of women and nonWhites and against men and White men.


That’s a lot of female and nonWhite privileging (read: favoritism based largely on a purposeful misconstruing of the nature of the sexes and races and of the biofeedback loops governing their interactions). When does the college course to address this institutional discrimination against White men get added to the syllabus?

Maybe the Fundamental Premise should be revised and expanded to account for the compulsion of White leftoids to tilt the playing field in the favor of nonWhites at the expense of affordable White family formation, and then to ridicule, ostracize, deprive, and even jail any White man who complains about his disenfranchisement. Ah one term comes to mind…Anarcho-Tyranny.

What’s amazing is that White men still succeed in America despite the government’s boot on their necks and the handicapping of their economic and social opportunities. Now imagine what White men could do if they had a government that looked out for them and protected their interests.

You don’t really have to imagine it. White men had that country not too long ago. They turned America into the greatest power in human history.

CH, Chateau Heartiste 7 Comments [4/28/2017 2:40:30 PM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 126717

Gays and lesbians prey on children. If you behaved ethically, you would not be hated. Teaching people to accept those who prey on children is a bad thing. This is about the normalization of pedophilia, so stop playing innocent. We're onto you.

"Gays and lesbians have no sexual interest in children, it's pedophiles you are thinking of. Stop making them out to be the same thing, for one thing it's dishonest, and for another you reveal yourself to be nothing resembling a Christian by saying it."

You are a liar, as usual.
Gay couples who preyed on their own adopted children. You people have no morals at all.
Run these names on Google. You won't because you don't want to acknowledge the truth.
Frank Lombard Duke adopted son sex
George Harasz Douglas Wirth adopted sons
Peter Truong Mark Newton adopted son
Ian Wathey Craig Faunch abuse children
Carl Herold Charles Dunnavant son sex
Cesar Gonzales-Mugaburu foster boys
David Cannon John Scarfe son sex
Christian Jessica Deanda Eraca Dawn Craig torture
Rachel Stevens Kayla Jones son abuse
Pauline Moreno Debra Lobel son
Aric Babbitt Matthew Deyo
Robert Owen Justin Jarvis Indiana 2017

"Even if that list was true (and I'm not saying it is - most of it is highly suspect), congratulations on identifying twelve people who are homosexual pedophiles. How about being honest now and giving us a list of the disproportionately huge list of heterosexual pedophiles?"

You said gays are NOT pedophiles. I'm giving you the names of gays who ARE pedophiles.
You scared to Google those names - chicken?
You people are pathological liars.
Gays DO prey on boys. You are a liar.

Malleus, Christian News Network 17 Comments [4/27/2017 10:30:57 PM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 125546

Harry Potter revolves around witchcraft. Whether real or pretend, the bible is clear on witchcraft. Have nothing to do with it. Whether you think it's pretend or for real. The bible doesn't differentiate between that, and neither should you. I understand it may be difficult to let go, I have had to let go of things I loved so that my walk with God would continue to grow well. But honestly, the sooner the better

Daring Handsome, TheRebulation 24 Comments [3/19/2017 3:47:17 PM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 126296

[i][In the thread][/i] FAQ for newcomers: Yes the cucks are literally brainwashed. Yes by zionists. Yes they actually in their heart of hearts think marxism will prevail. No, it never will. Yes they require physical removal. Yes you can handle that. posted by hinduyankee]

Posted by BadGoyWithAGun

• Yes, physical removal means the physical removal of globalists, international cliques and rootless cosmopolitans misruling our peoples

[Posted by revenjack]

I can handle it! Removal Approved

hinduyankee, BadGoyWithAGun and revenjack, Reddit - r/Physical_Removal 4 Comments [4/28/2017 1:46:53 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: JeanP

Quote# 126454

Furries are mentally ill. That ain't right.

[It's not mental disorder? or illness?. It's just weird but abnormality aside nothing wrong as long as it's both safe and consensual]

People getting turned on by animals doesn't sound like a mental disorder to you?

