Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In
1 2
Quote# 110353

I am against head-coverings on women for two reasons:

1. I am against head-coverings because they associate you with the wrong crowd spiritually. Every church or pastor I have ever seen or known that taught that women were commanded to wear head-coverings was wrong on the Gospel. I have never seen or heard of a church that taught that women must wear head-coverings that believed that salvation was by faith alone. The churches and teachers promoting head-coverings on women teach a works-based salvation in one of the following forms:

- some teach you can lose your salvation
- some teach you must repent of your sins in order to be saved
- some teach you must surrender your life to Christ in order to be saved
- some teach Calvinist doctrines of "grace" which teach that if you don't have works, you aren't saved, and that God is the one who chooses who will be saved and who will be damned (TULIP).

The Bible on the other hand states that salvation is by faith alone:

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Rom 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I have never seen or heard of any church that preached Bible salvation that taught women to wear head-coverings. Therefore, wearing a head-covering will lump you in with unsaved false teachers such as the Amish, Pentecostals, etc.

Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

1Thess 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

2. I am against head-coverings because they are not modest apparel. Yes, you got that right, I said that they are not modest apparel:

1Tim 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
1Tim 2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

The word "modest" in these verses is often misinterpreted to only mean "not revealing" or "not promiscuous." However, there is nothing revealing or promiscuous about broided hair, gold, or pearls. This passage is telling ladies not to dress in a way that draws attention to themselves. Their good works should be what stand out, not their appearance, clothing, hair, or jewelry. Instead of a "Christian uniform," it should be the good works of Christian ladies that stand out to the world.

1.having or showing a moderate or humble estimate of one's merits, importance, etc.; free from vanity, egotism, boastfulness, or great pretensions.

Women who wear head-coverings or Amish-looking dresses are doing so in order to purposely look different and stand out. There are many beautiful and stylish dresses for women to wear that are very modest and and not revealing whatsoever, but that do not purposely draw attention and cry out, "Look at me! Look how 'modest' I am!" Purposely drawing attention to yourself is neither modesty nor humility!

Ladies are commanded by the Bible to have long hair. They are not commanded to wear an external head covering of any kind. If they do wear one, people will probably associate them with religions that preach a false Gospel.

Pastor Steven Anderson, Faithful Word Baptist Church 25 Comments [7/1/2015 3:25:38 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: TimeToTurn
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110352

In my fire alarm business, I am constantly testing batteries and measuring their voltage. When a battery is completely dead, there is no potential difference between the positive and negative poles, and a multimeter will read 0 volts. This equilibrium produces no energy, and the battery is therefore worthless.

Magnetism operates on similar principles. There is a force of attraction between unlike poles and a force of repulsion between like poles.

The difference between north and south produces the attraction.

What does any of this have to do with marriage?
The difference between men and women is what causes the attraction between them. When a man and woman get married, this attraction is very strong. There is very powerful electricity in their relationship. Often, however, the newness wears off over time, and the attraction can become very weak. The battery goes dead so to speak. Why is that?

When a battery goes dead, it is because there is equilibrium between the positive and negative leads. Just as electrical energy is fueled by the difference between "positive" and "negative," and magnetic energy thrives on the difference between "north" and "south," so the male/female energy is powered by the difference between "masculine" and "feminine."

As our society destroys the differences between male and female, and especially husband and wife, the attraction becomes less and less, and the voltage of our marriages is reduced. That is why our sinful world views married life as being "boring" and "unexciting." In order to have an exciting love life, they must keep switching to a different partner. It is possible, on the other hand, to have a very exciting married life and be very strongly physically attracted to your spouse as long as the difference between the masculine and the feminine is maintained.

Modern American culture teaches us that there should be equality between a man and a woman in marriage. This is the biggest turn off in the world for both parties. If there is equality, then there will be much less attraction between the man and his wife. When there is a big difference between husband and wife, they will be much more attracted to one another. If the husband is completely in charge, and the wife is completely submissive and subject to him (as the Bible commands), then they will have a very "high voltage" love life. Equality = a dead battery.

