1 2 3 4 5 10 13 | bottom
Quote# 138970

“I want to denounce the leftist junta that manipulates the common opinion in Greece for decades since the allegedly right side declares that respects the struggles of the left parties and serve the left wing. And this leftist junta sees everywhere, even in the protests for our Macedonia, fascist and nazi people. You are wring. You are only afraid of the people and this is why you do not proceed to the most needed solution. The declaration of a referendum in order to see if Greek People agree with the agreement at Prespa or not.

Golden Dawn insists: Referendum in order for Greek People to decide for their future on this important matter. We will constantly repeat it: Macedonia is only one and is Greek!”


Nikolaos G. Michaloliakos, Golden Dawn 0 Comments [7/18/2018 9:53:36 AM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: hydrolythe

Quote# 138968

Exposing Universalism: A Comprehensive Guide to the Faulty Appeals Made by Universalists Paul Young, Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and Others Past and Present to Promote a New Kind of Christianity

In recent decades universal reconciliation (UR) has sharpened its attack on evangelical faith. By their fiction and nonfiction, and by film (The Shack), universalists such as Paul Young, Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and others are propagating the idea that the love of God trumps all other attributes of God including his holiness and justice. From this starting point universalists believe that all people are born as children of God, that all are going to heaven, that all must embrace God’s love. Those who reject God in this life will repent after death and escape hell. Even the devil and his angels will repent from hell and go to heaven.

Universalism is an old idea. Christians have confronted UR since the third century and refuted it as heresy—heresy because UR believes that faith in Jesus is unnecessary. Thus, the death of Jesus Christ as an atonement for sin becomes unnecessary.

Through his acquaintance with Paul Young, De Young is increasingly concerned that Young and other universalists are misleading many. In this book De Young challenges all the arguments that universalists make—their appeals to the Bible, to logic and reason, and to church history—and shows that they are unconvincing.

James De Young, Google Books 1 Comments [7/18/2018 8:35:18 AM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: CC

Quote# 138961

I saw Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father in a holy city in the Father's empire. The Bible never says Jesus was enthroned at the right hand of God; it says He was enthroned. God sits on a seat of authority on a throne within His heavenly city, and Jesus sits in a royal seat next to the Father at His right hand. Jerusalem is God's Heavenly city. This is the city we sing about in worship songs.

David Taylor, My Trip to Heaven: Face to Face with Jesus 5 Comments [7/18/2018 3:01:37 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 138960

No matter what you believe in op its clear, "every knee will bow, every tongue shall confess He is king"
That's can be a very fearful thought translating into anger , resentment, or any kind if disbelief towards Him.
Or it can be satisfying, especially for His followers, the ones that obey His command. I can't wait for that day. Not because "I'm perfect" far from it. But that's why our 'ticket to heaven' isn't granted to us by good works, but by obedience.
Questioning God is like a piece of pottery questioning the creator of the pottery. What right does it have? The creator has every right to do whatever it so chooses.
& instead of thanking the creator, it blames him for everything wrong

pro_user_here_, 9Gag 8 Comments [7/18/2018 3:01:25 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 138954

(=A respone to a homosexual interpretation of the centurion and his servant=)

he account takes all the things stated by the comments into account, but all forget one thing..Jesus! Jesus knew what he was doing, not snookered by the elders or the centurion. He knew the Mosaic law about homosexuality he knew the authority behind it, his Father. so if what is being said he healed a gay man, this is incorrect. In each example during his 3 and a half year ministry Jesus never once was in accomplice in ones sins but told never to do it again. forgave them and directed them toward another path. Never to keep something sinful going. Jesus knew the heart of the centurion and if what is being said, Jesus would not have healed the 'pais', it would have been against everything he stood for, even the love his own Father is. Ones want love to continue to cover all sins, even while we keep doing them, but the time will come when God will not cover us with mercy and love but remove evil, wickedness and sin from this earth. That is love, not keep picking us up, but truly teaching us how to walk without falling. Not feeding us crumbs, but teaching us how to feed ourselves fully. This is true love!

Houseman, Patheos 7 Comments [7/17/2018 3:49:10 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 138947

It hurts to be ignored. When you call somebody and they don't call you back, you want to break their pencil...lol. Seriously, you wish you could get them fired or put them in jail. I hate jerks. But I always find comfort in Scriptures such as Ecclesiastes 12:14 which says God will bring EVERY WORK into judgment. In Matthew 12:36 Jesus warned that God will judge men for their very words.

Certainly it's not my place to say what God will or won't do, but I DO KNOW that God does care, and he has set the Golden Rule as the benchmark for judgment Day... Matthew 7:12, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” God is going to judge you on the basis of how you would have wanted people to treat you. Anything that you do to someone else will be judged by your own principles. A man once said to me that we all live by our own book. What that interprets to is that everyone is selfishly and sinfully doing that which is right in their own eyes. Well, I choose to live by God's Book... the holy Bible. I treat others the way I want to be treated. Your book doesn't matter. God's Word is all that matters.

I have a tender-heart and get my feelings hurt easily. I'm not embarrassed to admit that. I've had people in life advise me to grow thicker skin. I've tried but it's not in my nature. I am a kind person.

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Savior 17 Comments [7/17/2018 3:48:55 PM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 138939

Do videogame developers deserve prison?

I am of the opinion that mentalcelling doesn't exist. If you were sufficiently good-looking, you would not feel any social inhibition. However, for those who rate 5 to 8 on the looks scale, I'm convinced video games and other solitary, low-T activities do make it worse on the front of relationships.

Inceldom aside, video games, especially RPGs and RTS, are a notorious time sink. Many gifted young men underperformed at school because of them, and the time spent by nerds on Civilization 4 could have been used for PhDs in physics or biology. I'm sincerely convinced that video games are currently slowing down greatly the progress of society, although this is mitigated by the money funneled into semiconductor research by hardware enthusiasts.

Do you think video game developers and producers deserve to be jailed for their negative impact on young men?

Fontaine, incels.me 18 Comments [7/17/2018 3:47:40 PM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 138957

I’m supposed to take it as fact from creepy FBI weirdos that some Russians, apparently doing the job the American media wouldn’t do, hacking thecunt’s & podesta’s emails and revealing their malice and corruption to a better informed citizenry is a threat to democracy? Get outta here with that gazpromming bullshit!

CH, Chateau Heartiste 11 Comments [7/17/2018 1:46:07 PM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 138956

Here's the deal: The Western Left didn't want to face up to the fact that the voters were turning hard against their Globohomo agenda, so they concocted a huge bogeyman in Russian meddling in Western elections which brainwashed voters to abandon the Left.

ie, it's never the Left's fault.

Heartiste, Gab 9 Comments [7/17/2018 1:45:49 PM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 138955

Universalism: Its Distortions and Dangers

There has been in recent years a resurgence of universalism as a theological option among Christians. Perhaps it is the pluralism of our day, the rise of postmodernism with its debunking of truth, the speed of communication via the internet, the challenges of living Christianly in an increasingly polarized world, and general biblical illiteracy in the West that have contributed to the new appeal of universalism.


Definitions and Historical Overview

Universalism is the belief that all people, and even fallen angels and Satan himself, will be reconciled to God. While the wicked of this life go to a place of torment, such as hell, they do not go there “forever.” In due time the “fires” of hell will purify all the wickedness away and all will eventually go to heaven, to spend “eternity” in the presence of God.

This is the usual Christian form of universalism which maintains restoration after future punishment. Another form of Christian universalism asserts that restoration takes place immediately after death. The idea of restoration only after punishment was declared by the Universalist movement in America to be the “orthodox” view in 1878, at Winchester, N.H. “Penitence, forgiveness, and regeneration” are all involved. There is also a pagan form of universalism that teaches that all will ultimately be happy since all are, by nature, the creatures and children of God.