Liz Hays, Facebook 12 Comments [4/28/2017 1:55:14 PM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 126593

[OP of "Why did the East Germans not attempt to liberate their brethren from imperialist West Germany like the DPRK attempted in the Korean Peninsula? And why does Germany today occupied by imperialists?"

Why does Germany allow itself to be a colony of imperialist Americans?

illogicalsupertramp, Reddit - r/communism 4 Comments [4/28/2017 2:04:01 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: JeanP

Quote# 126506

Homosexuals and sexual deviants by definition are weak people who live solely for self-gratification.

They lack the moral fortitude to defend themselves and will always get rolled by whoever ambles over to punch them in the face and take their lunch money.

Always. Without exception.



Rome was conquered by the barbarians because Romans were weak, degenerate and valued hedonism over defending their empire.

France and Germany are being conquered because the French and Germans are weak, degenerate and value hedonism over defending their nations.



There are plenty of people who will defend their nations in the name of God (or the gods), their families, their blood, and their cultural patrimony.

There isn't a single person who has ever gone to war to defend their country's abortion rights or freedom for gays.

It just doesn't happen.



A polite reminder: despite the outreach Trump and his supporters did for gays, despite the Orlando nightclub shooting, and despite Hillary Clinton taking money from "homophobic" Saudi Arabia, 80 percent of LGBT voters supported Hillary.

Hedonists are dead weight with no place in the movement.


Matt Forney, Gab 25 Comments [4/20/2017 11:33:51 AM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 126749

We cannot be politically correct in today's society. We need to be blunt and hate the things that Our Lord Jesus Christ hates, and love the things that He loves. People need the honest truth in our World, and if Jesus was alive today He would be about straight talk, no sugar coating or beating around the bush.

As Christians we must be intolerant to the things God is intolerant towards! We must refuse to allow people to follow false teachings that promote heaven when the end result is hell!

We know the truth, we must be bold & blunt.

AmielFromThe6, Reddit 13 Comments [4/28/2017 2:39:12 PM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 126759

PARIS — The man Marine Le Pen chose to lead her far-right party while she ran for the presidency has been forced to step down because he praised a Holocaust denier and expressed doubt that the Nazis used poison gas to murder Jews.

In a 2000 interview, the man she named as the National Front’s interim leader, Jean-François Jalkh, said Zyklon B, the gas used to kill millions of Jews during the Holocaust, would have been “impossible” to use in “mass exterminations.”

Ms. Le Pen called the outrage directed at Mr. Jalkh a “defamation” on Friday morning.

The negative news, however, was somewhat offset by day’s end, when Ms. Le Pen got an endorsement from a defeated right-wing presidential candidate, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, who won less than 5 percent of the vote nationwide.

“Marine Le Pen is not on the far right to me,” he said.

Ms. Le Pen is one of two candidates to advance to the second round of the presidential race, and announced on Monday that she would temporarily step down as National Front leader to focus on defeating the independent centrist Emmanuel Macron, considered to be the favorite in the election on May 7.


Ms. Le Pen herself prompted an outcry earlier in the presidential campaign when she said that France had not been responsible for the roundup of Parisian Jews during World War II in an event known as the Vel’ d’Hiv.

But her efforts to buff her party’s image were complicated this week by a furor over comments that Mr. Jalkh made in 2000. During an interview, a doctoral student, Magali Boumaza, had asked him about the gas chambers. Mr. Jalkh replied that he was not a “negationist” but that he had read the works of a “trustworthy revisionist”: Robert Faurisson, a former professor of history at the University of Lyon who has been convicted of inciting hatred and racial discrimination and who has often been cited by the more extreme far-right elements.

Mr. Jalkh, who once took part in a ceremony commemorating the death of Philippe Pétain, the leader of the Vichy government that collaborated with Nazi Germany, said in the interview that he had been “surprised” by the “rigor “ and “conscientiousness” of Mr. Faurisson’s research.