As men in America become more and more feminine, and women become more and more masculine, the difference between a man and his wife is dramatically reduced. Husbands and wives become more and more apathetic about their physical relationship with each other. This leads to people looking outside of their marriage for the spark and excitement they are lacking at home. If, on the other hand, the husband is firmly in power, being the head of household, sole breadwinner, and acting/dressing in a manly fashion, and the wife is very submissive to her husband, a homemaker, cooking and cleaning, wearing skirts/dresses, long hair, etc., the voltage of the relationship will be cranked up, and husband and wife will find themselves very strongly attracted to one another. Greater potential difference = stronger electromotive force.

The world will not accept this obvious, basic, scientific truth because it is not politically correct. Even though atheists claim to be scientific, they ignore all the empirical evidence and insist on male/female equality. Unfortunately many Christians are buying into similar philosophies in their home life and are consequently missing out on a truly electrified marriage.

Steven L Anderson, Steven L Anderson 45 Comments [7/1/2015 3:25:27 AM]
Fundie Index: 19
Submitted By: TimeToTurn
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110351

"Jesus-is-Savior.com" Attacks our Film "After the Tribulation"

There is an article on the website www.jesus-is-savior.com attacking our film After the Tribulation, which came out last December and has been viewed online over 1.3 million times so far (if you add up the view counts of the several versions uploaded to YouTube). Here are a few excerpts from the article:

["In the film, Dr. Kent Hovind denounces the Pre-Tribulation Rapture. Kent Hovind is wrong about a Young Earth and he's wrong about the Rapture. The Bible teaches an Old Earth. Dinosaurs never co-existed amongst mankind."]

This should tell you everything you need to know about David Stewart, the man behind the website jesus-is-savior.com. He believes that the earth is billions of years old! Instead of the Bible being his final authority, he twists the words of the Bible to make them match up with the "science falsely so-called" of our day.

Steven L Anderson, Steven L Anderson 44 Comments [7/1/2015 3:25:18 AM]
Fundie Index: 19
Submitted By: TimeToTurn
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110349

A Warning From Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights
Get ready to say goodbye to your first Amendment freedoms

Teachers cannot make comments in their social networks, write letters to editors, publicly debate, or vote according to their own conscience on their own time. They can be disciplined or lose any chance of tenure. They can be required at a bureaucrat’s whim to take re-education classes or sensitivity training, or be fired for thinking politically incorrect thoughts.
When same-sex marriage was created in Canada, gender-neutral language became legally mandated. Newspeak proclaims that it is discriminatory to assume a human being is male or female, or heterosexual. So, to be inclusive, special non-gender-specific language is being used in media, government, workplaces, and especially schools to avoid appearing ignorant, homophobic, or discriminatory. A special curriculum is being used in many schools to teach students how to use proper gender-neutral language. Unbeknownst to many parents, use of gender terms to describe husband and wife, father and mother, Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, and “he” and “she” is being steadily eradicated in Canadian schools.

Which Is More Important: Sexual Autonomy or the First Amendment?

Recently, an American professor who was anonymously interviewed for the American Conservative questioned whether sexual autonomy is going to cost you your freedoms: “We are now at the point, he said, at which it is legitimate to ask if sexual autonomy is more important than the First Amendment?”

Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian citizens were supposed to have been guaranteed: (1) freedom of conscience and religion; (2) freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (3) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (4) freedom of association. In reality, all of these freedoms have been curtailed with the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Wedding planners, rental halls, bed and breakfast owners, florists, photographers, and bakers have already seen their freedoms eroded, conscience rights ignored, and religious freedoms trampled in Canada. But this is not just about the wedding industry. Anybody who owns a business may not legally permit his or her conscience to inform business practices or decisions if those decisions are not in line with the tribunals’ decisions and the government’s sexual orientation and gender identity non-discrimination laws. In the end, this means that the state basically dictates whether and how citizens may express themselves.

Freedom to assemble and speak freely about man-woman marriage, family, and sexuality is now restricted. Most faith communities have become “politically correct” to avoid fines and loss of charitable status. Canadian media are restricted by the Canadian Radio, Television, and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), which is similar to the FCC. If the media air anything considered discriminatory, broadcasting licenses can be revoked, and “human rights bodies” can charge fines and restrict future airings.

