Crazy things famous Christians say

Quote# 82877

Autism is a medical label fluke used by the world governments and society to pacify demonic possession.

Autistic kids/people have very obvious traits and anyone will know an autistic child when seeing one.

You can literally feel it in their presence a heaviness and darkness while in their presence that cannot be ignored

The fact is this; a truly Autistic child/person has the same symptoms of demonic possession as in:

Lewd behavior as in exposing one's self and imitating sexual acts with no prior knowledge of these things

Violence, be it self inflicted or towards others

They will excrement on themselves and let loose their bladder at any time or place and also play with the waste, they seem to like having the bodily waste on their person

They spit

They have animalistic traits like sniffing, and licking

They will eat anything including old food and garbage if it has a smell that attracts them to it

They will scream without end at times, and in a loud howl-like inhuman screaming sound that can shatter anyones nerves overtime

They keep up constant noise vocally or with objects to bring confusion to where ever they are

They bite themselves and others

They strike or attempt to choke others

Pain really doesn’t affect them

They speak a strange language and they actually can communicate between each other

They are extremely strong when in a rage

As children they can over power an adult when having the fits of rage

They don't like the Name of Jesus and they will always be put under control by His name

They are selfish, mean spirited, and dominate people

They show no signs of guilt when doing wrong

Mental or Spiritual Weigh the Facts, autismordemonicpossession 213 Comments [7/28/2011 3:14:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 250
Submitted By: Dr. Flibble
 
Quote# 67487

When should a parent start using the rod of correction on a child that the Lord has brought into the family? There is no clear and specific answer to this very good question. However, it is my opinion that the correction of children should start as soon as the need for that correction is made manifest. Every discerning parent who has been blessed with a little child in his home realizes that his initial impression of the sweetness and the innocence of the child is in reality an illusion. A child very quickly demonstrates his fallen, depraved nature and reveals himself to be a selfish little beast in manifold ways. As soon as the child begins to express his own self-will (and this occurs early in life) that child needs to receive correction. My wife and I have a general goal of making sure that each of our children has his will broken by the time he reaches the age of one year. To do this, a child must receive correction when he is a small infant. Every parent recognizes that this self-will begins early as he has witnessed his child stiffen his back and boldly demonstrate his rebellion and self-will even though he has been fed, diapered, and cared for in every other physical way.

Ronald E. Williams, isaccorp 349 Comments [11/12/2009 12:44:48 PM]
Fundie Index: 625


Quote# 77098

In a thread regarding astrophysics, distance and star light

Here is a question you.

So a light year = the distance light travels in a year.

You mentioned the figure 11 million light years away.

So my question is how are we observing this light 11 million light years away now?

I'm not 11 million years old, i'm 30.

---------------------------------------------

Later on he goes on to say...

If it takes 11 million years to travel to earth, how can i see it now? I'm only 20.

If it takes 11 million years to travel to earth then the viewer would need to be 11 million years old.

---------------------------------------------

And it continues with...

I don't believe light travels at all, i've looked at various models and worked on many but none of it works. The basics of visual perception is often overlooked. When we look at something what is actually going on? The emission theory states that the light emits (not a travelling speed) from our own eyes not from the object we look at. The intromission theory states the opposite.

The emission theory is the most common sense, so i don't believe there is any speed of light. The 'Starlight Problem' has never been a problem for me and the YEC model. The earliest Church Fathers (2nd-4th century AD) who believed in emmision theory also had no problem with starlight and a young universe.

Cassiterides, Evolution Fairytale Forum 258 Comments [10/25/2010 7:04:51 AM]



Quote# 73072

[I included the whole article because you need to read the thing in context. But if you get the chance, do read the comments. They are also FSTDT-worthy material.)