Jean-François Jalkh and Marine Le Pen, The New York Times 12 Comments [4/28/2017 2:43:54 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: JeanP

Quote# 126602

While reincarnation into robots is meaningless because of what I said above....it is possible that some ghosts could occupy robots. This could be potentially dangerous. A real 'ghost in the machine' situation! Ghosts are said to be astral bodies of dead people.

Sriram, Religion and Ethics 25 Comments [4/23/2017 12:22:25 PM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: NearlySane

Quote# 126288

Speaking about his recent trip to Poland on his “WallBuilders Live” radio show today, Religious Right pseudo-historian David Barton said that his visits to sites of Nazi atrocities showed him that “every evil that’s ever appeared in the world also occurs in every generation.”

The evil spirit that was responsible for the Holocaust, Barton went on to say, is now at work today advancing the “homosexual lifestyle.”

“It does not change over time,” he said. “The evil that’s there, it still works in the same deceptive means today, it still has that nice smiling face and, you know, a homosexual lifestyle, it’s such a wonderful lifestyle. Yeah? Why don’t you look at the medical stats and see if that’s really true? And so it always disguises itself in different ways, it comes through different means. We see it all the time. So, what I learned is what I already knew, and that is human nature does not change and if you don’t have the impact of religion to change a heart you will end up like the Nazis. These are guys who had no conscience and that comes from not fearing God.”

The Nazis were “pagans,” Barton claimed, and “you see what happens when you have a secular, God-free society … and that’s what Poland proves is the good stuff is Bible based, Jews and Christians, the bad stuff is secular pagan.”

David Barton, Right Wing Watch 3 Comments [4/28/2017 1:46:04 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Aspergus

Quote# 120858

First off differences between men and women are natural, patriarchy is what is natural.

“I would just say that women need to be treated both as equals and as people with equal value from now on.”

I am suspicious of this statement, it seems like female supremacy to me. It is the claim that women should be treated both as equal and as superior at the same time; treating women “as equals” seeming to mean that men and women should be treated the same in the masculine realm while treating women as having “equal value” means women should be treated preferentially or as superior in the feminine realm. Instead I would say that women should be treated as having equal value, not that men and women should be treated “as equals” because clearly men and women are not equal to each other, instead men and women are different.

Jesse Powell, Secular Patriarchy 22 Comments [7/31/2016 2:44:00 PM]
Fundie Index: 10

Quote# 126354

[Comment under "This "Periodic Table of Dictators, Despots, and the Despised" rates Stalin's "evil" as a "9/10" - more than all 94 others on the table except Hitler"]

you can't be simultaneously pro-secret police and pro-democracy. as a socialist, it is unacceptable to be anti-democracy.

nonsense. the point of proletarian dictatorship is that it's dictatorship for the capitalists, democracy for the workers. what you are talking here, is liberalism, is nonsense, is bourgeois equality. i will quote lenin at length to back this up.


The second anniversary of the Soviet power is a fitting occasion for us to review what has, in general, been accomplished during this period, and to probe into the significance and aims of the revolution which we accomplished.

The bourgeoisie and its supporters accuse us of violating democracy. We maintain that the Soviet revolution has given an unprecedented stimulus to the development of democracy both in depth and breadth, of democracy, moreover, distinctly for the toiling masses, who had been oppressed under capitalism; consequently, of democracy for the vast majority of the people, of socialist democracy (for the toilers) as distinguished from bourgeois democracy (for the exploiters, the capitalists, the rich).

Who is right?

To probe deeply into this question and to understand it well will mean studying the experience of these two years and being better prepared to further follow up this experience.

The position of women furnishes a particularly graphic elucidation of the difference between bourgeois and socialist democracy, it furnishes a particularly graphic answer to the question posed.

In no bourgeois republic (i.e., where there is private ownership of the land, factories, works, shares, etc.), be it even the most democratic republic, nowhere in the world, not even in the most advanced country, have women gained a position of complete equality. And this, notwithstanding the fact that more than one and a quarter centuries have elapsed since the Great French (bourgeois-democratic) Revolution.