An example of legally curtailed speech regarding homosexuality in Canada involves the case of Bill Whatcott, who was arrested for hate speech in April 2014 after distributing pamphlets that were critical of homosexuality. Whether or not you agree with what he says, you should be aghast at this state-sanctioned gagging. Books, DVDs, and other materials can also be confiscated at the Canadian border if the materials are deemed “hateful.”

Americans need to prepare for the same sort of surveillance-society in America if the Supreme Court rules to ban marriage as a male-female institution. It means that no matter what you believe, the government will be free to regulate your speech, your writing, your associations, and whether or not you may express your conscience. Americans also need to understand that the endgame for some in the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.

Dawn Stefanowicz, Aleteia 26 Comments [7/1/2015 3:21:21 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Ivurm
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110348

Jimmy, You seem to think everything is a happy ending child’s book. Most of us on the right don’t care about gays and what they do in their bedrooms it’s the larger picture of displaying their sexual activity in public. The pride parade is a perfect example can you think of another similar event for a group where behaviours are on display of a sexual nature? Keep your private lives private, we understand what homosexuality is a sexual preference for the same sex we don’t need to see it in public, just like we don’t have parades where scantily clothed heterosexuals display to us the sexual nature of their lives.

As for marriage I always saw homosexuality as a choice to abandon two things, natural born children with your partner and marriage with them as well. For the prior 300 years until around 1990 nobody even considered gay marriage in our common law courts. The challenges to marriage were almost always around bigamy and the decisions always concluded with marriage being defined as between one man and one woman of consenting age. That definition did not discriminate against gays as they could marry a person of the opposite sex as well if they chose. Unlike racial exclusions which attached exceptions to conditions of the previous definition, sexual orientation did not prohibit one from meeting the preset conditions of marrying the opposite sex. What gays sought was an addition of an exceptional class to marry with no definitions of the term without a compelling legal reason. The concept violates the foundation of our justice system of stare decisis by carving out an exception for no legal reason. Civil unions would have granted all the power of marriage without the word and extended those protections to any number of couplings both gay and not. The whole gay marriage centered on the impossible being now made possible at a cost to our system of laws.

In the USA none of the justices in the majority addressed the 9th or tenth amendments, but instead chose the 14th to support their opinion. The 9th amendment would have been the most reasoned challenged as it defines that certain enumerations of rights do not disparage unenumerated rights and the argument could be made marriage was a right and gay marriage was one as well. The 10th however leaves to the states the powers that to delegate those that are not under the federal scope so at a minimum that should have been addressed as well. Instead they chose to declare marriage as a right to everybody that is protected equally which surely will be used to limit states rights to legislate against multiparty marriage and even as an unintended consequence things like gun control. Surely if unenumerated rights can’t be limited by the individual states then certainly enumerated ones like the second amendment can’t be. Thus gun control is also now dead at a state level in my mind. Same thing for hate speech laws, the states no longer have the ability to tackle legislation of individual rights, so basically the next 15 years will see dozens of constitutional challenges to any legislation that limits individual rights at a state level.

In Canada section 15 addresses individual rights in paragraph 1 and then enshrines discrimination in paragraph 2 to create equality, a prime example of what is wrong with creating exceptional classes. The funny elephant in the room is that a document addressing individual rights written less than 35 years ago somehow missed sexual orientation, are we to believe that NOBODY saw discrimination 35 years ago against gays or is it safe to assume there really was no need to address a personal matter like sex regarding public accommodation? This whole gay rights, sexual orientation movement is a creation of a handful of radical imbeciles holding the narrative of freedom captive to their sexual behaviour. Gays aren’t discriminated against unless they seek to flaunt their private behaviour and then only by a handful of people. They however have no problem creating confrontations by trying to attack faith based businesses for not endorsing their behaviour. I feel like going to a gay bakery and making them make me an anti-gay cake and see what it sets off. The simple and succinct definition of individual rights is they end where they impact others individual rights a concept people on the left can’t seem to accept.