Let's just say, you know for a fact that eating children is wrong. A great number of people believe as you do and we all acknowledge it in unity. Then there is a website that says that eating babies is fine that you don't need to "buy into it" and believe that eating babies is wrong. There is a couple of blogs that talk all day how liberating and fantastic eating children are. Now whoever listens to them think they are crazy and very wrong but a few listen to the intellect behind the reasoning, they listen to the argument. Let's say the argument says it's natural for many animals eat their young in nature, and people are just a part of the natural process or something like that. Some people buy into it and start doing it.

You struggle everyday as to why people think like that, they all must be crazy, what do they know that you don't? This goes on and on but after a while you get curious. You then start to go around thinking why you don't get to eat babies as others do and how some people demand that you don't, like your parents. Then one day you get an opportunity to do it but everything in your soul KNOWS it is wrong. You shake at the thought of eating that very young child. It's agonizing to you for quite a while, you cuss at yourself for having such insane thoughts!

One day you see a little 5 year old at some playground and you convince yourself that you have to know what it's like. You seize the moment and kidnap the child. You keep that child tied up for days agonizing whether you should do it or not. You almost feel yourself slipping away into insanity to the point you can't take it. So you get the nerve somehow, and do it. Then afterwords you say to yourself that it was too quick that you need to try it again to see if the feelings you had during were genuine. So flash ahead a month and you have done it many times and you now frequent places that do it and go online to websites that also do it and you feel a sense of a warm community. You struggle with the nightmares until they pass and you feel OK. You embrace the fact that you are now a baby eater and you and your new friends are OK with it. The struggle get's a little easier to accept the notion that eating babies is fine for the natural process. You teach you own kids that it is perfectly natural to eat babies. You start your own website that is called "Eat babies!" and you showcase your work.

Is this what an atheist goes through when they start to not believe in God? The stories of struggles, that I have heard, turning away from God are similar to this scenario. Many authors talk about the struggle they go through from belief to non belief. The agonizing pain it causes themselves as well as their families. Could atheists talk themselves into anything? The methodical erosion of ones values and morals can be so damaging, to the point that it's acceptable that"Atheists eat babies."

An atheist may still be moral and say murder and rape are wrong: but when asked why, they will not have a final reason or authority to which they can appeal.

Dan, Debunking Atheists 276 Comments [5/21/2010 9:52:01 AM]
 
yazata said:
The blindness and bigotry visible in so much of such posting by Christians here is reasonable cause to support the continued occasional existence of these kinds of threads - they are apparently necessary, for Christians to have at least a sliver of an opportunity to become aware of how they've been addressing, thinking about, and treating other human beings.

So the solution to individual Christians sterotyping their perceived opponents and reducing them to ugly caricatures, is to sterotype all Christians (or even religious people in general, whether they are Christian or not) and to reduce all of them to caricatures?
Click to expand...
I'm not clear on how you got from quoting standard, mainstream Christian authorities, some set of which many if not most Christians rely on for religious guidance and moral instruction,

to "reducing all of them to ugly caricatures".

The people who chose the authors of these quotes to follow and listen to and take instruction from, placed them in their positions of prominence, where their quotes would be worthy of archiving.

Especially, your point seems to be obscured by the observation - which I made directly by quote in exactly the post you address there - that the people right here complaining about the inaccuracies and exaggerations and false impressions seem to have trouble avoiding reaffirmation of the implications of these quotes, right in those very complaints.

It seems to be quite difficult for Christians here (and Muslims, etc, in their turn) to put distance between themselves and these "caricatures". And the fact that they perceive the need to do that, and are motivated to try, seems to me a valuable aspect of these kinds of threads - if not too frequently launched.

Because one problem with your attempted parallel there, between the supposed caricatures and stereotypifications of some allegedly "individual" Christians and those of the bad people who insult Christians by quoting their chosen authorities and representatives, is that what those "individual" Christians are saying is not caricature or stereotyping - it's falsehood and assault.

Like this:
jan said:
I think you miss the point. If we generalised every homosexual as perpetuating the manifesto,
Click to expand...
Do you see? This Christian is treating the manifesto is if his presentation of it were an accurate description of some homosexuals's agenda, so that the problem is the generalization to all homosexuals. That, according to him, is parallel to the presentation of quotes from Christian authorities and leaders - perhaps accurate with respect to those individuals, but misleading if "generalized" as representing any large or representative fraction of Christians.