The chief argument of universalism is the emotive appeal to God’s mercy and love. As the argument goes: How can a loving God torment people forever in hell, the lake of fire, for failing to believe during a lifetime of a relatively few number of years? There is also an appeal to Scripture, but in the end Scripture takes second place to the appeal to a sense of fairness and justice in God’s dealing with people.

Followers of universalism go back at least to the third century when Clement of Alexandria and, especially, Origen (d. 254), a leading biblical scholar of the 3rd century, espoused such a belief. The Scriptural arguments rest on three points: (1) the purpose of God to restore all things to their original excellence (Acts 3:21; Origen called this apokatastasis; (2) the means of restoration through Christ (Rom. 5:18; Heb. 2:9); and (3) the nature of restoration as the union of every person with God (1 Cor. 15:24-28). The Christian church answers that the texts which speak about “all” refer not to all but to everyone who is in Christ; and that this interpretation is the only one compatible with the Bible’s teaching on the “diverse destinies of the righteous and the wicked (Matt. 25:46; John 3:16; 5:29; Rom. 2:8-10; 9:22-23).”

James De Young , Burning Down The Shack 9 Comments [7/17/2018 1:45:34 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: CC

Quote# 138953

Christ IS NOT MY LORD. Why do I feel I belong?

You sound pretty angry at the thought of having Jesus as your Lord. Much more angry than someone who has no use for God would have and display. Usually they just go on in silence and not try to convince anyone of Him not being their Lord. Who are you trying to convince? Us? Or, maybe yourself…

You sound like it is a real struggle for you as you know He should be your Lord, but you still defy His words and rebell against Him.

That's a that's a pretty common place to be my friend; but you need to make a decision. Are you going to make a decision for Christ or decision against Him? Jesus doesn't want people who are half and half on the fence. He says in Revelation 3:16 that He would rather people be either on fire for Him or ice cold…not lukewarm.

I understand your struggle and your resistance, but be honest- what is holding you back? What reason do you have to not want to accept Christ?

As I tell everyone - salvation is free. As in, no cost to you. God gives it out to all who ask for it and accept it by faith in Christ. The alternative is you paying for your sins yourself. And that is going to require you being out of God's presence (hell) for all eternity because you can't possibly work hard enough or do enough to pay for your sin debt.

But Jesus can pay for it and He has. And He wants to apply it to your account. All you have to do is ask for it and take it.

So again I ask - what's holding you back from that? Are you happy living on the fence? Your heart is telling you it's the right thing to do, but your sinful side is telling you don't do it.

Surely you must have some reasons for not wanting to accept Christ . Is it lack of evidence that keeps you back or do you not like the thought of giving your life over to God and doing what He says and being obedient to Him ? Is there something perhaps in your lifestyle that you don't want to give up?

You don't have to answer those questions obviously as they are rhetorical. But just think about why you're rejecting Christ and what your reasons are…and ask yourself - are those good reasons? Are they good enough to put my eternity at stake?

I'll leave those words with you for you to struggle with and talk to God about. But if you ask me, you are making a foolish mistake if you choose not to accept Christ. There are infinite pluses and no negatives to it.

You're not going to find a better deal anywhere else. God offers you eternal life for free, but keep in mind that the deal ends when your life ends - that's when they both expire.

Bob Triez, Quora 1 Comments [7/17/2018 12:47:43 PM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 138952

You’re drawn to the Church because your conscience is seared from your sin and there’s a force compelling you towards repentance. And if you have even a single sin to repent for then you need Jesus. (And we all do)

You’re drawn to the Church because God created everything in the universe and despite your attempts to force yourself to believe in some form of atheism or agnosticism and Darwinism you feel compelled to think that there is a Creator and a higher purpose. (And there is)

You’re drawn to the Church because God created you with a God-sized hole in your heart that only He can fill. And you’ve tried filling it with everything else and nothing seems to satisfy the longing for “more”—even though you can’t yet describe that longing and aren’t ready yet to admit that it’s for God. (And it is)

You’re on your way friend. Humble yourself. Seek God in prayer with ALL your heart, soul, mind, and strength. God is already pursuing you, that is why you feel compelled. You’re the prodigal son. God is waiting for you to come home. Go to Him, He will run out to meet you!

God bless.

Brian S. Holmes , Quora 5 Comments [7/17/2018 12:47:16 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 138951

Ex-Gay Reveals the Horrific Sexual Abuse That Marred His Identity

Kegan Wesley's testimony is one of the most powerful you'll hear. Now a popular speaker, he was once a scared child who was horrifically raped by multiple men—and his friends.

"I remember after, you know, the men were finished with me, I went outside and (I was) physically hurting, emotionally hurting, not knowing where to go or who to go to," Wesley recalls. "And if I went to somebody, what would I say?"

Thus Wesley embraced what he thought was his identity—that is, a member of the gay community.

But God wasn't about to let him get away.

Watch his incredible testimony.

Jessilyn Justice, Charisma 5 Comments [7/17/2018 12:47:08 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 138945

All humanity is evil.

The only cure/ proper redemption for creativity and propriety in our universe long lost from OUR nature... is their enslavement, and complete submission.

Eugeniker, Sluthate 4 Comments [7/17/2018 8:43:29 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 138942

You are absolutely correct that Justice demands the punishment fits the crime. In human terms, that's why there are human laws that deal with the crimes of man. However, human punishment has no bearing on the soul of the individual. Human justice cannot punish the soul, only the body. Therefore, human justice is incomplete.
The reason eternal torment is necessary is for the soul. When we sin, not only is it usually a mental and/or physical act of defiance towards God. It is also a spiritual act of defiance towards God. It's "I don't need you to tell me how to live my life, my soul is fine on my own". That's the sin Adam & Eve committed against God in the Garden and why the spiritually died that day. At the end of life, the soul lives on and it would seem that as it was in physical life, it is in physical death. If it accepted Christ's gift of salvation, then it is spiritually reborn and lives forever, glorifying Christ. If it did not accept Christ's gift of salvation, then it is spiritually dead and forever curses Christ.

Bryan, Stream 9 Comments [7/17/2018 8:42:26 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: CC

Quote# 138936

~The Shack From Hell
The Shack is a movie that pretends to be a Christian film but it is NOT! It is a 100% in-Biblical move. It is a cult and an a heresy. It is part of the Grace Cult. It is New Age religion. The Shack is anti-Christ. The Shack portrays God as a woman, God the Mother. Jesus taught the prayer, "Our Father who art in Heaven." Not, "Our Mother who art in Heaven." Jesus called God "Father" 165 times. Jesus said, "Abba Father,' he said, 'everything is possible for you." [Mark 14:36]. Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of Heaven and earth. " [Mt.11:25]. "How much more will your Father in Heaven give good gifts to those who ask him." [Matt. 7:11]. Jesus said, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father." [John 20:17].In the New Testament letters God is called "Father" 40 times. "There is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist." [1 Cor.8:6]. "I kneel before the Father, from whom every family in Heaven and on earth derives its name." [Eph.3:14]."Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." [1 Cor.1:3].

The Shack shows God the Father as an African woman who suffered Christ’s crucifixion. This is an ancient heresy that teaches that God the Father suffered on the cross. The Shack falsely teaches that Jesus is the best way to know God, not the only way. The Shack teaches universalism, that is, that all people will be saved. In the movie “Papa” chides a person that he is now reconciled to the whole world. The person retorts, “The whole world? You mean those who believe in you, right?” “Papa” responds, “The whole world.” The Shack's Jesus says, "Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims. I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters.” The Shack God says, "In Jesus, I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me."

The Shack sees God’s nature as “too loving” to let anyone who has refused to seek salvation suffer the eternal consequences of sin. The Shack says, "Holiness has nothing to do with sin." And, "I don't need to punish sin." The Word of God says when the Lord Jesus is revealed from Heaven in blazing fire, "He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction " [2 Thess. 1:7-9].