Robert Prongay, The Rebel 20 Comments [7/1/2015 3:21:12 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Ivurm
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110347

Ian what a childish worldview you have, are you suggesting people’s thoughts should be policed by the state’s inclusive police? Is the semantics of wording to protect a very exclusive minority at the expense of a sizable portion of the community, FREEDOM? Are you blind to your very own ignorance of accusing all anti-gay marriage people of being theocrats or suggesting those with religious oppositions should have less merit based on their freedom of worship than a gay has regarding their freedom of sex?

Like every dimwitted, thought challenged leftist you use anti-miscegenation laws to support gay marriage leaving out the very real fact that those laws added to marriage conditions beyond its definition. Gay marriage is actually more similar to those laws then it is to what marriage is. Gay marriage is an additional exclusionary clause added to marriage to craft exceptions not remain inclusive as marriage was to all men and women who chose to marry the opposite sex. You fools that choose the symbology of civil rights to address discrimination that doesn’t exist are revolting anti-liberty crusaders seeking to create a tyranny of the minority on all people who believe in traditional values. You point out changing curriculum to become more “inclusive” in support of your beliefs rather than the scientific evidence that displays gays cannot naturally reproduce with their same sex partners. Should that be part of the curriculum? How about including this type of statement “although gays were granted the freedom to marry the same sex, unlike traditional couples these partners can not reproduce biologically with one another and must rely on surrogates or poor unfortunate people that have to give up their natural parental rights so gays can become legal parents. The confusion this leads to and the 300% increase in abuse to these children are unintended consequences of creating domestic sexual relationships to placate the self indulgent nature of people unable to live with the consequences of their chosen sexual lifestyle”. I think that would be an accurate description to include along with all the “positives” we need to provide children regarding the glory of homsexuality. Should we also include that 40% of post-op transgendered people attempt suicide and many regret their surgeries? I mean if we want to be inclusive we must have the truths lest people mutilate themselves.

So tell me Ian how is it that we move forward with this?

Robert Prongay , The Rebel 14 Comments [7/1/2015 3:21:05 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: Ivurm
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110346

This is what we get when we FAIL to OBEY God.
For it is written:

“ For whosoever shall commit ANY of these abominations,
even the SOULS that commit them
SHALL BE CUT OFF from among their people. ”

Those who support homosexuals are against our Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ.
These anti Christ people only bring destruction on us ALL.
I have NO sympathy for homosexuals!

Homosexuality is a "Mark" of disobedience.

It was given by our Heavenly Father to test us
to see ... if we will OBEY our Heavenly Father,
and abide by His commandments, statues, and ordinances.

Someone once asked

"Why are they [homosexuals] all so angry?"

The answer is in the definition of "REPROBATE".

rep·ro·bate \'re-pr?-?bat\ a. [L. reprobatus, reprobo, to disallow; re and probo, to prove.]

1. Not enduring proof or trial; not of standard purity or fineness; disallowed; rejected.
Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them. Jer. 6.
2. Abandoned in sin; lost to virtue or grace.
They profess that they know God, but in works deny him, being abominable and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate. Titus 1.

3. Abandoned to error, or in apostasy. 2Tim. 3.

And the reason"why" is given in the Bible.

God has a cure for homosexuals.

But will we OBEY our Heavenly Father?

"Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect
that God is just,
that his justice cannot sleep forever."

Yosemitest , Free Republic  22 Comments [7/1/2015 3:20:40 AM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: Ivurm
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110345

Nearly 21 years old and i am still a virgin.
I never even kissed and i see the way they look at me. Am i really so bad looking? Do i have to beg them and buy them with gifts to even let me kiss them? I would settle for even a slightly chubby chick if i didn't have to beg her to date me.

I hate them and i will show them just how pain feels. I will wait some time after making this post just in case someone connects the dots.

I plan to take a trip to a nearby country where i will pick a female and beat her up. I will smash her mobile phone, duct tape her mouth and arms and leave here there. Then i will change my clothes in a different location and walk up to my car and drive back to my country.