And that is completely dishonest. His presentation of the manifesto is a lie, unlike the accurate and sincere quotes from the Christians presented here; his claim to "generalize" from it is a dishonest claim to have in hand a particular from which to generalize. And turning, we see that these quotes are not from marginal and disturbed people frequenting bus stops and asylums, but from mainstream and "famous" Christian authorities and personages chosen by large numbers of their fellow Christians to be worth listening to - one is not "generalizing" by quoting them as representative Christians: that's who they are.
 
Last edited:
@MR
Catholic doctrine.
If the Pope and his top bods can't agree, what hope has an amateur?

Let me try to explain it.
The Church viewpoint is that the religion was set up by Jesus himself, Jesus being God,
so if you realise that, you would have to be very wicked to reject it,
so you'd go to hell.

On the other hand, many people who don't accept the church's teachings are patently not wicked,
so perhaps they are confused or misled or otherwise not wholly responsible.
In this case, they don't go to hell.

I have been to many Catholic funerals,
and I have never been left in any doubt from the priest that the person concerned was enjoying life in heaven,
no matter how dissolute and irreligious they were.
 
Last edited:
Yazata said:
So the solution to individual Christians stereotyping their perceived opponents and reducing them to ugly caricatures, is to stereotype all Christians (or even religious people in general, whether they are Christian or not) and to reduce all of them to caricatures?
Click to expand...

iceaura said:
I'm not clear on how you got from quoting standard, mainstream Christian authorities, some set of which many if not most Christians rely on for religious guidance and moral instruction,
to "reducing all of them to ugly caricatures".
Click to expand...

Some of the quotes in this thread are attributed (falsely in some cases) to political figures that MR doesn't like. Others are anonymous posts apparently copied from other discussion boards. Even when clergymen are being quoted, they are hard-line fundamentalist Christians and/or their words are being quoted out of context.

Then we are expected to conclude that this shot-gun blast of invective discredits not only all of Christianity, but "religion" as a whole whether it's Christian or not.

My objection is first, that this thread is an example of faulty generalization. MR quotes (sometimes falsely and unfairly) the Christians that he likes the least, then concludes that all Christians (and all religious people along with them) agree with the same things and are guilty of the same faults. That conclusion is simply false.

And second, MR seems to me to be motivated by a hatred for Christianity and "religion" in general that's very similar to what he believes was directed at him in his youth when his fundamentalist companions discovered that he was homosexual. He's getting his pay-back. And just as his youthful companions thought of themselves as totally righteous when they rejected MR, MR sees himself as totally righteous now. He doesn't think of himself as a hater at all, he's the one fighting hate.

And all the Christians who welcome and embrace homosexuals, all the thoughtful and humane Christians who aren't anything close to being fundies, and all the religious people who aren't Christians at all, just become collateral-damage, road-kill with crazy atheist tiretracks across their bodies.

Because one problem with your attempted parallel there, between the supposed caricatures and stereotypifications of some allegedly "individual" Christians and those of the bad people who insult Christians by quoting their chosen authorities and representatives, is that what those "individual" Christians are saying is not caricature or stereotyping - it's falsehood and assault.
Click to expand...

Whatever you choose to call it, we have atheists trying to do the same thing here in this thread.

Like this:
Click to expand...

Jan said:
I think you miss the point. If we generalized every homosexual as perpetuating the manifesto...
Click to expand...

Do you see?
Click to expand...

I think that I agree with Jan.

This Christian is treating the manifesto is if his presentation of it were an accurate description of some homosexuals's agenda
Click to expand...

Jan appears to have been quoting something, written by a homosexual, selected because it was obviously over-the-top. Then Jan suggested that if we try to generalize from the most extreme things that members of a group are quoted as saying, to the conclusion that all members of the group must believe and desire the same things, that conclusion would obviously be false. (I can point you to gay child-molesting websites if you're interested.) Faulty generalization with hostile intent is a rhetorical game that can be played with MR's homosexuals as easily as with Christians and "religionists".