In words, bourgeois democracy promises equality and liberty. In fact, not a single bourgeois republic, not even the most advanced one, has given the feminine half of the human race either full legal equality with men or freedom from the guardianship and oppression of men.

Bourgeois democracy is democracy of pompous phrases, solemn words, exuberant promises and the high-sounding slogans of freedom and equality. But, in fact, it screens the non-freedom and inferiority of women, the non-freedom and inferiority of the toilers and exploited.

Soviet, or socialist, democracy sweeps aside the pompous, bullying, words, declares ruthless war on the hypocrisy of the "democrats", the landlords, capitalists or well-fed peasants who are making money by selling their surplus bread to hungry workers at profiteering prices.

Down with this contemptible fraud! There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be "equality" between the oppressed and the oppressors, between the exploited and the exploiters. There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be real "freedom" as long as there is no freedom for women from the privileges which the law grants to men, as long as there is no freedom for the workers from the yoke of capital, and no freedom for the toiling peasants from the yoke of the capitalists, landlords and merchants.

Let the liars and hypocrites, the dull-witted and blind, the bourgeois and their supporters hoodwink the people with talk about freedom in general, about equality in general, about democracy in general.

We say to the workers and peasants: Tear the masks from the faces of these liars, open the eyes of these blind ones. Ask them:

“Equality between what sex and what other sex?

“Between what nation and what other nation?

“Between what class and what other class?

“Freedom from what yoke, or from the yoke of what class? Freedom for what class?”

Whoever speaks of politics, of democracy, of liberty, of equality, of socialism, and does not at the same time ask these questions, does not put them in the foreground, does not fight against concealing, hushing up and glossing over these questions, is one of the worst enemies of the toilers, is a wolf in sheep's clothing, is a bitter opponent of the workers and peasants, is a servant of the landlords, tsars, capitalists.


But why not reach this goal without the dictatorship of one class? Why not switch directly to "pure" democracy? So ask the hypocritical friends of the bourgeoisie for the naive petty-bourgeois and philistines gulled by them.

And we reply: Because in any capitalist society the powerful tell lies to either the bourgeoisie or the proletariat, while the small proprietors, inevitably, remain wavering, helpless, stupid dreamers of "pure", i.e., nonclass or above class, democracy. Because from a society in which one class opposes another there is no way out other than through the dictatorship of the oppressed class. Because the proletariat alone is capable of defeating the bourgeoisie, of overthrowing them, being the sole class which capitalism has united and "schooled", and which is capable of drawing to its side the wavering mass of the working population with a petty-bourgeois way of life, of drawing them to its side or at least "neutralizing" them. Because only mealy-mouthed petty-bourgeois and philistines can dream — deceiving thereby both themselves and the workers — of overthrowing capitalist oppression without a long and difficult process of suppressing the resistance of the exploiters. In Germany and Austria this resistance is not yet very pronounced because expropriation of the expropriators has not yet begun. But once expropriation begins the resistance will be fierce and desperate. In concealing this from themselves and from the workers, the Scheidemanns and Kautskys, the Austerlitzes and Renners betray the interests of the proletariat, switching at the most decisive moment from the class struggle and overthrow of the yoke of the bourgeoisie to getting the proletariat to come to terms with the bourgeoisie, achieving "social peace" or reconciliation of exploited and exploiters.

in fact, you yourself make this point, so i do not understand why you say that you cannot be for secret police and for democracy now!