I will get to beat up a woman and get away with it too. Just lol at attacking women in your own country. All she will see is my clothes which i will change and she will never see me again

Thonis, sluthate 41 Comments [7/1/2015 3:20:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 28
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110344

[In response to someone making a comment against religious exemptions from non discrimination laws]

Congress, U. S. House Judiciary Committee, 1854

Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle... In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity... That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.

lkjhf, CNN Comments 11 Comments [7/1/2015 3:20:17 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110343

[Another fundie has said that animals never engage in homosexual sex.]

That's why I've been saying that promiscuous straight are as bad as animals while homosexuals are WORSE than animals.

WarriorX, Rapture Ready 16 Comments [7/1/2015 3:19:59 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: documentingtehcrazy
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110342

In response to a blog about "What would Earth's skies look like with Saturn's rings?"

I study the Bible Genesis to understand the 83-year cycle of Jupiter whose 84 years of 360-day do not drift forward a year until Abram's 427 years, and Solomon's temple of 427 years. I also study the 205-year Mars of Abram's father Terah (208-year of 360-day) and the Semiramis Venus of a sidereal 235 years Sothic Julian 243 years and seasonal Shem-Ramis of 251 years, as well as how the 1200 year Venus is not Jupiter. So quite versed in ancient chronology that unveils whether modern astronomy has drifted or not. Currently studying Mars to see how it passed from Ur to Babel to Nineveh to Harran Syria to Mari Syria and was kept by the Mayan thru Harappa India, Xian China, Korea and Japan upon their arrival in Copan in 1313bc. Armageddonist here, as in Noah's asteroid Flood, global comet armageddon exodus (not just Jews in Egypt), and the asteroid about to strike soon.

Elijah, http://www.planetary.org/ 29 Comments [7/1/2015 3:19:51 AM]
Fundie Index: 17
Submitted By: OzInJohn
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110341

All I'm saying is that the fetus is more important than the woman who has an abortion. The government should pass laws to protect the fetus (and yes, I do believe that banning abortions reduces abortion rates), not to protect women who are trying to harm the fetus.

The Amazing Sam's Ego, Political Forum 26 Comments [7/1/2015 3:18:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 14
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110335

...we are seeing their mockery expanded. These perverts have dared to take a symbol of God’s promise not to judge the earth and have perverted it to promote their sick and abominable lifestyle. We must strive to tell the true story of the rainbow. We must remind people that the rainbow symbolizes God’s restraint

Randy, Net-4-Christ 16 Comments [7/1/2015 2:54:39 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110334

"Most gays, if they're having a wedding, don't want pizzas -- they want cake," Robertson told "700 Club" viewers, according to Right Wing Watch. "It's the cake-makers that are having a problem."

Still, he warned Christian business owners of all types that gay customers will eventually "make you conform to them."

"You're gonna say that you like anal sex, you like oral sex, you like bestiality," he added. "Sooner or later, you're going to have to conform your religious beliefs to the group of some abhorrent thing. It won't stop at homosexuality."

Pat Robertson, Huffington Post 28 Comments [7/1/2015 2:54:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Doubting Thomas
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110333

[[If abortion is banned, women will still do it, they just would have to go to a back-alley clinic]]

And I proved this argument illogical, because if its murder, its totally irrelevant what is safe for the woman.

That was my point, but obviously you weren't paying much attention.

[[It's a baby Only if it has sentience which my opinion means it has brain activity and can perceive and feel pain.]]

First of all, it can certainly feel pain before the end of the second trimester, and the brain is there from 2 months or less (Not sure of the exact time, but its definitely less than 2 months.)

Second of all, that is your postulate. Then you use this postulate to say "OK, its not a full life, and so, even if it were better for her not to abort, its still better to allow it so that her life is safe!" I reject this idea. Not only would I say she ought to be executed for murder anyway, but I would also say that this is a horrible reason to make something legal, because "They'd do it unsafely otherwise."

Murder is murder.

Ghostwriter16, Civfanatics 16 Comments [7/1/2015 2:53:57 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110332

Your "man's law rules supreme" "morality" results in blacks being forced into slavery and Jews being forced into ovens.