In the Shack God's holiness is perverted. God's judgment and holiness are considered to be in conflict with his love. The Shack says judgment makes God "grossly unjust." The Shack teaches no responsibility and no accountability. It says, "You won't find the word responsibility in the Scriptures." God the Father in the Shack says, "Honey, I've never placed an expectation on you or anyone else." This is a blasphemous lie. God's Word says, "Repent and change." [Mt.4:17]. God's Word says, "Without holiness no one will see the Lord." [Heb.12:14]. God's Word says, "Faith without action is dead." [Jms.2:26]. God's Word say, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation." [Mk.16:15].

God's Word says feed the hungry, cloth the naked, visit prisoners, invite strangers into your home, help the sick. [Mt.25:41-46]. The Shack teaches that God is a friend, not Lord. It teaches that he is a "Buddy," but not a God to be served. The Shack teaches the Grace Cult. That God does everything and people do nothing. It teaches that God's grace forgives us no matter what. The Word says, "If we willfully keep on sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of Judgment and burning fire which will consume the enemies of God...How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who have treated as unholy the blood of the Covenant and who has insulted the Spirit of Grace?

'Vengeance is mine, I will repay,' and, 'The Lord will judge his people.' It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” [Heb.10:26-31]. If people willfully keep on sinning after they have received the truth there is NO SACRIFICE FOR THEIR SINS LEFT! The goal of the Shack is not reaching multitudes of Lost souls in world but feeling wholeness about oneself. The Shack does not promote stopping mass millions of souls from going to an eternal Hell, but it teaches people to feel good about themselves. The Shack wants everyone to be happy and comfortable. Jesus Christ says, "Because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I am about to VOMIT YOU OUT OF MY MOUTH!" [Rev.3:16].

The Shack wants everyone to say, "I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing." [Rev. 3:17]. But Jesus says, "You do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked...BE ZEALOUS HOT AS THE GLOW OF SOLIDS AND BOIL OF LIQUIDS AND REPENT AND CHANGE!" [Rev.3:17-19].

DaneMuhlig, Youtube 8 Comments [7/17/2018 6:30:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: CC

Quote# 138935

THE MOVIE, “THE SHACK”
How the Film Is Anti-Christian, Anti-Marriage, Anti-American

The film “The Shack” will soon appear in theaters nationwide and probably beyond. If it is as popular as the novel on which it is based it will be a blockbuster.
For those who do not know, this is the movie version of the fictional novel, The Shack. This novel has sold upwards of 20 million copies over the last several years. It was on the NY Times best seller list for many months. It made the author a billionaire. This is quite amazing when we consider that this was written by a writer claiming to be a Christian and intended for Christians to give a Christian explanation for why people suffer. Obviously the story has resonated with a multitude of people, whether Christians or not, who have wondered about the love of God, eternity, and why Jesus Christ came into the world.

The story is about Mac and many Christians like him who are struggling with serious life questions and uncertainty about their faith. They have been challenged by severe suffering beyond their control. They feel that God does not care about them and perhaps has even abandoned them. Many are angry at God. Like Mac they may come to a shack where they come face to face with God. The Shack provides an explanation for their pain and anger, and a way of escape—back to God.
But deeper, more gnawing questions often lie behind the surface struggles. If God is a good God why do so many people suffer? If God is a good God why are so many people—those who are non-Christians—destined for eternal suffering? Why should people suffer everlastingly for sin and for sins committed during a short life time? If God is love, why does he judge people and send them to hell? At one time or another all have thought about such heavy questions.
It is really these difficult questions that The Shack seeks to answer. But the answer is surprising. The answer is not to explain the Bible’s teaching on these matters but to provide a new understanding of who God is—a God who is all loving and whose love limits his judgment and justice. Paul Young says that Christians have misunderstood God, indeed, the whole Trinity.

And this is where the rub comes in.
It is well known that the novel became a focus of controversy. This controversy swirls around the author, William Paul Young, and whether he has tried to sell subliminally his beliefs as a universalist in his novel. There are many who believe that the novel has betrayed Christian belief, that it is heresy. There are others who think not.

So The Shack is hotly debated.
I became involved in the controversy because I have known the author, Paul Young, for over a couple decades. He and I founded a Christian forum in the late 1990’s and we entertained all sorts of questions about Christian belief. Then in 2004 Paul presented a 103-page paper in which he said that he was rejecting his “evangelical paradigm” and embracing universal reconciliation. This is the belief that God is so good and loving that he cannot judge anyone. So everyone will be saved either before or after dying. It means that unbelievers in hell and the Devil and his angels will be “corrected” or “purified” by their sufferings in hell. They will repent, believe the gospel about Jesus Christ, and enter into heaven. In the final end hell will cease to exist; there will be none left. God’s love triumphs over all.
Such universalism is not new. It was first expressed in the 3rd century by an early church leader and then was declared heretical in the 6th century. It came to America in the 1740’s and was quite successful during the next century. But evangelical Christians held the teaching up to the scrutiny of the Bible and always found it in error.

The month following Young’s presentation I presented a paper to oppose his and argued for the Christian understanding of the Bible. But Paul was not present. He stopped attending our forum and began writing his novel. After The Shack was first completed a couple of his pastor friends who opposed the blatant universalism in it have testified that they spent a whole year trying to remove the universalism. Then in 2007 the novel was published and became a bestseller. In 2010, I published my book, Burning Down the Shack, to expose its heresy in the light of the Bible.
The big question that remains is this: Were the editors able to remove all the universalist teaching in the novel and now in the film? Do the novel and the film promote universalism? The only way to prove the answer is to hold up the various statements in the novel and in the film to the scrutiny of the Bible and to compare them to the major teachings of universalism.

What do we discover? The Shack makes many questionable, even heretical statements. Here are a dozen or so examples from the book. Papa (depicting God the Father) says that the first aspect of his being is not that he is Almighty but that he limits himself. The Trinity of three persons became “fully human.” Jesus “has never drawn on his nature as God to do anything.” “God cannot act apart from love.” The whole Trinity was crucified. “God is not who you think I am.” God doesn’t punish sin but cures it. In a relationship with God there is no authority and no submission. God cannot send any of his children to an eternity of hell just because they sin against him. God will not “condemn most to an eternity of torment.” “Mercy triumphs over justice because of love.” God is “now fully reconciled to the world.” “In Jesus, I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me.”

Most of these statements are in the film. All of them are found in the expressed teaching of universalism (as even Wikipedia shows). And if this is so, then the implications are staggering.
Many other reviewers who know nothing of Young’s background also find this heresy in his novel and film. And through the ages Christians have provided better responses to the challenge of suffering without denying the faith.

Young is especially opposed to the institutions of marriage, the church, and the government. He has Papa call them a “diabolical scheme,” “a man-created trinity of terrors that ravages the earth and deceives those I care about. . . . It’s all false.”
In light of the preceding, Young’s novel is a subtle attempt to change the Biblical teaching about God, the Trinity, judgment, eternal destiny and hell, salvation, the Holy Spirit, and the institutions which God created that give order, meaning, permanence, and pleasure to culture and nations. The movie version is a subliminal selling of universalism.

It is not going too far to identify Young and other universalists as terrorists against the evangelical church, as anarchists against this country and every country and our culture with its affirmation of marriage, and as deceivers inspired by the Devil himself to undermine the truth of the Bible about the nature of God, the Trinity, the church, and who his children are. Jesus and the Apostles made similar judgments about false teachers in their day (see Matthew 7:13-16; Galatians 1:7-9; 2 Cor. 11:13-15; and the Book of Jude). We should do no less in our day for the greater glory of God and the truth that is in our Lord Jesus Chris

James De Young, Eric Barger 5 Comments [7/17/2018 6:30:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: CC

Quote# 138934

Entropy is always increasing. A fully disordered society is illustrated by wild animals and primitive peoples such as the Tasmanian aboriginals, where all other creatures except for close kin are enemies, obstacles or sources of raw materials – Hobbes state of war. So if you look back in history, you can always see entropic processes, bringing us back towards that condition.