Every state that has ever existed has forcibly silenced its enemies. It is unavoidable. In the same way the the US silenced labor unions and socialists who sought to subvert the government in the early 20th century, socialist countries silenced western-backed counter-revolutionaries. Others can provide more detail into how specific socialist countries dealt with dissent, but I hope that at least shows you why this argument is dubious at best.

but stalin's legacy was, in my opinion and in the opinion of many leftists, mostly counterproductive.

you would call the ending of the NEP and the building of a planned economy, the liberation of europe, unprecedented achievements in healthcare, education, literacy, space, farming, the supression of revisionists, counter revolutionaries, kulaks, etc etc - counterproductive?

it is not "great man theory" - it is looking at history as it actually was! the only liberalism here is to disregard stalin, to deny facts, to refuse to look into the actual situation! the USSR is like a machine - you cannot pick and choose which bits you want to praise, you must take it in it's entirety. you cannot simply call some crucial elements "bad, counterproductive".

infact i will ask directly - what do you think was "counterproductive"? what actions? what specifically

BuddyDogeDoge, Reddit - r/ShitLiberalsSay 3 Comments [4/28/2017 1:49:47 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: JeanP

Quote# 126677

people seem to forget humans are vicious savage territorial creatures, if we can get away with it we will, i don't believe anyone that says 'why would i kill someone?' as some succint excuse to remain the moral one... we are animals, we have instincts to mark, claim, and kill to protect that claim... someone, an 'other' that is completely identical to us that believes they ARE us as much as i do... violence and primal instinctive urges are inevitable... many a philosopher has pretty much already stated the natural state of humans is wanting to kill each other simply because anyone besides 'me', as in the conscious 'me' that i am now, will at some point try to control me, therefore to prevent that, i must kill them... this clone-issue is just an extension of that, i cannot control them that is me, therefore to ensure my life is mine, i must kill them...

as someone that is married, as you seem actually interested in people taking this seriously with actual value put in, yes, there is a difference... children and spouses go back to that 'claim' bit of our instinct, if someone else, another me or not, tries to claim my husband... that's reason enough for me to brutally end them... in fact it is my connection to him that i value more then most things in life that preserving it would be reason enough for me to kill in the first place... this 'other' would know and think this too, thus a bloody war between us is on the horizon... how this plays out and how it ends would further define us as separate beings, one the victor, one the scorned... this would likely cause a lot of animosity and result in further conflict until one of us is dead or submits... more then likely dead...

Ikasury, The Escapist 6 Comments [4/28/2017 2:10:45 PM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 126398

[Putting this in Fundies by default, feel free to move this to CSTDT if appropriate]

Once you realize that the invasion of Normandy only happened because communists infiltrated the U.S. government---militarily, the smart move would have been to let the Nazis and Soviets destroy each other on the Eastern Front---it makes it impossible to enjoy any World War II book/movie/game.



World War II was not about making the world safe for democracy, saving the Jews, or fighting the evil Nazis.

It was about helping communism take over Europe.

All D-Day accomplished was taking the heat off the Soviets and allowing them to annex all of eastern Europe.



Patton had the right idea when he started putting ex-Nazis in charge of the area he controlled as a military governor and saying that the Soviet Union was the real threat.

Eisenhower was a Soviet asset and had Patton assassinated so the people wouldn't figure out the truth.



De-Nazifying Germany was horrendously stupid since most lower-level Nazi functionaries weren't wedded to the ideology at all and actually knew what they were doing.

Removing Germany's entire leadership class was a communist plot to weaken Germany and empower the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc.



Future historians are going to remember World War II as the biggest fraud perpetrated on the white race and the world.

The U.S. and U.K. were manipulated by communist agents every step of the way.

The end result of WWII was to turn the dirt-poor, backwards Soviet Union into a superpower.


Matt Forney, Gab 5 Comments [4/28/2017 1:51:56 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 126269

It's interesting to see that the core concept of Infogalactic is Sir Tim Berners-Lee's horror scenario:

"I talk about the horror scenario of going to a candidate's webpage and depending on who you were you get a different message and that is just marketing 101 for the political websites out there. So we need to rethink the way we have built society on top of the web."

But why shouldn't people see what they prefer to see? Why should they be forced to see what Sir Tim, or the 512 Wikipedia admins want them to see?

Vox Day, Vox Popoli 3 Comments [4/28/2017 1:44:50 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 126720

I think my wife is a demon

My wife thinks she has the Mendella effect.

She started to read the Bible non stop.