Premise 1: If there is no God, then objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective evil exists.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, objective moral values DO exist.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, God exists.

A-theists affirm premise 2 by pointing out how objectively "evil" Christians and the God of the Bible are.

Therefore, by identity with Premise 2, Conclusion 1 is achieved. Theref ore, by Modus Tollens of Premise 1 and Conclusion 1, Conclusion 2 is achieved, and God exists. So, when you talk about how objectively "evil" Christians and their God is, you are unwittingly acknowledging His existence.

A-theists affirm Premise 1:

“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication,
some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

“Let me summarize my views on what m odern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate
meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.” A-theist William Provine

As an a-theist, you don't get to criticize ANY morality - objective morality is just an ice cream flavor to you. By using the objective term "morally repugnant," you are actually admitting to an Objective Moral Standard and therefore, you are unwittingly affirming the existence of God. You can't have it both ways: if God does not exist, then all things are permissible. If you don't like that fact, take it up with your "pope" and "cardinals" of a-theism. :-)

WorldGoneCrazy, Christian News Network 19 Comments [7/1/2015 2:53:17 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110331

Pro-Life, and Pro-Adoption. Why? I was almost killed, I was adopted. simple as that. ;)

If I had the choice now to save an innocent child's life, or kill it, there would be no choice at all, because I was once one of them, the ones about to be drilled through the head, with no chance at a life.

Therefore, would be in no position to support an innocent child being aborted, I may as well murder myself the second I support it. I've been given a second chance at life, so should every unborn child.

Abortion is Murder, and shame on the women who want to throw away something so beautiful and with such potential for the sparing of about a day of pain. Give the child up for abortion, and sleep well knowing that what may have even been a mistake, or concieved by a crime, may become something great.

So, to me, there are two options.

1. Go ahead and murder the child, spare yourself a little bit of pain, and be content.
2. Continue with birth, give the child up for abortion if you can't take care of it, and think of your child every day, and know that you saved a life.

If we consider Fetuses un-human because they are unborn, we may as well kill every mentally-disabled person in the world for being not as intellectually advanced as the others around them.

If you're pro-abortion, I'd like you to come to me and drill my head open, then toss me in a garbage can, after all, that was what was supposed to happen, wasn't it?

This is my view, my own experience, and thank God, I am here. ;)



Vaughan, Fallout STudios 15 Comments [7/1/2015 2:53:03 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110330

I don't know about over across the pond, but here, we have facilities where you can simply leave a new-born, no questions asked. That's it, just leave it.

I've used this before: Every rose has its thorns. Sex has the potential of bearing a child, it is a risk that both parents are aware of. (Of course, rape is excempt from this argument). Might as well adopt a child and kill it a year down the line for being a brat.

We need to be teaching society to accept consequences, not put them over onto somebody else (ESPECIALLY the victim!)

I was almost aborted as a child because the doctors didn't get much of a heartbeat going and suspected I had died. And yet, my mom said "I'll come in next week" and plop, there I was, heartbeat and all. Different circumstances, sure, but I was most definitely alive and it would have been quite painful to have my body crushed, even in the womb.

A fetus is a living organism. Though dependent upon the mother, the fetus can move with (very slightly) free will. And yet thousands of these lives are ended and uncared for. Tossed to the fucking garbage, a human life for fuck's sake. Functioning organs, developed nervous system, etc. And yet the fetus has no choice. You are not pro choice, I am pro choice. You are pro murder.

[[ A lot of animals are also killed so you can eat, having had a life that wasn't very enjoyable. What makes you say humans are so much more important?What makes the government allowed to force a woman to go through a lot of pain and even putting a child upon her that she may not even be able to afford or want to take care of. Adoption isn't something you do easily either, there is always an emotional scar. Giving up a baby after it's born can be very hard, however if you keep it then it changes your life forever. ]]

The thing is, we don't eat babies for our survival. That argument is irrevelant, since the slaughtered animals go to use whereas slaughter babies do not.