So, how come ordered societies exist, how come surviving and prosperous societies are generally at least somewhat orderly?

You cannot make something clean without making something else dirty, but you can make any amount of stuff dirty without making anything clean. Order for the ingroup always comes at the expense of someone else: Thus, for example, chastity and monogamy requires men hitting badly behaved women with a stick. (Dalrock banned me for pointing this out.) Thus, for example, in Africa we saw societies that herded cattle and planted crops had to enslave, or kill and eat, vagrants that were apt to hunt other people’s cattle and gather from other people’s gardens. The shift from hunting and gathering to herding and gardening involved extended cooperation – and a fair bit of brutality to hunters and gatherers.

As birds are born to fly, humans are born to cooperate. That is our key capability. Our telos is various forms of cooperation, as the heart’s telos is to circulate blood. The whites of our eyes are white, so that other people can see what we are looking at. We are vulnerable to choking, because our throat is optimized towards making a wider variety of distinct sounds than other animals. We have a more muscles in our face than other animals, so that we can unfalsifiably communicate our emotional state, just as every feature of a bird’s anatomy is optimized for low weight and high metabolic output. This cooperation manifested as tribes cooperating to kill other tribes and capture their women. Order consists of extended cooperation. Because entropy naturally tends to increase, because there are a near infinity of ways for society to be disordered, but only a small number of ways for it to be ordered, maintaining order requires a fair bit of ruthlessness towards disorderly people and towards outgroups whose cooperation is unlikely. Gays undermine male solidarity. David’s mighty men could cohere because David could love Jonathan. David could love Jonathan because gays were put to death. Peoples who have gay parades do not win wars.

The ten commandments consist of four commandments concerning man’s relationship to God, five commandments that had the effect of ensuring that congregation of the Lord operated on a cooperate cooperate basis, and the final commandment, the tenth commandment, prohibited coming up with clever rationales for undermining, subverting, and re-interpreting those five.

The four commandments that facilitate cooperation are:
Exodus 20:

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

The rule on honoring thy parents and committing adultery secured ownership of family, thus cooperation within the family. The rules against killing, stealing, and false witness enabled economic cooperation on the basis of property rights and the market economy.

And the final commandment:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

prohibits people from concocting ingenious theories as to why someone else’s property or wife is rightfully their own – forbids the entire ideology and program of Social Justice.

Compliance to the four commandments concerning God made fellow members of the congregation readily identifiable, and by complying with these four commandments, for which compliance was as visible as possible, one gave other members of the congregation reason to believe one would comply with the other five commandments, for which compliance was less visible, and thus reason to believe that cooperation with people who complied with the first four would be reciprocated and rewarded by cooperation, resulting in cooperate/cooperate equilibrium.

Social Justice Warriors have turned the tenth commandment on its head, making envy and covetousness a sacrament. This explains their chronic failure to cooperate, explains why rallies to save the earth leave a snail trail of trash behind them. Social Justice declares that what people have is “privilege” and should be taken away from them. Which creates a society in which people have no reason to have wealth or family.

A religion is a synthetic tribe. If the priesthood has power and status, and also has open entry into the priesthood, one gets holiness spirals – as for example priestly celibacy. Cooperate cooperate equilibrium, giving every man his due, makes all good members of the religion equal in holiness though unequal in property and power, thus a holiness spiral is going to redefine holiness away from forms that promote cooperation. The tribal religion has to reward exceptional and unusual holiness with honor, but not power and wealth. Send saints to live in a hermitage with spartan living conditions on a remote island as far from the capital as possible, where they can demonstrate superior holiness without subverting and undermining social order. On the one hand, to encourage good behavior, the society must honor supererogatory holiness. On the other hand preaching superogatory holiness always threatens to redefine holiness in ways that undermine order, making holiness a force of disorder instead of order.

...

Starbucks hates its customers, and LucasFilm hates its customers, which subverts cooperation on the basis of exchange. While practicing supererogation should be honored, preaching it needs to be forcefully suppressed. People who preach supererogation should not be martyred, which might increase their status, but rather treated like a stray dog that chases chickens – punished in ways that lower their status.

...

If the Sovereign is forced to punish someone who preaches supererogatory holiness in a way that might potentially increase their status (and Charles the second was forced to burn one conspicuously and irritatingly holy nonconformist woman at the stake) the Sovereign should lock the body in a mortuary for three days, and on the third day ironically check the body to see if they have risen from the dead. But it is as dangerous to martyr those who preach supererogatory holiness, as it is to tolerate them. The Sovereign must always strike at primarily at their status, as Russia dealt with Pussy Riot and European University.

While entropy always increases, it is always possible to locally reduce entropy, usually at the expense of someone else less effective and successful at extended cooperation (as, for example, women, pussy riot, gays, or hunter gatherer outgroups).

The highest and best example of this is western civilization, which is anglo civilization, which is the restoration of Charles the Second. The restoration gave us science, technology, corporate capitalism, industrialization, and world empire, which represent the highest level of extended cooperation ever achieved.

The restoration cured the disorderly tendencies of the protestant holiness spiral by putting priests under bishops, and bishops under the King. Which was the imposition of order, at the expense of “non conformists” – whose very name implies their disorderly tendencies. “Non conformists” were priests, professors, judges, and suchlike who were disinclined to accept this hierarchy, on the grounds that the King at the top was conspicuously lacking in holiness. We need to do something similar with our university system, as well as radically reducing its size and the amount of time it sucks out of people’s lives – we need to do Charles the Second’s Bishops, and Henry the Eighth’s dissolution of the monasteries.

Universities have always had as their primary job inculcating people in the official religion, and giving people cultural and scientific knowledge has always been merely their secondary job. Lately, their secondary job has largely been abandoned. It used to be that giving people job skills was entirely irrelevant, since this was done by enforceable apprenticeship.

We shall restore the enforceable apprenticeship system and divest universities of the task of giving people job skills, in the process divesting them of the power to accredit people to jobs. We shall give considerably higher, but still secondary, priority to the task of giving people cultural and scientific knowledge, and change the official religion to make it saner, by erasing all doctrines that are potentially falsifiable by the realities of this world. Members of the elite will still be required to adhere to the official religion, as they are now, but the task of checking adherence will not be outsourced to the universities. Instead, people in state jobs and quasi statal jobs will be required to recite a catechism and take an oath.

Contrary to the myth about the plymouth rock puritans, that early puritans supposedly filled the North American continent, where we have genealogies, puritans are descended from those who left restoration England to establish their own dissident theocracy, not from the pre english civil war wave of migrants fleeing Charles the first, but from the post civil war wave of “noncomformist” migrants fleeing the restoration, fleeing Charles the Second and subsequent Kings. The first wave, the pre civil war wave, left very few direct descendants.

Restoration England was successful at elite eugenic reproduction, because women were kept under control, and cured the disorderly propensities of the protestant reformation by keeping “non conformists” under control, thereby enabling the extended cooperation that made science and industry possible. Immediately after the restoration, we see Ayn Rand’s heroic archetype appear, the scientist engineer CEO, mobilizing other people’s capital and other people’s labor to advance technology and make that technology widely available. Often these were people who before the restoration had competed for superior holiness, (analogous to Musk’s subsidized and money burning tesla, solar panels, and solar batteries), but after the restoration competed for creating technology to produce value (analogous to Musk’s reusable booster rocket.) This form of order was made possible at the expense of “non conformists”, such as the excessively holy woman that Charles the Second burned at the stake.