She swears she's trying to find God and he isnt in her reality.

I heard her crying the other night she said she saw a golden woman come through the Bible and hold her.

Right back at it the next day I find her.

And the room was swarmed with spirits. The Bible was on fire she said the words were changing and she was begging for the golden virgin to bring God back. It was the most horrific experience in my life.

She said God told her she was a whore and his prisoner and now she has to find a green tree that guards the golden virgin who has a key to the dimensions we come from.

I think she opened the gates of hell and ushered in the apocalypse. Every day I go home I'm afraid she's going to do that again.

The clocks stopped in our home until whatever she did went away.

I'm not really familiar with the old testament and I've been all over online.

I need to get her back to reality and I don't want to lock her up. I have to admit whatever happened was freaking real.

What is the golden virgin? Where is she getting this from? Is it a demon? She's convinced the green tree is a lion with a dragon it doesn't make sense. She says she's reading the Bible and it's behind the words and the portal i saw came from the words when they locked in place. All I know is all the words on everything were moving till something came and sent the spirits away.

I've seen posts on here about the Mandela and since none of you know me I'm going to just lay it down.

I just want whatever she has done to stop and things to go back to normal. I'm scared she's demonic.. I never heard anything about the stuff she's telling me. Chemistry and physics aren't in the Bible. The Golden Virgin green tree and bees.

Anyways glad I could tell someone.

Anonymous Coward, Godlike Productions 22 Comments [4/27/2017 10:35:03 PM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 126728

(Name erased), Sheologians Facebook 7 Comments [4/27/2017 10:46:37 PM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 126625

Jenny Ondioline:
It's a curious thing about you, Royce. With everyone who disagrees with you, you thank them over and over for things they neither said nor did, and you do it over and over which is dishonest on a huge level and we know what your God has to say about bearing false witness. Has He given you permission to lie so wantonly?

My statement was "At the end of the day consenting adults means consenting adults. That doesn't mean I support incest." This you find contradictory. How is it contradictory? I DON'T support incest, but you seem to think my disapproval isn't enough, that I need to be waving placards around and writing letters of complaint or something. Consenting adults, by which I mean adults and not 13-year olds, are free to do as they like as long as no one's being abused against their will.

Please don't compare the Jews of the Holocaust with my refusal to get in the faces of people who practice incest. If I saw enough incest going on in this world to make noise about it we might have more to talk about, but I don't know of anyone who practices it. OK?

"Get off this Christian page and STOP TROLLING!!!"
How about acting more like a Christian, Royce? And I'm not trolling. I have a right to disagree with you when you say something I consider ridiculous. And I don't believe in Satan so no, you'll just have to get used to the idea that I'm not going to introduce any supernatural elements to this discussion.

And the rest is more proselytizing and threats of a hellfire I don't believe in, so we'll leave it at that.

Reply from Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Tell ya what, why don't you count up the number of "Likes" and see who has more folks disagreeing with who. Oh, and look up the word "everyone" in the Dictionary too Troll. And ya might as well look up "honesty" while you're at it because ya ain't gotta clue what that is either.

Your statements are right there for all to see. You do support incest by your own words. And, while you think you don't, it just goes to show how deluded you are but that's to be expected by someone who has no clue what they believe or why.

"Consenting adults, by which I mean adults and not 13-year olds"
But that's the LAW in some states and you said you support the LAW. You really are mixed up! I understand though. It's hard to keep your story straight when you have no moral compass. And you still haven't given an answer for why it's ok if it's 16, or 13, or 10 or no age at all - so long as it's the LAW.

"How about acting more like a Christian, Royce?"
How many times do we have to cover the same ground? YOU have NO clue what a Christian is! So I'll take that with the due consideration it deserves. Here, how about this: You wicked viper that is just like a white-washed sepulcher full of dead men's bones. Wanna take a guess who said that?

You ARE trolling.

And frankly, it doesn't really matter whether or not you believe in Satan or not. You belong to him. Just like it doesn't matter if you believe in the Lake of Fire or not because you'll be spending ALL Eternity in the Lake of Fire with him.