And the government shouldn't have to tell the woman what do do with her child's body. Not her body, her child's. But that is not the case. Because two people are stupid enough to not use protection in having sex, you think the government should kill the victim? (the child). Sure, save the woman some short time of pain, but make the majority of the child's life a living hell. That is humanitarian.

[[ The child does not feel a lot of pain. I don't know how it's done in the US though, but here..Also, short is relative. The woman is in pain longer than the child for a second. Births can take several hours upto a day even.What happens when people have used protection but it fails, as it does in some small percentage of all cases? ]]

1: More pain than the woman at least. It's the one being killed.
2: The baby is in pain more than a second (especially during partial birth abortions). And that time in comparison to its whole lifespan versus the 1 day of a woman in her whole lifespan puts, I believe, the baby at the disadvantage.

Go through the one day of suffering and allow the child to live, grow, and die by its own accords. It's one day to save a life...

whitey, Fallout Studios 8 Comments [7/1/2015 2:52:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110328

Today the Theory of Evolution is very popular.  That theory says that you weren’t created, you’re just the random product of countless meaningless coincidences.  Evolution teaches that everything that exists only exists as a freak accident.  Evolutionists look around at the vast complexity of the universe and insist that there is no evidence that God exists.  Yet if you take those same Evolutionists into your house, show them the simple design of walls and a roof and ask them how it got there, the Evolutionists will say it’s obvious that someone with purpose and intelligence constructed the house.  This is the irony of Evolutionists: they can find two rocks stacked on top of each other in a field and observe certain details about the rocks that make it clear to them that someone intentionally placed one rock on another a very long time ago.  Then they get super excited about their finding and right a bunch of books about it.  Yet when they look around at the vast complexity of the universe, they say the whole thing exists by random chance and they adamantly insist that it is impossible to ever prove the existence of an intelligent Creator.  How can people talk so stupidly and not even hear how ridiculous they are being?  Well, without the illumination of the Holy Spirit, we are all stupid, and even when we’re surrounded by a ton of evidence for something, we can’t recognize it.

Anna Diehl, The Pursuit of God 14 Comments [7/1/2015 2:50:29 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110327

[Samuel James Twitter]

Tweet of the day.

[Charles C. W. Cooke]
I’m looking forward to next year’s blockbuster SCOTUS ruling determining that “four year term” and “no more than twice” mean “indefinitely.”

Samuel James and Charles C. W. Cooke, Twitter 17 Comments [7/1/2015 2:50:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: AJ Williams
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110324

Now the persecution of Christians will escalate, to help them "overcome" their faith as Obama stated yesterday. Won't cut some flowers, won't take photos, won't allow your church sanctuary for weddings...no matter to the new orthodoxy. You will bend your knee to the messianic state. No matter that the right to decide such issues at the local level, no matter that we once had a Tenth Amendment, five people, elected by no one, dictate to local citizens what they must do. The forcing of beliefs is from the other side, not from Christians.

Merle Temple, Christian News Headlines 9 Comments [7/1/2015 2:49:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110322

"O Yahweh, ... in wrath remember mercy." (Habakkuk 3:2)

Perhaps now Christians will wake up to the fact that we've been had and cease promoting the document responsible for this decision: The biblically seditious Constitution.

Consider the following sampling of reasons the Constitution stands as the genesis for today's horrific decision:

1) Unlike their 17th-century Christian Colonial predecessors, the 18th-century founders failed to expressly establish government and society upon Yahweh's unchanging morality as reflected in His commandments, statutes, and judgments, including those regarding the perversion of homosexuality.

2) Article 3's usurpation of the biblical magistrate appellate system for the Constitution's unbiblical litigant appellate system without which this issue would have never been before the Supreme Court to decide, in the first place.

3) Article 6's Christian test ban by which biblical qualifications were all but eliminated and without which it was inevitable that America would end up with today's Supreme Court Justices who are responsible for today's decision.

For more, see online Chapter 3 "The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective" at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt3.html.

Then Chapter 5 "Article 3: Judicial Usurpation."

Then Chapter 9 "Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land."

Find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a free copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.