In order for society to have cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, the science, industry, and technology that we see promoted by the corporate form, in order to promote cooperation with cooperators, the sovereign must promote defection on defectors. One such defector being a holy woman conspicuously holier than Charles the Second. Charles the second successfully redirected status competition from unproductive channels into productive channels, as for example members of the Royal Society gaining status by discovering truth and speaking truth, while previously puritans had gained power and status by having a Christianity that was purer than the other man’s Christianity. You will notice that Putin dealt with Pussy Riot’s weaponized supererogatory holiness preaching in a way that deliberately maximized disorder – maximized outgroup disorder in order to sustain ingroup order. That is the way to do it.

The restoration created a society that had the greatest cooperate/cooperate equilibrium ever, where people were able to engage in positive sum cooperation, which was made possible by severely negative sum uncooperation – you cannot get more negative sum than burning an excessively holy woman at the stake. If Charles the Second had not burned a holy woman at the stake for excessive, conspicuous, and obnoxiously superior holiness, he would have had the William Wilberforce problem.

Humans are inherently tribal. We have ethnicities and religions, all of which are in substantial part the same phenomenon. A millet is a smaller tribe (religion) within the empire that the empire recognizes and grants some limited self rule and autonomy.

Two tribes cannot co-exist in overlapping territory, except they create little zones for themselves, for example the black table in school cafe. One tribe will always rule, and another will always be ruled. Segregation and Jim Crow was an effort to give blacks autonomy and self rule, make them into a millet, conditional on the black rulers assimilating to white middle class values and behavior. Integration proved to be black dominion. When the blacks were allowed to the front of the bus, they inevitably wound up forcing white people off the buses.

This tribalism is the problem with libertarianism – if you allow liberty, people will use it to synthesize smaller ingroups within the larger group in order to dominate the detribalized majority. William Wilberforce and his “elect” destroyed what the restoration had accomplished, undermining the small scale cooperation between men and women to have children, and the cooperation between elites and individual members of the elite to maintain an empire that kept large scale economic cooperation over the oceans. His successors transliterated the religion of the elect from the next world to this world, creating modern progressivism. Since the transliterated tenets, such as equality, are transparently false to this world, this required them to reject truth telling and truth speaking, resulting in peer review and the replication crisis that has destroyed science.

The earthly telos of holiness is to promote the broadest possible cooperate/cooperate equilibrium. Holiness competition results in people finding grounds to declare other people unholy, thus Starbucks and LucasFilms declare their customers unholy, thus holiness competition destroys the earthly telos of holiness. Therefore we cannot allow excessively holy people to gain power in the state religion. Instead, need to send Social Justice Warriors away from the universities off to a hermitage in a remote island and honor their superior holiness from a safe distance. If someone wants to demonstrate superior holiness, it should be costly for himself, rather profitable for himself, and costly for everyone around him. Superior holiness and performing superogatory acts has to be made unprofitable.

Jim, Jim's Blog 7 Comments [7/17/2018 6:30:26 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 138933

THE FRIGHTENING IMPLICATIONS OF THE TEN BASIC BELIEFS OF UNIVERSAL RECONCILIATION

Christians who believe in Jesus Christ and adhere to the teachings of the Bible have great cause of concern should the claims of universal reconciliation (UR) succeed. Here are 10 of the leading teachings of UR followed immediately by the serious and surprising implications.

Teaching #1: Love is the supreme attribute of God. His other attributes (holiness, justice, righteousness) are limited by his love. “God cannot act apart from love” (The Shack, 102). “Mercy triumphs over judgement because of love” (TS, 164).

Implications: (1) Out of logical necessity, God ceases to be God. For God to be God means that he is perfect in all his attributes. No one attribute is greater than another. If this is not the case, then some attributes would be imperfect, incomplete, and some standard outside of God would be the measure of God—and this is impossible. Thus by affirming that love is the supreme attribute of God UR has created a defective deity. God ceases to be God. (2) Humans have no standard by which to set the appropriate judgment and punishment for crimes. (3) Ultimately Jesus’ death on the cross is unnecessary. Jesus did not need to die for sins because God would have loved people enough to take them to heaven and his justice did not need to be fully satisfied. (4) Ultimately the incarnation of Jesus was unnecessary, because love as the supreme attribute would have brought all to God apart from the justice demanded by an eternal death for sin. (5) Sin is not so bad after all. (6) The Bible is untrustworthy, for it never limits any of God's attributes or exalts one over another.
Note: This is probably the most central and far-reaching claim of UR; and it is the most heretical. (2) Many of these implications apply to other teachings below.

Teaching #2: God has already reconciled all people to himself by Jesus’ death on the cross. He has already removed the hostility between himself and people (TS, 192, 222).
Implication: (1) If reconciliation is already true for all, then there is no need to preach the gospel about Jesus Christ. (2) There is no need for people to believe in order to appropriate reconciliation. They already possess it.

Teaching #3: People either repent and believe the gospel before they die, or those who go to hell after dying will repent and believe the gospel, and then go to heaven. All go to heaven. Those people in hell change their destiny.

Implications: (1) There is no need to preach the gospel; no need to be engaged in missions or outreach. (2) The Bible is incomplete and untrustworthy here for it nowhere states that anyone can change his destiny after dying. (3) The entire record of church history is filled with the misplaced emphasis on trying to reach the world with the good news. (4) Jesus is untrustworthy for he commanded his people to go to the whole world and preach the gospel (Matt 28:19-20). He taught that there are two destinies, one leading to life, the other leading to destruction (Matt 7:13-14).

Teaching #4: God does not punish sin. He seeks to cure it. Sin is its own punishment (TS, 120).

Implication: (1) There is no future judgment after death when all stand before God as Judge to receive punishment for their sins (2 Cor 10. (2) The Biblical account of judgments on individuals and nations (Adam and Eve, Cain, the generation of the Flood, the Tower of Babel, the people of Canaan, Israel and Judah because of idolatry, on Jesus at the cross) are not trustworthy.

Teaching #5: At the finality of all things the fallen angels and the Devil himself will all repent and go to heaven—and hell is no more.

Implications: (1) The sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross was/is unnecessary. There is another way to get to heaven, since the death of Jesus on the cross did not concern the sin of angels. (2) Heaven is unsafe because Satan could rebel against God in the distant future. With his past experience he could believe that his future rebellion would be more successful. (3) A future rebellion of Satan could be repeated ad infinitum, but this is impossible. (4) Jesus work on the cross to provide forgiveness for all people was not final. (5) If there is no hell there is no heaven; there is no need for heaven.

Teaching #6: Since Jesus between his death and resurrection went to hell to proclaim salvation to those there, then he could go a thousand times more to deliver others who have gone there since.

Implications: (1) It is not a convincing interpretation of certain texts that Jesus ever did this (see Eph. 4:8-10; 1 Pet. 3:18-20; 4:6). (2) Even if this happened then, there are no words from Jesus or from the Apostles that say that he will do this again.

Teaching #7: Hell is not as we have believed it. Hell is not a place of God’s everlasting punishment but of purging, correcting, reproving people so that given enough time all depart Hell (TS, 162-164).

Implications: (1) If there is no hell there is no heaven, for in the end heaven and hell are indistinguishable. (2) Jesus is untrustworthy because he warned of “everlasting torment” (Matt 25:41). (3) Then we humans have no standard by which to exert penalties and punishment for crimes done on earth.

Teaching #8: There is no place left in the universe where God’s love has not conquered all. He is totally victorious. None are left in rebellion against God. All are brought into submission by love.

Implications: (1) Then the will of some to refuse to believe the gospel is voided. (2) Then God did not will to create humanity with a will to be able to choose not to believe.

Teaching #9: The institutions of marriage, the church, and the government are the “man-created, trinity of terrors that ravages the earth and deceives those I care about. . . . It’s all false” and part of “a diabolical scheme” (TS, 122-124; 179).