And that is completely dishonest. His presentation of the manifesto is a lie, unlike the accurate and sincere quotes from the Christians presented here
Click to expand...

The logic is the same in both cases. Whatever dishonesty and lies might exist, exist in both cases.
 
Whatever you choose to call it, we have atheists trying to do the same thing here in this thread.
Click to expand...

I hardly think quoting inane statements by self-proclaimed Christians constitutes anything even remotely as unethical as Christians who create whole websites and blog posts calling gay people ("MR's homosexuals"?) sodomites, fags, childmolesters and so on, or atheists babyeaters and Satanists deserving of hellfire or autistic kids as demon-possessed. Remember, I'm presenting the Christians' own quotes. They on the other hand are using slurs and hatespeech to portray a small minority of people very badly. Let the hate expose continue..
 
The Church viewpoint is that the religion was set up by Jesus himself, Jesus being God,
so if you realise that, you would have to be very wicked to reject it,
so you'd go to hell.
Click to expand...

I was a fervent Christian for around 10 years of my life. Then I rejected it. Does that mean I deserve to be tortured thruout all eternity in hell? I don't FEEL "very wicked". If anything I am more of a deliberately principled person than I was when I was a programmed Jesusbot insensitive to the personal experience of the people I flippantly dismissed as damnable. Is EVERY ex-Christian who opts for another religion or for atheism/agnosticism doomed to damnation?
 
Last edited:
Thank God for typhoon Yolanda! Godless Philippines Smacked- 10,000 Killed (self.WestboroBaptistChurch)

submitted 7 months ago by AidsCuresFagsLove the Lord our God

Thank God for typhoon Yolanda.


ACLOBAN, Philippines (AP) — One of the most powerful storms ever recorded killed at least 10,000 people in the central Philippines, a senior police official said on Sunday, with huge waves sweeping away coastal villages and devastating one of the main cities in the region.

Philippines is a Godless country full of idolatry, fornication, and fags. They were in for a Godsmack.

“So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm. Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O Lord . Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish: That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah , art the most high over all the earth.” (Psalms 83:15-18)

God hates the Philippines.
 
Magical Realist said:
When you quote someone saying "I am" and "me", it is a given that it is referring to the person quoted. How could it not?
Click to expand...

Jesus said: I can of mine own self do nothing:..., so he cannot, himself, bring people to the Father. He goes on to say...''because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.''

Also in Exodus 3.14 God answers Moses,''... I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.'', when asked, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

John 14.10: Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

''I am'' IS the way, because ''I am'' is in God, and therefore God is in ''me'' because of ''I am''.

There's alot more to the Bible than you give it credit.

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
Jesus said: I can of mine own self do nothing:..., so he cannot, himself, bring people to the Father. He goes on to say...''because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.''

Also in Exodus 3.14 God answers Moses,''... I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.'', when asked, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

John 14.10: Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

''I am'' IS the way, because ''I am'' is in God, and therefore God is in ''me'' because of ''I am''.

There's alot more to the Bible than you give it credit.

jan.
Click to expand...

Bullcrap. When Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the light. No man comes to the Father but by me." he's referring to himself. There's simply no other way to interpret it.
 
Magical Realist said:
Bullcrap. When Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the light. No man comes to the Father but by me." he's referring to himself. There's simply no other way to interpret it.
Click to expand...

If he can do nothing of himself, and carries out only the will of God, how can he be referring to himself?
And why is there no other way (than your way) to interpret it?

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
If he can do nothing of himself, and carries out only the will of God, how can he be referring to himself?
And why is there no other way (than your way) to interpret it?

jan.
Click to expand...

That's just basic grammar. Here's another verse showing Jesus as the only way to get to heaven:

"It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.

11 Jesus is“‘the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the cornerstone.’

12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”---Acts 4:10-12
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top