Ted R. Weiland, Christian News Headlines 10 Comments [7/1/2015 2:49:35 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110321

This decision on homosexual marriage by our Nation and its so called leaders is an abomination to God. That is what He calls it in His Holy Word. I will follow the only Commander and Chief I have, Jesus. This perverted court has just put the final nail in America's coffin. God must act as He has done with deadly force in the past against this Sodom and Gomorrah government and its Godless and unconstitutional acts. They have giving our Lord and Savior no choice.
"A county not ruled by God's law will be ruled by a tyrant." William Penn. Our weapons will be useless against what is about to come upon us and it happened because the moral people and our sons and daughters in the military of this Nation have not stood their ground and said, "Enough is enough.” “You are destroying our Constitution.” “We will not bow down to evil and take this any longer."
I for one absolutely will not comply with this ruling no matter what the cost. If at least half the people in America take that stand maybe we can be saved from His wrath. My earthly father risked his life to fight for our freedom in WWII. I fought for it in my classrooms and during my time in law enforcement. Now we are not free by this judgment to say, “NO!!”. We are no longer free and children will suffer the most. For the first time in history we must have our military and law enforcement step up and stop this decay and side with the Founding Fathers and the Bible based Constitution they signed in the beginning. Our military and law enforcement swear by oath to, “Protect the Constitution.” It was not protected today. The rights and freedoms of Godly Americans who follow God’s laws have been ripped from our lives this tragic day. DO SOMETHING!!!!
In Christ Name

James W Sharrock, Christian News Headlines 14 Comments [7/1/2015 2:48:11 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110319

But as far as I know, none of those sins is applauded so aggressively by whole groups of people who advocate for their normalcy. Sexual immorality is no longer the tip of the spear for the progressive push. Adultery is still frowned upon by many. Accusations of greed will still smear a candidate’s political campaign. Thievery is still not openly embraced, and there are no official initiatives saying it’s okay to go take things that don’t belong to you. There’s no such thing as a drunk agenda yet. Most aren’t proud to choose a beverage over stability, and there aren’t any petitions that the government should abolish the driving restrictions of inebriated individuals. Reviling others still isn’t seen as the best way to win friends and influence people. Swindling, especially on a corporate level, usually gets someone thrown into jail. In fact, the infrastructure of the American economy depends upon, in some measure, our shared disdain for conniving scammers.

Perhaps excepting fornication, these sins are still seen in a pretty negative light. But not homosexual practice, not by those who are now speaking loudest and holding positions of prominence. According to the emerging consensus, homosexuality is different.

As Christians, we believe with deepest sincerity that the embrace of homosexual practice, along with other sins, keeps people out of the kingdom of God. And if our society celebrates it, we can’t both be caring and not say anything. Too much is at stake. This means it is an oversimplification to say that Christians — or conservative evangelicals — are simply against homosexuality. We are against any sin that restrains people from everlasting joy in God, and homosexual practice just gets all the press because, at this cultural moment, it’s the main sin that is so freshly endorsed in our context by the powers that be. Let’s hope that if there’s some new cultural agenda promoting thievery — one that says it’s now our right to take whatever we want from others by whatever means — that Christians will speak out against it. The issue is sin. That’s what we’re against. And that’s what should make our voice so unique when we speak into this debate.

Jonathan Parnell, Desiring God 10 Comments [7/1/2015 2:46:55 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Nemo
WTF?! || meh

Quote# 110318

Two children have reportedly been “crucified” by Isis for not fasting during the holy month of Ramadan.

The boys, believed to be under the age of 18, were killed in Syria and their bodies displayed with placards hung around their necks announcing their “crime”.

Their deaths in the town of Mayadin, Deir Ezzor province, were reported by the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights on Monday.

Founder Rami Abdel Rahman said residents reported the boys’ bodies were “suspended from a crossbar” near the so-called Islamic State’s religious police headquarters.

“Apparently, they were caught eating,” he told the AFP news agency, adding that the signs hung around their necks claimed they broke the Ramadan fast “with no religious justification”.

Islamic State, The Independent 9 Comments [7/1/2015 2:46:40 AM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: JeanP
WTF?! || meh
1 2