Implications: (1) Then the devil is in control. (2) Jesus is untrustworthy, since he said that he would build his church (Matt 16). The Bible says that Jesus is head of the church (Eph 2:19-22; 3:6-11; 4:14-16; 5:23), that he loves the church and died for it (Eph 5:25). (3) The Bible is untrustworthy since it describes God as forming marriage (Gen 2; Eph 5:25-33) and instituting government (Rom 13:1-6). (4) Then there are no duly constituted authorities delegated by God. (5) Thus all acts of anarchy and terrorism are justified. (6) All forms of marriage and non-marriage are equally legitimate; no form is better than any other (including LGBTQ forms). (7) Divorce for any reason is legitimate. (8) Adultery and prostitution are as legitimate as marriage. (9) The family structure has no value. (10) Church structures with elders, deacons, bishops, a constitution or faith statement are all Satanic and wrong. (11) Christian gatherings are demonic.

Teaching #10: People are in a “circle of relationship” with God that is pure, having no authority and no subordination to God (TS, 122-124).

Implications: (1) Then Jesus’ commandments to obey him and to love others (as in John 14 16) are to be disobeyed; and P Young is to be obeyed. (2) The church should not submit to Jesus (contra Eph 5:24). (3) Jesus’ claim to have “all authority in heaven and earth” is false (Matt 28:19). (4) Jesus is not to be acknowledged as Lord, King, Head of the church, Prince of peace, the Mighty God, the everlasting Father, Savior, Master, etc. (4) Then believers should not “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (contra Eph 5:21). (5) All relationships will fail, since it is impossible to sustain “pure relationships” without structure and in a manner that benefits everyone.

In light of the preceding it is clear that UR can never succeed. It corresponds to no reality. It represents a man-centered theology. It has been tried many times before (the Garden of Eden for one place) and has always failed. But there is the constant need for vigilance to refute it, as Paul and the other Apostles instruct us (Eph. 2:1-2; 6:10-18), to be aware of false prophets and teachers as both Jesus (Matt. 7:13) and the Apostles warn (2 Cor. 11).

James De Young, Eric Barger Ministries 8 Comments [7/17/2018 6:30:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: CC

Quote# 138932

A hundred years ago the Czar and his family were murdered, which murder foreshadowed and led to the murder of huge numbers of ordinary people.

Progressives, including supposedly very moderate centrist progressives, made, and continue to make all sorts of myths justifying and rationalizing the murder, revealing their intent to do it all over again.

Myth: The Czar was brutal and oppressive, but the soldiers refused to fire on the revolting masses, so he was overthrown, and thus the communists, representing the masses to power.

Reality: The Czar was a cucked progressive. He had Lenin and Stalin his hands, guilty of all sorts of crimes that gave him grounds for execution or indefinite imprisonment, but let them off because letists are holier than thou. There were no revolting masses, just a series of coups made in the name of the revolting masses, and such riots and looting as occurred, occurred Ferguson style – the police were ordered to stand back and let the mobs loot stuff and smash stuff.

The February revolution was no revolution – rather the elite allowed the mobs to knock over a few breweries, to provide an excuse for them seizing power from the Czar while he was away at the front.

The communists did not overthrow the Czar. The Kadets overthrew the Czar. Then Kerensky overthrew the Kadets with a policy of no enemies to the left, no friends to the right, which meant he disarmed the military officers, and armed the communists. Then the communists overthrew Kerensky. The leftism of the Czar led to his overthrow by the even lefter Kadets, the indecisive leftism of the Kadets led to their overthrow by Kerensky, and the radical leftism of Kerensky led to his overthrow by the even lefter communists, who then murdered the Czar, and millions of peasants, until the madness ended with them murdering each other.

What happened to Russia was leftism leading to more leftism.

Progressives agree that serfdom was absolutely horrid, and perhaps it was. If it was horrid, the solution should have been to free the serfs and leave the land with the lords. Or perhaps give some of the land to the more competent, successful, and wealthy serfs. But this solution was considered unthinkably horrible and inconceivably reactionary, which implicitly acknowledged that most serfs were not ready to run their own lives. What progressives wanted was the serfs freed with the land. But quite obviously, most serfs were incompetent to operate a small farm. So progressives wanted them to operate the land collectively. But if one man trying to run a small farm is hard, one hundred men trying to run a large farm is considerably harder.

So, Alexander the liberator freed them with collective ownership of the land. Which was predictably a disaster. And there was thereafter a succession of ever lefter government measures to try to deal with the problem, each of which made the problem worse. Russian agriculture still has not recovered. By freeing the serfs and giving them the land collectively, but not individually, Alexander the liberator set in motion a slide ever leftwards that continued steadily all the way to the liquidation of the kulaks.

The liberation of the serfs with collective ownership of the land created a crisis, for which the solution was always more leftism, which led to more crisis. This created an expectation that the way to power was to be lefter than thou. The Czar’s generals and bureaucrats outflanked him on the left. Kerensky’s socialists outflanked them on the left, and the Communists outflanked Kerensky on the left. Then the communists proceeded to outflank each other, till Stalin put a stop to that.

If at any time any of Alexander the Liberator’s successors had been so horribly repressive as to demonstrate that lefter than thou was a seriously bad career move, as Stalin belatedly demonstrated, the slide leftwards would have halted and stayed halted. But instead the Czars allowed to the progressives to guilt them into doing whatever the progs demanded, which merely excited progressive bloodlust.

Jim, Jim's Blog 4 Comments [7/17/2018 6:30:09 AM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 138931

Warning To Pastors Re. Young’s Universalism

By Dr. James De Young, senior professor, Western Seminary, Portland, Or.

Recently I read a posting by a Southern Baptist leader from Oklahoma, Rev. Wade Burleson, who endorses Paul Young’s newest book, Lies We Believe about God. Burleson claims that Paul Young, the author of The Shack, expresses just another, optional viewpoint about the atonement. He cited Al Mohler and Paul Young as both believing in the atonement but differing only on the issue of its extent. Mohler, following Calvin, believes that the atonement, the sacrifice of Christ for sin on the cross, was limited to providing atonement for believers only. Young believes it is for all human beings. At least this is how Paul Young has explained it to pastor Burleson.

Recently, John MacMurray, a supporter of Paul Young (note that he is named on the last page of the book, Lies), argued similarly and criticizes those who fault Young’s theology.

Now my discussion is not just about what Burleson believes. For I suspect that many pastors are in the same position that Burleson is. They are influenced by their personal experience with Paul Young and give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to understanding his theology. They fail to ask the right questions. But with his most recent publication Young has erased all doubt as to what he believes and how far apart he and Mohler truly are. For Burleson and other pastors to fail to recall their evangelical theology and church history is an inexcusable failure. They are uninformed how universal reconciliation has brought havoc to the church.

Paul Young’s History and Mine

Many pastors are being misled. I’ve known Paul Young probably far longer than most of them. Paul and I go back at least two decades. And in this time Paul has twisted the truth to accommodate his reputation as a “Christian” writer. Here is a summary of events. He renounced his “evangelical paradigm” and converted to universal reconciliation (UR) (in a 103-page forum paper in 2004); reaffirmed his new belief to me and my wife in a church foyer (probably in 2006 or so); wrote for his kids The Shack, which was full of universalism (about 2006); with two pastor friends took a year to remove the UR (2006-2007?); in my home before many witnesses said that he no longer believed UR (in 2007); published The Shack; then has written two more novels with UR as an undercurrent throughout (Crossroads, 2012; Eve, 2015). See my reviews and other articles at burningdowntheshackbook.com.

During all this time, I’ve tried to warn Christians about the subtle propagation of UR that exists in his novels and now in the movie. I wrote my book, Burning Down the Shack, to clarify both what universalism is all about and how it has deceived many in the church and to show how it is embedded chapter by chapter in Paul’s novel. Many people have neglected my warnings or downplayed them. Again my web site clarifies the heretical points of this universalism.

Now Paul’s latest release confirms all my warnings. In Lies We Believe about God, Young deliberately takes on 28 statements that we Christians affirm and he dismisses them all as lies. He openly confesses allegiance to “universal reconciliation,” that all people are already saved (p. 118). It is no longer a “hope.” He writes this under the “lie” stated as “You need to get saved” (chap. 13).