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” (Rev 21:8)

Royce E. Van Blaricome, Christian News Network 1 Comments [4/28/2017 2:06:28 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 52900

Hannah Montana is of the Devil

Walt Disney's Hannah Montana (Miley Cyrus) is everything that God doesn't want a young Christian girl to be. Miley dances around on stage, strutting back-and-forth in skin tight blue jeans, arousing the lusts of any normal males watching her. A young woman in tight jeans gyrating her hips on stage causes lasciviousness (strong sexual lust). It is a sin for women to wear tight pants, as this causes men to lust. Jesus condemned lust in Matthew 5:28 as adultery. 1st Timothy 2:9 commands Christian women to wear "modest apparel." Miley Cyrus is a little whore, deliberately causing men to lust upon her body by the tight pants, miniskirts, and other provocative clothing (that should only be worn by a wife in the presence of her husband in the bedroom).

By David J. Stewart, Why Parents Should Ban "Hannah Montana" 90 Comments [11/27/2008 11:43:00 PM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: peter

Quote# 126666

I don't think things will get better. Afterall, no matter where in the world you go, the situation is the same. The issue isn't the media, it's height. Yes, Asian-American guys are only 4% shorter than whites...yes that's only 6cm - less than the length of your little finger. Still, the fact remains that people are shallow. Huge portions of Asian guys won't be able to attract non-Asian women and it's certainly very obvious that huge chunks of Asian women want nothing to do with Asian guys

To think the situation will get better is just wishful thinking, in my opinion. As far as I'm aware, the only place where the situation with Asians/non-Asians is respectable is countries in South America like Peru - places in which people are the same height as Asians. White countries? Shit. Black countries? Shit. Arab countries? Shit. Singapore/Malaysia etc with Indians competing with Chinese guys? Shit. Heck, even in Asian countries, wmaf can often be 5-100x more common than amwf. South America is the only place where Asians are competing as equals, unfortunately.

Trancefan, Reddit 2 Comments [4/28/2017 2:09:45 PM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 126733

christian or maybe YOU are ignorant and dont see it from his side because your atheist. one thing is, what is the point of bringing a bible or any religious item when all you have is things thrown at you like "WE EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS" and "EVERYTHING WAS CREATED FROM A GIANT BANG" so if thats not from your religion then the kids get confused and dont know whether to trust their parents or their teacher. Trust in your parents is important. Also instead of parent's children learning about their religion, the child learns that their religion is a lie. The bible is against gays because a man is supposed to be with a woman and says that being gay is not love, its sin in disguise. Also if being gay was okay, then when Adam was created, instead of creating a woman, why didnt he create another man? it started out sexist, because Eve (the first woman) was the first to disobey god AND got Adam (the first man) to disobey god as well. Because of that, Women were punished. You may be asking "why not just punish Eve?" well what about Hitler? when he became the leader of Germany, was he the only one affected by him becoming leader? no he wasnt! Because of him becoming the leader, it set off a chain reaction the resulted in 12,000,000 deaths! So when Eve disobeyed, is set off a chain reaction that resulted in all women being punished. Also what about America? America has been racist, supported slavery, Still doesnt support gays, sexiest and filled with so much violence and your little "evolutionist" also has MORE plot holes! But you still put faith in them, don't you? If you say- or think you don't your wrong. because if you didnt have faith in America, why would you support their schools? and if you didnt have faith in evolutionism, then why would you go against creationism? Right now your arguments about sexist, hating gays, etc. isnt looking to good?

Fire Gamer, youtube 17 Comments [4/27/2017 10:47:38 PM]
Fundie Index: 11

Quote# 126723

What about the fact of biology? There are only two genders and you can’t change the knee you’re born with. cutting off you dick and calling yourself a woman is a mental illness, nothing more.

arigoldstein, polygon 14 Comments [4/27/2017 10:38:18 PM]
Fundie Index: 6