So I say to Pastor Burleson and others like him: the argument is not just about the extent of the atonement. It is a question about whether there was an atonement at all! Young does not believe that Jesus Christ took sinners’ place to make an atonement for their sins on the cross—to provide propitiation. Young explicitly rejects penal substitution. If you don’t believe me, ask him. Yes, Jesus died there. But it was not a place of judgment. Paul expands on this under a couple of other “lies”: “The Cross was God’s idea” (ch. 17; rather, Paul says that it was man’s idea); “God requires child sacrifice” (ch. 19; here Young denies that the death of God’s son was necessary to pay the penalty that God’s justice required); “Hell is separation from God” (ch. 15; no, God is in hell, and he uses “fiery love” to bring all people to himself from there); “Sin separates us from God” (ch. 27; no, nothing including sin can ever separate any human being, whether a believer or not, from God; no one has ever been separated from God; all are “in God”); “Not everyone is a child of God” (ch. 24; no, all human beings are children of God: all were in Christ in his death and resurrection, and because Christ is in God, then all are in God); and “God is One alone” (ch. 28; here Young rejects his understanding of the Trinity as derived from his “evangelical Christian fundamentalism”).

When Are Enough Lies Enough?

So now I speak more directly. Pastor Burleson, and others, do you not see how these attacks on what we Christians “lie” about go to the very heart of the Gospel of the NT? Do you not see that there is no gospel or good news for you to preach, of how God judged our sins on the cross (Rom. 3:23-26), if you embrace these corrections of the “lies” that Christians make? Do you still think that this is simply a matter of the extent of the atonement? Do you preach that all people are equally children of God? How many more “lies” would Paul Young have to attack before you have finally had enough? How can you be a faithful shepherd of your flock if you deceive them with Young’s teaching or downplay it the way you do? Note the Apostle Paul’s words about distorting the gospel in 2 Cor. 2:17 and 4:2ff.

Some Final Concerns

A couple other things you should note. First, you need to recall some history. UR has been a heresy propagated by heretics from the third century on, beginning with Origen. It was condemned as heresy in the 5th and 6th centuries. It declined. Then with the freedom of inquiry that the Reformers promoted it found new life. It came to Colonial America in 1740 in the person of John Murray and became so popular that one out of every five Baptist ministers, it is said, converted to it. But God raised up other Baptists, such as Isaac Backus, to begin exposing it. It went into decline from 1850 or so for a hundred years. Now it is experiencing a resurgence again, through the writings of Young, McLaren, Talbott, and Bell, and others, and their apologists. I’ve written an entire book refuting UR.

Finally, one more thing you should note from my history with Paul Young. In 2007 he said before many witnesses including my pastor that he had given up his universalism but refused to tell us what he did believe. Now, with the book, Lies, he confesses (p. 118) that he has believed UR all along.

Does this account not reveal deceit? Does this not identify the author of Lies as a liar himself? Should this affect our understanding of his character?

These are heart-wrenching questions. But as a pastor you need to clarify where you stand—with Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior as revealed in the Bible or with Paul Young? It is the truth vs. Lies.

The Lord Jesus will keep building his church, in spite of The Shack. But it may be without you.

Some of you say that you “hope” or wish that universalism is true. To hope for something that God has never said, and contradicts what God says, makes one a friend of Satan and an enemy of Christ.

And don’t ever align Paul Young with C.S. Lewis!

James De Young, Burning Down the Shack 5 Comments [7/17/2018 6:30:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: CC

Quote# 138929

Luciferians believe that Lucifer, the fallen Angel, or man, is light, and God is the dark. That God of the Bible is evil, and that they have a better way.

“For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the LORD. Live as children of light “ (Ephesians 5:8)

Satan is a liar and a thief. He tends to work to steal things of God, and steal away understanding. The Allegory of the Cave, for example, works well with the Bible. Darkness is lies. Have you ever believed a lie as truth? Maybe a friend told you something false, and you believed him for a few days? You could be said to be in The Dark. You would have a false perception of reality. Jesus Christ is the Light and the Truth. He leads people out of the cave of ignorance and darkness. Luciferians tend to use this Allegory and put something else as the light. A lie. Jesus Christ is the Truth of the World.

Adam Ramsey, Quora 5 Comments [7/17/2018 5:54:47 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 138928

Well, I know that, like a cancer-cell torments surrounding cells with short, sharp, wild and uncontrollable shock tactics, a bully will torment the nervous energy out of their neighbours, as well, forming a nasty tumour of like minded people who go around in gangs creating havoc, even death, because they to live by wild and uncontrollable laws. Now, don't you think that it is scientifically conceivable that Jesus Christ knew this as well and, using his Godly knowledge, was showing and teaching us how to keep our genetic health soothed and calm...because its a certain fact that since the populations have been so wildly and hysterically manipulated that the occurence of cancer has gone through the roof...and so, perhaps, Jesus had the answer all along. His accurate word, that is, not the iniquitous versions that many are so fond of.

NicholasMarks, Religion and Ethics 3 Comments [7/17/2018 5:53:59 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: NearlySane

Quote# 138818


Children simply lack the maturity to make sexual decisions. Our bodies may have evolved to be sexually mature by age 13, but the average person only lived into his thirties in prehistoric times. Just because the body is ready doesn't mean the mind can make mature decisions in today's world.

But they have the maturity to make traffic decisions as they walk to school or ride a bicycle? As I was suggesting to Brian, you seem to think sex is a dangerous thing. Its a wonder humanity survived if so.

Another strange thing about your point here is that you seem to think its harder to get by in today's world than prehistoric times! Therefore, more maturity is required with regards to sex! How completely preposterous! We can prevent pregnancies with drugs and condoms. Most diseases can be cured with a shot. STD testing can be done to ensure partners are disease free. I scarcely understand how more maturity is needed now than in the past.

I also don't see why sex has be such supreme danger. With an attitude like that, its a wonder you would let a 13 year old cross the road by themself.

Sex has real consequences that can change or end lives -- STDs, pregnancy, and emotional damage are all among them.

Well, I already addressed pregnancy and STDs. (And I still don't think they hold a candle to getting run over on a bicycle). But emotional damage? Where do you get this stuff?

Is it illegal for teens to have sex with eachother? No. So what of the emotional damage? Again, you seem to be saying that sex is extremely dangerous. Pah! You want emotional damage? Divorce. Death in the family. Moving away. Paralysis from a cheerleading accident.

For me, sex and sexual things have always been emotionally soothing. From playing doctor when I was a kid to bonking with my girlfriend today.

I wonder if you ever in your life considered the emotional damage of NOT having sex. I experienced plenty of that before I got out of college. It was a very painful time. I am grateful for every childhood and teen sexual experience I had, but I did not have nearly enough. Both my childhood and teen sexual experiences involved adults (though I wanted but did not have actual sex). The only thing that hurt me was have to wait for months and years before the next experience. Surely I am not alone.

If you ask me teens especially are being harmed emotionally by being cut off from the rest of the humanity in this way. I blame this state of affairs for things like smoking, binge drinking and runaways. Used to be a 13 year old could expect to be married soon. Now they are forced into celibacy essentially. Its inhuman cruelty and no wonder teens are viewed as being unstable when they are treated like this.

Maybe stoning is too harsh, but I'd have no problem seeing pedophiles castrated, if they're more than a few years older than their victims.

This sentence is mixed up 8 ways from Sunday. I have to assume that since you said pedophiles and victim, that you mean the younger party is twelve at the outside, since that is about average for puberty. A few years older would be 15. So you would not only call a 15 year old with a 12 year old partner a pedophile, you would have them castrated?

You also assume the younger party is upset or harmed and is a victim out of hand. And further you don't seem to realize that most age of consent violations are not committed by pedophiles.

Like BrianLewis, your viewpoints are based on unfounded assumptions that are very negative about sex and that have been feed to you by a sex negative society. Your viewpoints are contradictary and you don't seem to have examined anything in much depth at all. Yet it seems you have firmly made up your mind despite those horrible failings.

I had a couple friends, one girl of 14 and a man of 20. They fell in love. Their relationship was approved by her father, a man who is very strict and very protective of his children. Last I heard, they got married. I ask you, would you have my friend castrated?

---------- Post added at 02:37 ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 ----------

RolandtheHeadless said:
Amen. Adults who have sex with children are exploiting them, and they're rapists because children lack the capacity for consent.

Can a child consent to surgery? Can a child consent to eating mashed pototoes? Either could be life threatening. I find it strange where capacity to consent is touted as the end-all-be-all argument for sex issues, but completely ignored for pretty much all other issues.

I was a child once. I consented to a lot of things. I knew who I liked and who I didn't. I was very interested in sex and I knew who I would like to have sex with and who I wouldn't. I did not lack capacity. I lacked experience and knowledge. You don't gain either for doing nothing.

My view of your philosophy is that you first enforce ignorance. Then you say they can't consent because they are ignorant. Its extremely backward thinking.

I also don't like that you would call someone a rapist and exploiter just because of age even though they may well be kind and caring and generous to their sex partner, and would not dream of harming or tricking them. Rape has a real and serious meaning, and you dilute it with ideas like that.

It is preposterous to decide such issues on age alone at the expense of a million other details, including and especially the sentiments of the child or teen in question.

Pedophiles who act on their perversion make me want to punch their lights out.

They said the same of gays 50 years ago.

The only real perversion is asexuality.

Mark of Zorro, Japan Reference forums 6 Comments [7/16/2018 2:40:27 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Menomaru

Quote# 138817

To answer the question of whether pedophilia is a sickness or a crime, it is neither. It is popular and common to use the word to mean both or either, but that is complete and total misuse of the concept and the word, and that misuse has a major effect in ensuring the very separate topics are not handled correctly or fairly in the slightest. And I have no hope that the knot of stupidity will ever be untied in my lifetime, because the topics are valued by so many people as topics where they can feel free to rant and not dedicate one ounce of critical thought. The whole thing is dominated by witch hunters and I have been attacked numerous times for daring to address related topics with fairness, justice and logic.

I will explain why it is neither a sickness or a crime. First, it is not a sickness because the only reason it causes mental distress is because of societal intolerance. The only kind of pedophilia I would call a sickness would be where its compulsive and the person just can't help themselves but to molest or rape children practically on sight. But that sort of pedophile is exceedingly rare, pretty much like serial rapists.

Your average run-of-the-mill pedophile, someone who simply prefers pre-pubescents as sex partners, would be perfectly happy if society left them free to date and have sex with who they wanted (as in Polynesian society before the Europeans came, or even American and British societies where the age of consent was ten for hundreds of years). So while some might call their desires sick, it does not mean they are sick. They are no more sick than homosexuals, and it took society and psychology a long time to conclude that homosexuals were not sick, and that delay was simply the product of societal taboo, same as with pedophilia today.

But it has to be said that a pedophile is best defined as someone who PREFERS prepubescents. Just finding yourself attracted to prepubescents does not make one a pedophile, because if that were true, 25 percent to 33 percent of all males would be pedophiles, and the word would lose all meaning.

Next, pedophilia is not a crime because pedophilia is not an act. Only acts can be crimes. Pedophilia is sexual preference, not an act. That is why I use the term "age of consent violation" rather than lump words like pedophilia, statutory rape and rape into one confusing jumble of overlapping concepts. Its just crazy to say that, for example, Mary Kay LeTourneau raped Villi Fualau. She didn't. They had consensual sex and they loved one another. In fact, they are now legally married. Its also crazy to say that Mary Kay is a pedophile. That is for many reasons. First, when they began sexual relations, Villi was not a prepubescent. So there is zero reason to think Mary Kay prefers prepubescents since she is not accused of ever sleeping with one. Next, she never even repeated her "crime" with another person underage, so she is certainly not compulsive in that sense.

Clearly what happened with Mary Kay is that she was in love. But some segments of society don't want to accept that and all others are too weak to speak against it. So Mary Kay gets labeled a pedophile out of hand and zero rational thought behind it.

All that said, I freely admit that Mary Kay is a bit off. I think she is compulsive, but just not toward underage boys. I believe her love is genuine, but allowing herself to get knocked up by a 13 year old, particularly when she has other children to care for, indicates someone without much foresight or self-control. The woman needed mental help for that. Instead, society gave her jail, all because witch hunters have contol of this topic.

So anyway, pedophilia is a sexual preference. A sickness would be compulsive pedophilia marked by a lack of self-control over the urge. A crime would be an age of consent violation, as that would be an act, as much as I think the label of crime is over-blown. Rape is just rape, hardly matters the age of the victim. The term statutory rape is absolute garbage and should be erased from the vernacular. And age of consent violations should be called precisely that, because calling consensual sex between a 15 year old and her 18 year old boyfriend as rape, pedophilia, sexual assault, or statutory rape is grossly and seriously unfair, injust and misleading to the point of me wanting to punch people's lights out.


The concept behind statutory rape is the general consensus from scientists that the brain is not developed enough to know the consequences of your actions at that age.

For starters, no, the concept of statutory rape began in the middle ages and no related legistlation, even modern, is based on any scientific study. Frankly, you just made that up.

Next, how does brain development translate into understanding the consequence of your actions? You cannot induce a baby into a coma, wake him up when he is 25, and expect him to understand the consequences of sticking his finger into a light socket even though his brain has fully developed.

My son is two years old. He understands the consequences of touching a hot stove.

In short, that whole brain development thing is complete red herring. The brain develops yes, but no one knows what effect that has on the decision making process. They only have guesses, and those guesses tend to conform toward agenda.

Further to that, if a child was refused a bicycle on the grounds of safety, how many people would say their parents are over-reacting? Kids ride around on bicycles all the time! Do you think they understand all the consequences, such as being hit by a car? Do you think they understand the dynamics of vehicular traffic well enough to truly be safe? Please! And a bicycle is more dangerous than sex.

How many 16 year olds are driving cars?! They could kill you. You could kill them. But if you loved them and had sex with them, there is some sort of massive danger??

That's subjective, of course, however I tend to believe that the law is more towards the younger end. Just out of personal experience, I have not met too many developed minds under 25.

The age of consent has only risen, and its now well beyond puberty, which is insane and unfair, as sex becomes an imperative after puberty.

I find it preposterous that anyone would consider an early teen to be mentally sound enough for sex with an adult.

So you are saying they are mentally sound enough for sex with eachother? Or are you saying they are raping, traumatizing and manipulating eachother? What do you mean by "mentally sound" anyway? What does it have to do with sex??


It's far too likely that such relationships are ones of manipulation.

Why? Why would you assume that any person's desire for a sexual relationship with a teen is based on manipulation? Do you think the human race is generally bent on manipulation? Do you know of any relationship based on manipulation?

For centuries teens were free to marry and age disparate couples were common. Many of our grandparents and great grandparents were in such a relationship. Now suddenly its wrong and all about manipulation?


I would question the ego of any adult that needs a relationship of manipulation.
So would I. But more than that I question your lack of faith in humanity. I do not believe that most people are out to manipulate the people they are attracted to, at least not maliciously. I do not believe that being minor attracted lends itself to a desire to manipulate maliciously.

In fact, if anything, I would say the tendency would be more toward a desire to protect and care for. But its usually the bad apples that get all the press isn't it? The news is rarely about people in love. So people who read the news tend to think people are evil at heart.


Mark of Zorro, Japan Reference forums 4 Comments [7/16/2018 2:35:06 PM]
Fundie Index: 2
1 2 3 4 5 10 13 | top